Dismissed

Prashanth Amin v. the Kanataka State Pollution Control Board

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021WP/2866/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition filed by a fish supplier alleging environmental pollution by a fish meal company. The court held that the litigation was not a public interest matter but a personal dispute over unpaid dues, constituting an abuse of the process of court due to suppression of material facts.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to be paid to the Karnataka Advocates' Clerks Association.

Prashanth Amin Vs the Kanataka State Pollution… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.2866 OF 2021 (GM-POL-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

PRASHANTH AMIN S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA SUVARNA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT MATHRA BHOOMI P.A.COMPOUND, HOUSE NO.2-118A VADABANDESHWARA, BAILIKERE THOTTAM, UDUPI DISTRICT-576 108

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE KANATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN, NO.49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU-560001

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND FORESTS REP. BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (FEE)

¶16

¶17

ROOM NO.442, 4^TH FLOOR GATE NO.2, M S BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶18

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT A BLOCK, RAJATHADRI MANIPAL, UDUPI-576104

¶19

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PLOT NO.36C, SHIVALLI INDL. AREA HALEYUR ROAD, MANIPAL UDUPI-576 104

¶20

THE UDUPI TOWN MUNICIPALITY REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER K M MARG, UDUPI-576104

¶21

M/S RAJ FISH MEAL AND OIL CO, MADHVARAJ ROAD, MALPE UDUPI TALUK REPRESENTED BY PRAMOD MADHWARAJ MALPE, UDUPI TALUK-576 108

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R2 & R3; SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R4; SRI.T.I.ABDULLA, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI.SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.LATHA.A.SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12/01/2021 AS PER ANNEXURE-A SO THAT APPROPRIATE ACTION CAN BE TAKEN TO PRESERVE THE MARINE LIFE AND ETC.,

¶25

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition as a public interest litigation (PIL) stating that respondent No.6-M/s. Raj Fish Meal and Oil Company is polluting the environment by discharging dead fish and other pollutants. It is discharging the waste without treating it through effluent treatment plant in the nearby river which has resulted in pollution of the river and ultimately resulted in loss to the nature. The processing unit belongs to respondent No.6-M/s. Raj Fish Meal and Oil Company and the following prayers have been made by the petitioner:

¶29

"a) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 12/01/2021 as per Annexure-A so that appropriate action can be taken to preserve the marine life.

¶30

b) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to inquire into the matter and to take appropriate actions M/S. Raj Fish Meals and Oil Co for polluting the eco system.

¶31

¶32

c) Issue writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to see that all the norms and procedure prescribed for the establishment of fish meal and oil company are followed not only in respondent no.6 company but also in other fish meal and oil companies.

¶33

d) Direct the respondent no.6 to pay the damages.

¶34

e) Pass such other or further orders or directions as this Honorable Court may deem fit, in the interest of justice."

¶35

A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed by respondent No.6 and it has been stated that the present petition is not a PIL at all. It has been stated that the petitioner was carrying out business with the respondent No.6. He used to supply fish to the respondent No.6 and started demanding money. It has been stated that all the amount which was due was paid to the petitioner from time to time and the total amount paid to the petitioner right from 2013-14 to 2020-21 amounts to Rs.95,18,93,347.00/- (more than Rs.95 Crores). The year wise statement of amount paid to the petitioner which has not been disputed is reproduced as under:

¶36

¶37

YEA	RWISE ACC	OUNTS STATEMEN	T OF PRASHANTH AND OIL COMPAN	AMIN FISH SALES TO Y	RAJ FISHMEAL
SL. NO	YEAR	OPENING BALANCE(Rs.)	PURCHASES(Rs)	PAYMENT(Rs)	CLOSING BALANCE(Rs)
1.	2013-14	0	7,72,08,925.00	6,74,95,025.00	97,13,900.00
2.	2014-15	97,13,900.00	1,63,96,642.00	2,52,87,968.00	8,22,574.00
3.	2015-16	8,22,574.00	94,60,225.00	99,86,968.00	2,95,831.00
4.	2016-17	2,95,831.00	21,92,05,636.00	19,43,93,152.00	2,51,08,315.00
5.	2017-18	2,51,08,315.00	36,83,12,678.00	39,18,16,417.00	16,04,576.00
6.	2018-19	16,04,576.00	15,65,68,728.00	14,83,29,714.00	98,43,590.00
7.	2019-20	98,43,590.00	10,47,40,513.00	9,55,76,525.00	1,90,07,578.00
8.	2020-21	1,90,07,578.00	-	1,90,07,578.00	-
TOTA	L		95,18,93,347.00	95,18,93,347.00

¶38

This Court, as it was argued on the earlier occasion

¶39

that the present petition is not a PIL, has directed the petitioner on 12.08.2021 to file an affidavit dealing with the statement made in paragraph 35 of the statement of objections and the order dated 12.08.2021 is reproduced as under:

¶40

"The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the sixth respondent has invited our attention to the averments made in the statement of objections and in particular the

¶41

¶42

averments made in Paragraph 35 of the statement of objections.

¶43

We direct the petitioner to file an affidavit dealing with averments made in paragraph 35 of the statement of objections of the sixth respondent, we grant time of three weeks to do so and to submit compliance report to the sixth respondent, list the petition on 13th September, 2021."

¶44

Though the order sheet refers to paragraph 35, but

¶45

it is in fact paragraph 3 of the statement of objections which is reproduced as under:

¶46

"3. At the outset, the 6th Respondent submits the following preliminary objections for the maintainability of the above Public Interest Litigation.

¶47

(a) No Public Interest is involved petition is filed to satisfy personal vengeance.

¶48

i. The 6th Respondent industry is engaged in manufacturing of Fishmeal and Oil since more than 52 years which was established in the year 1967. There have been no complaints against the respondent industry by any authority for violation of any laws. The 6th Respondent industry has provided the job to more than 400 to 500

¶49

¶50

persons directly and more than 5000 families are depending on this industry indirectly in the activities like fishing, transportation, and other fishery related activities. Like the 6th Respondent industry, there are other 4 Industries in Udupi District involved in manufacturing of Fishmeal and Fish Oil against whom the Petitioner have not complained as to violation of any pollution laws. The above Petition has been set up by the petitioner to satisfy personal vengeance. In fact, the petitioner himself is involved in the fishing business. He began his career in this line of work as a sub-agent from many years by supplying the same fish which petitioner has referred as Rotten fish and later as a main agent supplying the same complained fish till petitioner last supply in March 2020 to Respondent no 6 industry. The Respondent no 6 industry has been instrumental in his growth. as an agent. His association with the Respondent no 6 industry brought petitioner a lot of prosperity. The petitioner did not feel any concern for environment over the business activities at that time. The true copy of the table showing the year wise Account statement of petitioner from the year 2013-14 to 20202021 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-R1(a) to R1. The true copy of the Bank statement of petitioner from the year 2013-14 to 2020-2021 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-R2.

¶51

¶52

ii. It is relevant to submit that the dispute began when the Respondent no 6 industry refused to pay petitioner the amount exceeding what was agreed upon. The petitioner was already been paid for the supply of fish provided and has been demanding for an additional amount. This demand was brought up during the beginning of the pandemic when the company's operations were on shoestring budget. Upset with the behavior/ conduct of the petitioner at a time when the business is facing hurdles, the Respondent no 6 stopped buying fish from the petitioner, which led the petitioner to revolt. This difference of opinion with the managing partner of the 6th Respondent has provoked petitioner to file the present petition suppressing material fact. The retaliation not only started with withdrawal of support, but also disturbing the Managing partners family members by making threaten calls and messages. The Respondent no 6 industry Managing Partners wife Smt. Supriya Pramodraj who is also one of the partner had received several threaten calls and messages from petitioner. Smt Supriya Pramodraj lodged a complaint dated 21.07.2020 against petitioner before the jurisdictional Police Station. On enquiry from the jurisdictional Police station, petitioner has given a statement dated 24.07.2020 accepting for having made calls for payment and not to repeat the same. The jurisdictional police station after reporting petitioner

¶53

¶54

statement has issued endorsement to respondent no 6 stating petitioner has been given a warning. The true copy of the complaint dated 21.07.2020 filed by Smt. Supriya Pramodraj along with acknowledgement is enclosed herewith ANNEXURE-R3 (a) & R3 (b). The true copy of the statement given by petitioner is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE - R3 (c). The true copy of the endorsement dated 02.08.2020 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE - R3(d).

¶55

iii. As a counter blast to the above compliant petitioner also filed a complaint dated 30.08.2020 before the jurisdictional police claiming non receipt of payment dues from Respondent no 6 Industry. Respondent no 6 industry vide letter dated 29.09.2020 replied to the police stating no outstanding due to petitioner. On receipt of the reply the jurisdictional police issued an endorsement dated 20.10.2020 to petitioner to approach civil court for the redress of dispute. The true copy of the complaint dated 30.08.2020 filed by Petitioner along with acknowledgement is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE - R4(a) & R4(b). The true copy of the reply by respondent no 6 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE R4 (c). The true copy of the endorsement dated 20.10.2020 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-R4 (d).

¶56

¶57

iv. The Petitioner is continuing his business of supply of same-so called rotten fish to other Fishmeal factories near Mangalore from Malpe fishing harbour even now which fact clearly demonstrates that there is no public interest involved in this case.

¶58

(c) The Petitioner has no track record of public interest activity.

¶59

i. That the above fact clearly shows that the Petitioner had in fact traded and supported the Fishmeal Industry owners whereas now the present petition is filed complaining the pollution etc., is just to see that the 6th Respondent industry their reputation as such is spoilt. harassed or The 6th Respondent Industry was the first industry in Udupi District which had provided Evaporators by spending more than Rs. 8.5 crores which helps in evaporating the trade effluent to the full extent. The petitioner with personal grievance unable to bear the decision of the Respondent no 6 to stop buying fish from petitioner has filed this writ petition and absolutely there is no public interest involved in this case.

¶60

(d) Suppression of facts:

¶61

The Petitioner has suppressed the fact of being an agent for supply of fish to the responded no 6 industry. The

¶62

¶63

petitioner has suppressed the fact of above complaints and the petitioner is very much aware of the approvals, treatment facilities like ETP, Evaporators, Filtration, Deodorizer and other steps taken by the 6th Respondent industry even then, petitioner has suppressed all these material facts and has filed this writ petition. The Petitioner lacks bona fides as the said petition is filed to satisfy personal rival. Therefore, the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and hence the writ petition has to be dismissed with exemplary costs."

¶64

The petitioner sought time on 13.09.2021 to file an affidavit as directed by this Court. Now an affidavit has been filed. Paragraphs 8, 12, 13, 19 and 23 of the affidavit of the petitioner are reproduced as under:

¶65

"8. I say that the local residents came to for protest against the management of respondent No.06 and when I joined voice with local residents, the respondent No.06 put me out of the system and stopped purchasing fish from me and damaged my business and stopped all the payments due to me amounting approximately sum of rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-six only(Rs. 16,33,326/-).

¶66

¶67

I say that, the respondent No.06 has withheld a sum of rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-six only (Rs.16,33,326/-) to be payable to me. This is not the issue before this Honorable Court.

¶68

I say that, when I complained to the station house officer of the Malpe police station with regard to the respondents No.06 cheating me to the tune of rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-six only(Rs.16,33,326/-). I was informed that the respondent No.06 will be called and I will be later informed with regard to the developments and was asked to come after 04 (four days).

¶69

I say that with a fond hope of receiving the amount of sum of rupees ten lakh eighty-eight thousand eighth hundred eight-six only (Rs.10,88,886/-) I was expecting the further payment which is due to me by the respondent No.06 when I was not paid, I have lodged a complaint against the respondent No.06 and his wife who are the partners of the Raj Fish meal factory.

¶70

I say that, the money due to me is sum of rupees sixteen lakhs thirty-three thousand three hundred and twenty-six only (Rs.16,33,326/-). I have been duly instructed by my counsel to file separate case which is due to me by following the procedure as per law."

¶71

¶72

The petitioner has also not denied the factum of business which he was carrying out with the respondent No.6 and the quantum of money received from time to time. On the contrary, he has stated that he has instructed his counsel to take appropriate action for recovery of dues from respondent No.6.

¶73

The Pollution Control Board has certainly filed a report and at the relevant point of time when the inspection was carried out the factory was not functional. Learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board has stated categorically that the Pollution Control Board has carried out periodical inspections and is ensuring compliance of the statutory provisions in respect of the factory in question.

¶74

In the considered opinion of this Court, the present case is certainly a personal interest litigation instead of a PIL. In the light of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner on account of the directions issued by the Court, what has been

¶75

¶76

stated in the affidavit should have been stated at the first instance in the petition itself and therefore, there is a clear suppression of facts by the petitioner in the present writ petition.

¶77

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2013) 2 SCC 398 in paragraphs 31 and 32 has held as under:

¶78

"31. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, let us refer to some case laws which would help us in dealing with the present situation with greater precision.

¶79

The cases of abuse of the process of court and such allied matters have been arising before the Courts consistently. This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations

¶80

¶81

of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:

¶82

32.1 .Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any relief.

¶83

32.2 .The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.

¶84

32.3. The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.

¶85

32.4.Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate

¶86

¶87

to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.

¶88

32.5. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

¶89

32.6. The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.

¶90

32.7.Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.

¶91

32.8.The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the

¶92

¶93

Court should endure to take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it."

¶94

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.D.Sharma

¶95

vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others reported

¶96

in (2008) 12 SCC 481 in paragraph 34 has held as under:

¶97

"34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim."

¶98

In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is

¶99

of the considered opinion that the present PIL is certainly not at all maintainable. It is a personal interest litigation by a

¶100

¶101

person who is having business interest with respondent No.6 who is claiming dues against respondent No.6 and therefore, as it is a sheer misuse of the process of law, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Not only deserves to be dismissed but deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶102

The petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10 lakhs to be paid to the Karnataka Advocates' Clerks Association as large number of clerks are out of job on account of COVID-19 pandemic and they will be provided some respite on account of money awarded to the clerks association. It is made clear that in case the cost is not deposited within 30 days from today, the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District shall recover the amount as arrears of land revenue and shall report compliance to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶103

The Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District after recovering the amount as arrears of land revenue, shall

¶104

¶105

transfer the amount to the Karnataka Advocates' Clerks Association.

¶106

Learned counsel is also heard on the quantum of cost. The petitioner is a businessman and has received as much as Rs.95 Crores from time to time and therefore, a sum of Rs.10 lakhs is rightly awarded as cost.

¶107