Karnataka High Court
Mohammed Khaja Shah vs State Of Karnataka on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44577-DB
WP No. 21235 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 21235 OF 2024 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
1. MOHAMMED KHAJA SHAH
S/O MD. LATEEF SHAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
PROPRIETOR
M/S PIONEER INDUSTRIES
PLOT NO. 80, KIADB
HUMNABAD INDUSTRIAL AREA
HUMNABAD TALUK, BIDAR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI NAGARAJ D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by VALLI
MARIMUTHU 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High
Court of DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT
Karnataka M.S. BUILDING
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN
NO. 49, CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44577-DB
WP No. 21235 of 2024
3. CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
(MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST &
CLIMATE CHANGE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)
PARIVESH BHAWAN
EAST ARJUN NAGAR
SHAHADARA
DELHI - 110 032
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
4. MANAGING DIRECTOR
GESCOM, CORPORATE OFFICE
STATION ROAD
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER , AEE
GESCOM, O & M DIVISION
HUMNABAD - 585 330.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BIDAR DISTRICT
BIDAR - 585 330.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1,
SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AS THIS
HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT, QUASHING THE ORDER
BEARING No. PCB/919/WMC-2/17-18/69 DATED 23.07.2024,
AND ORDER BEARING No. KSPCB/919/WMC-2/17-18/68 DATED
23.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF
POLLUTION) ACT, 1981 AND WATER (PREVENTION AND
CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1974, VIDE ANNEXURES-A
AND B RESPECTIVELY.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:44577-DB
WP No. 21235 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. D. Nagaraj for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.1-State and leaned advocate Mr. Mahesh Chowdhary for respondent No.2-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board.
2. The petitioner-Industry which is stated to be engaged in the production of Pyrolysis Oil has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying to set aside the order dated 23.07.2024 issued by respondent No.2 under the provisions of Section 31-A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Rule 20-A of the Karnataka Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 as well as the order of even date issued -4- NC: 2024:KHC:44577-DB WP No. 21235 of 2024 under provisions of Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, read with Rule 34 of the Rules. 2.1 It was prayed to direct respondent No.2-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and respondent No.3-the Central Pollution Control Board to provide time-line granting a reasonable time of two years to the petitioner-Industry to switch over to the new SOP 2024 to install new machineries and equipments by the aforementioned order dated 23.07.2024.
3. The competent authority of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board directed the petitioner to close down the operation of the Industry forthwith and the powers supplied to the unit is ordered to be stopped. The closure of the unit was also directed.
4. While various grounds were advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner to assail the aforesaid order, learned advocate for the respondent-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has filed the memo dated 25.10.2024. Therein it was pointed out that the entire challenge to this aforesaid order was not well conceived inasmuch as the Consent to operate given to the petitioner-Industry was valid from 26.05.2017 to 30.06.2022 only. -5-
NC: 2024:KHC:44577-DB WP No. 21235 of 2024 4.1 In other words, it was pointed out that there was no consent to operate given for the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner unit was liable to be closed on that count only. It was further submitted and pointed out that the closure order dated 23.07.2024 impugned in the petition was passed pursuant to inspection carried out on 25.06.2024.
5. When the order was passed after hearing the petitioner and considering the reply more particularly, the petitioner unit does not have the valid consent to operate, it could not be said to be illegal in any manner and the same is not liable to be interfered with. 5.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted by filing the memo dated 28.10.2024 that another industry named M/s. Maniyar Industry, Kalaburagi is granted the consent. The documents figuring with the said memo show, that it is a consent for Establishment-Expansion. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on the said order passed in favour of the said Industry. 5.2 It is to be observed in this regard that the petitioner has to stand on its own legs and could not rely on the consent granted to any other industry since the facts for each unit would defer. At the same time, the respondent-authorities will examine the merits of -6- NC: 2024:KHC:44577-DB WP No. 21235 of 2024 the case and contention of the petitioner that said M/s. Maniyar Industry is given the consent is placed in similar circumstances as that of the petitioner and the petitioner is required to be treated in identical manner.
5.3 In any view, it will be open for the petitioner to press into service the said order given in favor of another industry while pursuing its application for expansion for grant of consent for operation for which the application of the petitioner is stated to be pending.
6. Therefore, while dismissing the petition as meritless, it is provided that the petitioner may pursue its application for grant of consent stated to be pending before the Pollution Control Board which shall be considered by the Board strictly in accordance with law and on merits preferably within twelve weeks'.
7. The present petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 93