Disposed

M/S. Dynamatic Technologies Limited v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2020WP/7202/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two writ petitions challenging interim environment compensation demand notices were disposed of. The court directed the notices to be treated as show cause notices, granted an extended time frame for payment due to the pandemic, and kept all issues on merits open.

What did the court decide?

Demand notices treated as show cause notices; fifteen days granted for payment; issues on merits kept open.

M/S. Dynamatic Technologies Limited Vs the Karnataka… — Consumer Protection | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 7202 OF 2020 (GM-POL)

¶9

CONNECTED WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.7009 OF 2020

¶11

W.P. No. 7202/2020

¶12

BETWEEN : M/S. DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED PLOT NO.11, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MR.P.S.RAMESH AGED MAJOR M/S DYNAMATIC TECHNOLOGIES LTD PLOT NO.11, II PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560058.

¶13

...PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

1 . THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶17

¶18

2 . THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE - PEENYA URBAN ECO PARK, 100 FEET ROAD 3^RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER/DEMAND NOTICE DATED 30.01.2020 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IMPOSING AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS, INTERIM ENVIRONMENT COMPENSATION OF RS.1,00,00,000/- BY DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF MEMBER SECRETARY, KSPCB, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶23

W. P. No.7009/2020

¶24

BETWEEN : M/S VINU MAC. PLOT NO.205-A, III PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU – 560 058 REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. G. SIDDAPPA, AGED MAJOR M/S VINU MAC. PLOT NO.205-A, III PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU – 560 058

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ N ARALI, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND :

¶28

1 . THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560 001 REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶29

¶30

2 . THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE - PEENYA URBAN ECO PARK, 100 FEET ROAD 3^RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI JEEVAN J NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶33

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER/DEMAND NOTICE DATED 31.01.2020 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IMPOSING AND DIRECTING THE PETITIONER TO PAY WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS, INTERIM ENVIRONMENT COMPENSATION OF RS.25,00,000/- BY DEMAND DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF MEMBER SECRETARY, KSPCB, BENGALURU AND ETC.

¶35

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

¶38

and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶39

There is no dispute that these two petitions will be governed by the order passed today in W.P.No.7006/2020. Therefore, for the reasons recorded in the order passed in W.P.No.7006/2020, these writ petitions are disposed of by passing the following order:

¶40

(a) The demand notices dated 30^th January 2020

¶41

(Annexure-A in W.P.No.7202/2020) and 31^st January 2020 (Annexure-A in

¶42

¶43

W.P.No.7009/2020) shall be treated as show cause notices. After considering the replies filed by the respective petitioners to the show cause notices and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, it will be open for the respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law;

¶44

(b) Considering the situation created by the pandemic, if orders are made by the respondents calling upon the petitioners to pay certain amount, minimum time of fifteen days shall be granted to the petitioners to pay the amount so that they are in a position to adopt appropriate legal remedies;

¶45

¶46

(d) Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of in above terms.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

M/S. Dynamatic Technologies Limited v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Dynamatic Technologies Limited v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E Vinay Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Kenneth Jideofor Vs Union of India

A Focus (Advocates - Focus) Forum for Constructive Social Work Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Lokesha K Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Resil Chemicals Private Limited Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

M/S Vinu Mac Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board