Disposed

M/S Coromandel International Limited v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Karnataka HC15 Dec 2021WP/11254/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction to close or shift an industrial unit emitting pollutants in a residential area. The High Court held that since the unit was already shut down pending renewal of operation consent, the petition did not survive. The referred authority must consider prior inspection reports and recommendations while deciding the renewal application.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to decide the pending renewal application considering inspection reports and committee recommendations.

M/S Coromandel International Limited Vs the… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.50909 OF 2019 (GM-POL-PIL) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.11254 OF 2020 (GM-POL)

¶9

IN WP NO.50909/2019 BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI T.KISHOR KUMAR, S/O T.JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT J.B.NAGAR, MUNIRBAD R.S, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583 234

¶11

KHAJAWALI, S/O HUSSAINPEERA JAVAGI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, HULIGI VILLAGE, MUNIRABAD R.S, 2^ND WARD, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583234

¶12

RAMESH S/O JADAYEPPA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 5^TH WARD, TANK AREA, MUNIRABAD B.II, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583234 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT & ECOLOGY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PARISARA BHAVANA, 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR, NO.49, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU-560001

¶17

SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, ZONAL OFFICE, KSPCB, BELLARI-583 104.

¶18

ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583 234.

¶19

M/S. COROMANDEL INTERANTIONAL LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT COROMANDEL HOUSE, 1-2-10, SARDER PATEL ROAD, SECUNDRABAD-500003, TELENGANA, HAVING THEIR MANUFACTURING UNIT, AT PLOT NO.101-102, HULIGI ROAD, MUNIRABAD RAILWAY STATION, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583 234, REPRESENTED BY SRI.MUKESH MITTAL, UNIT HEAD.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, AGA FOR R1; SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4; SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶22

¶23

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO CLOSE OR SHIFT THE INDUSTRIAL UNIT FORTHWITH WITHOUT FURTHER LOSS OF TIME AS IT IS SITUATED IN RESIDENTIAL AREA OF HULIGI VILLAGE BY MODIFYING THE TIME GRANTED UPTO 16.10.2020 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 AS PER ANNEXURE-L.

¶24

IN WP NO.11254/2020 BETWEEN:

¶25

M/S. COROMANDEL INTERNATIONAL LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS HOSPET UNIT HEAD MR. V JAIGANESH REGISTERED OFFICE AT COROMANDEL HOUSE 1-2-10, SARDAR PATEL ROAD SECUNDRABAD-50003, TELANGANA (BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W SRI.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

AND:

¶28

THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA, 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR, NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶29

SRI.T.KISHOR KUMAR, S/O T.JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT J.B.NAGAR, MUNIRABAD R.S, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583234

¶30

KHAJAWALI, S/O HUSSAINPEERA JAVAGI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶31

¶32

HULIGI VILLAGE, MUNIRABAD R.S, 2^ND WARD, KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583234

¶33

RAMESH S/O JADAYEPPA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 5^TH WARD, TANK AREA, MUNIRABAD B, II KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583234 (RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 13.10.2020)

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO 4)

¶36

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER / DIRECTION DATED 07.06.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER (ANNEXURE-Y) AND ETC.,

¶37

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶40

"a) Issue an appropriate order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to close or shift the industrial unit forthwith without further loss of time as it is situated in residential area of Huligi Village by modifying the time granted up to 16-10-2020 vide its

¶41

¶42

order bearing No.PCB/027/HPI/PH/2019-20 dated 1306-2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure-L;

¶43

b) Issue any writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case;

¶44

c) The petitioners pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other order or direction quashing the order/direction dated 21-10-2020 bearing No.PCB/027/17Cat/HPI/201819/3032 passed by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure ZF, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶45

The petitioner claims that he is a resident of Huligi Village, Koppal Taluk. It is contended that respondent No.5 is engaged in production of Single Super Phosphate (SSP) and Granulated Single Super Phosphate (GSSP) at a capacity of 45,000 MTPS, 60,000 MTPA and 90,000 MTPA respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that the industry is virtually emitting Hydrogen Fluoride acid within the residential area which is leading to smell, nuisance in the area. It is also contended that the operation of the industry is causing serious

¶46

¶47

health hazards and water pollution and therefore, a request was made to respondent No.2 to close the plant or to shift from the residential area.

¶48

Based on these set of grievance, the present petitioners have filed the present writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation seeking the above said reliefs.

¶49

Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the consent for operation has expired on 20.07.2021 and on 20.07.2021, the industrial unit is closed and their application seeking renewal is pending consideration. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit to this Court that on account of pendency of this writ petition, the authorities concerned are not in a position to process the renewal application.

¶50

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners would take this Court to the report which is placed on record as per Annexure-G to the writ petition. Placing reliance on the report, he would submit to this Court that there is no question

¶51

¶52

of allowing the respondent No.5 industry to seek revival of the consent for operation and proceed with the operation of the industry. He would also place reliance on the report which is submitted at Annexure-ZB. Placing reliance on these two reports, he would strongly object and contend before us that respondent No.5 cannot seek renewal of the operation of the industry since both the reports clearly indicate that running of industry within the zone of residential area is not feasible and would have health hazards on the neighbouring residents.

¶53

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1.

¶54

Since the industry is shut down for want of consent for operation and same is pending for consideration before the competent authority, we are of the view that the relief sought in the present writ petition does not survive for consideration. Therefore, we would proceed to dispose of the writ petition

¶55

¶56

with a direction that the competent authority before whom the renewal application submitted by the respondent No.5 is pending shall be dealt by the authority in accordance with law.

¶57

It is needless to state that the authority while considering the renewal application is required to take cognizance of the inspection report dated 17.10.2017 submitted by the Taluka Advisory Sub-committee which is annexed at Annexure-G to the writ petition. The conclusions arrived at by the committee are to be taken into consideration by the authority. The authority is also bound to take note of the directions issued by the respondent No.2/Pollution Control Board dated 07.06.2019. The authority shall also look into the recommendations made by the Taluka Advisory Committee dated 06.02.2020 pursuant to the joint inspection report which is also placed on record at Annexure-ZB.

¶58

If the application seeking consent for operation is pending for consideration before the authority, the authority as stated above shall look into the inspection report dated

¶59

¶60

17.10.2017, the directions issued by the respondent No.2 as per Annexure-L and also the recommendations submitted by Senior Environmental Officer as per Annexure-ZB and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶61

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. In view of disposal of the present writ petition, the connected writ petition filed in W.P.No.11254/2020 does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stands disposed of.

¶62

The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶63

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

Sd/JUDGE

¶65

M/S Coromandel International Limited v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Coromandel International 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Resolutional Professional Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Protective Coatings Private Limited Vs Environmental Officer

Ttp Technologies Private Limited Vs Environmental Officer

Union of India Vs M/S Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Narasingh Das Private Limited

Vijay Kumar v Vs Government of Karnataka

Dr Sudhakar H Vs the State of Karnataka