Disposed

Sri Syed Abdul Bary v. the Secretary

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021WP/14068/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition challenging orders of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. The court directed the third respondent to inspect the petitioner's plant for compliance and allowed the petitioner to pursue statutory appeal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of directing the third respondent to verify compliances and allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies.

Sri Syed Abdul Bary Vs the Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^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.14068 OF 2020(GM-POL)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. SYED ABDUL BARY S/O SYED ABDUL QAYUM AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS THE PROPRIETOR M/S. VTEN GROUP TYRE PYROLYSIS UNIT PLOT NO.180P2, NANDUR KESARTAGI INDUSTRIAL AREA, KIADB TQ AND DIST: KALABURAGI

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SHRI. SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RATHA .N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

1 . THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 'PARISARA BHAVANA', 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-01

¶13

2 . THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 'PARISARA BHAVANA', 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-01

¶14

3 . THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER ZONAL OFFICE, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PLOT NO.G-101

¶15

¶16

GREEN PARK, HOUSING BOARD COLONY RING ROAD, SHAIK ROZA KALABURAGI - 585 101

¶17

4 . THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES KALABURAGI DIVISION M.S.K. MILL ROAD VASANTH NAGAR KALABURAGI - 585 102

¶18

5 . THE MANAGING DIRECTOR GESCOM, GESCOM OFFICE STATION ROAD KALABURAGI - 585 101

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SHRI. JEEVAN .J .NEERALGI, AGA FOR R4)

¶21

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 266 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 24.12.2019, ORDER DATED 24.12.2019 ISSUED BY FIRST RRESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND G RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

I.A.No.1/2020 is filed seeking permission to delete prayer

¶26

(a) as the orders challenged therein can be challenged by way of an appeal. The application is accordingly allowed. We grant time of six weeks to carry out the amendment.

¶27

The only prayer which now survives is prayer (b). Annexure-J is the letter dated 9^th February 2020 addressed by the petitioner to the Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) recording that certain works

¶28

¶29

have been carried out. A request made in the said letter is to visit the plant of the petitioner with a view to ascertain whether compliances have been made by the petitioner. In view of the limited prayer made, the petition need not be kept pending and we dispose of the same by passing the following order:

¶30

(i) It is open for the petitioner to adopt the statutory remedies for challenging the orders at Annexures-H and G;

¶31

(ii) We direct the third respondent to visit the plant of the petitioner with a view to ascertain whether the compliances as claimed by the petitioner in Annexure-J have been made by the petitioner;

¶32

(iii) After the report is submitted by the third respondent, KSPCB will take appropriate decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of the submission of the report on the question of recalling the orders at Annexures-H and G;

¶33

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

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

*alb/-.

Sri Syed Abdul Bary v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Syed Abdul Bary v. the Secretary

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

Sri.G.S. Nagarjuna Vs Sri. K. Rathanaiah

Smt Sushma M a Vs K N Ninge Gowda

Sri Prabhudeva M G Vs Sri. S.R. Umashankar

Smt D N Rajamma Vs the Deputy Director of Public Instructions (Administration)

Sri v Gururaj Vs Sri Sri Vidya Sreesha Theertharu

Sri. Dr. K Srinivasa Vs Dr. B Hirannaiah