Partly allowed

M/S Mantri Espana Residential Apartment Owners Association v. the Regional Officer

Karnataka HC7 Jan 2021WP/12833/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging environmental compensation demands and directions issued by the Pollution Control Board without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The High Court treated notices as show-cause notices and set aside the directions mandating payment pending a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directions under Section 33(A) of the Water Act, demand for environmental compensation, and show-cause notice were set aside with directions to the Board to hear the petitioner before passing appropri

M/S Mantri Espana Residential Apartment Owners… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT

¶3

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

¶4

AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.12833 OF 2020(GM-POL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. MANTRI ESPANA RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT OWNERS ASSOCIATION, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY NOS. 51/1, 50/2, 50/3(P) 36/1, 36/3, 37, 38/1, 38/2(P), 39/1, 39/2, 39/3 39/4, 39/6 OF DEVARABEESANAHALLI AND KARIYAMMANA AGRAHARA VILLAGE VARTHU HOBLI, BENGALUR EAST TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 103 REPRESTEND BY ITS SECRETARY SRI.RAOJESH NAIK T

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. VIKRAM .G, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE REGIONAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BOMMANAHALLI NISARGA BHAVAN, II FLOOR THIMMAIAH ROAD, 7^TH 'D' MAIN SHIVANAGAR, OPPOSITE PUSHPANJALI THEATER BANGALORE - 560 010

¶13

2 . THE SCIENTIFIC OFFICER

¶14

¶15

OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD NISARGA BHAVAN, II FLOOR THIMMAIAH ROAD, 7^TH 'D' MAIN SHIVANAGAR, OPPOSITE PUSHPANJALI THEATER BANGALORE-560 010 3 . OFFICE OF THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BANGALORE SOUTH NISARGA BHAVAN, II FLOOR THIMMAIAH ROAD, 7^TH 'D' MAIN SHIVANAGAR, OPPOSITE PUSHPANJALI THEATER BANGALORE-560 010 4 . THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BENGALURU BOMMANAHALLI NISARGA BHAVAN, II FLOOR THIMMAIAH ROAD, 7^TH 'D' MAIN SHIVANAGAR, OPPOSITE PUSHPANJALI THEATER BASAVESHWARANAGAR BANGALORE-560 010 5 . SENOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 'PARISARA BHAVAN' 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR NO.49, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE-560 001

¶16

... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SHRI. JEEVAN NEERALGI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2019 PASSED BY THE R-4 AT ANNEXURE-A AND QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 30.01.2020 ISSUED BY R-4 AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Notice has already been issued to the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner is a registered Association of apartment owners of the apartments which are the subject matter of this petition. The first notice under challenge in this writ petition is dated 4^th December 2019 at Annexure-A. Based on the analysis reports of collected samples of treated sewage, the petitioner was directed to pay Environmental Compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs as per the order of the National Green Tribunal dated 6^th December 2018. The second challenge in this writ petition is to Annexure-C which is a show-cause notice which refers to the reply dated 13^th December 2019 submitted by the petitioner to the notice at Annexure-A by which, the petitioner had called upon the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short ‘the said Board’) to withdraw the said notice. However, in the notice at Annexure-C, it is stated that the petitioner is liable to pay Environmental Compensation charges of Rs.5 Lakhs within fifteen days. The petitioner was called upon to show cause why the said Board should not issue directions under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Water Act’). The

¶25

¶26

next challenge is to Annexure-D which contains directions issued under Section 33(A) of the Water Act which proceeds on the footing that the petitioner has not paid the Environmental Compensation Charges of Rs.5 Lakhs within fifteen days. Further challenge is to Annexure-F dated 18^th March 2020 by which, sample collection charges of Rs.5,735/were demanded. The challenge is on the ground that the said letter mentions that the sample was found to be not conforming to the stipulated standards.

¶27

Another challenge is to the communication dated 2^nd September 2020 by the said Board at Annexure-J by which, the petitioner was informed that the application for renewal of Consent for Operation filed by the petitioner will not be considered unless a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs towards Environmental Compensation Charges is paid. A prayer is also made seeking a direction to the said Board to decide the application dated 21^st May 2020.

¶28

After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we find that the genesis of the issue is the demand made by the said Board for payment of Environmental

¶29

¶30

Compensation of Rs.10 lakhs/5 lakhs. Perusal of Annexures-

¶31

A, C and E show that the Board never gave an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before determining the liability, if any, of the petitioner to pay the Environmental Compensation Charges. Moreover, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity of being heard on the Analysis Reports of the samples collected on 23^rd August 2018 and 16th April 2019. The direction under Section 33(A) of the Water Act was issued on account of non-payment of the Environmental Compensation charges.

¶32

As regards Annexure-F, recovery of charges of analysis of sample cannot be made from the petitioner on the footing that the analysis results are not conforming the stipulated standards. The issue whether the analysis results are non conforming can be ascertained only after giving an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶33

In the circumstances, the direction issued which is at Annexure-D, the demand made at Annexure-F and the requisition made at Annexure-G will have to be set aside with a direction to the said Board to give an opportunity of being

¶34

¶35

heard to the petitioner on the issue of liability to pay the

¶36

Environmental Compensation Charges.

¶37

7. Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶38

(i) The notice of demand dated 4^th December 2019 at Annexure-A shall be treated as a show-cause notice. It will be open for the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the same within a period of six weeks from today;

¶39

(ii) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, the Competent Authority of the said Board shall pass appropriate order within a period of four months from today;

¶40

(iii) If while passing the appropriate order, it is held that the petitioner is liable to pay any amount by way of Environmental Compensation charges, the demand shall not be enforced for a period of fifteen days from the date of communication of the order to the petitioner;

¶41

(iv) Consequently, the direction issued under Section 33(A) of the Water Act (Annexure-C), the demand made by the letter dated 18^th March 2020 (Annexure-F) and the demand made by the letter dated 2^nd September 2020 (Annexure-J) are hereby set aside;

¶42

(v) After appropriate order is passed by the Competent Authority and after completion of fifteen days from the date of service of the order of the

¶43

¶44

Competent Authority on the petitioner, it is open for the said Board to take appropriate action, if any, against the petitioner including action under Section 33(A) of the Water Act. It will be also open for the Board to make a demand for payment of sample collection charges against the petitioner;

¶45

(vi) All issues are left open to be decided by the Competent Authority of the said Board;

¶46

(vii) Needless to add that the said Board shall consider the application dated 21^st May 2020 at Annexure-"G" in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event, within a period of four months from today;

¶47

(viii) The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

*alb/-.

M/S Mantri Espana Residential Apartment Owners Association v. the Regional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mantri Espana Residential Apartment Owners Association v. the Regional Officer

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

Smt. C S Suma Vs Smt Archana

Shrinivas Prasad Stone Crushers Vs the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Smt. Roopa R. Shetty Vs the Commissioner of Mines and Geology

Kullaiah Vs Chandraiah

Sri. G v Nagaraju Vs Smt. Latha

M/S Sudharshan Stone Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka