Dismissed

Eashwar Honnappa Naik v. the Secretary to the Rural Development

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2021WP/6137/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a PIL seeking direction to stop construction of a solid waste segregation unit and shift the site due to health and environmental grounds. The High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to vague grounds and a desire for a roving enquiry. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed for lack of maintainability due to vague grounds and roving enquiry.

Eashwar Honnappa Naik Vs the Secretary to the… — 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.6137 OF 2021 (LB-RES-PIL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

EASHWAR HONNAPPA NAIK S/O HONNAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HUDUGODU VILLAGE, POST MUTTA, HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶11

NAYANA RAVINDRA ACHARI W/O RAVINDRA ACHARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HUDUGODU VILLAGE, POST MUTTA, HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶12

GANAPATI ESHWAR SHASTRI S/O ESHWAR SHASTRI, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HUDUGODU VILLAGE, POST MUTTA,

¶13

¶14

HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶15

PARAMESHWAR MAHABALESHWAR BHAT S/O MAHABALESHWAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O HOSAKULI VILLAGE, POST MUTTA, HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶16

ESHWAR GOOLI GOWDA S/O GOOLI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O HOSAKULI VILLAGE, POST MUTTA, HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶17

...PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI.GIRISH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE SECRETARY TO THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEVELOPMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NORTH KANARA DISTRICT, KARWAR 3. PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING DIVISION NORTH KANARA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ALIGADDA, BAITKOR, KARWAR-581302

¶22

¶23

VILLAGE PANCHAYAT HOSAKULI HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA, REPRESENTED BY PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER

¶24

SHRI VENKATESH MANJU GONDA CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/O BEDRAKODA, MAVALLI-2, BHATKAL TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶25

SHRI GANAPATI ESHWAR HEGDE CIVIL CONTRACTOR, R/O CHANDAVAR VILLAGE, HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 & R2)

¶28

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1.ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE FOR SOLID WASTE DUMPING / SEGREGATION UNIT IN SY. NO. 214A1A1A1A1A10 OF HOSAKULI VILLAGE, HONNAVAR HOBLI, HONNAVAR TALUK, NORTH KANARA DISTRICT 2.ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO. 1, 2, 3, 4 TO SHIFT THE PROPOSED DUMPING YARD AND SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT TO A FAR AWAY PLACE FROM HUMAN HABITATION AND 3.PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT.

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

ORDER

¶32

The present PIL has been filed by the petitioners who are claiming themselves to be agriculturists being aggrieved by the letter of acceptance issued on 28.08.2020 and the work order dated 11.01.2021 for construction of Solid and Liquid Waste Processing Unit. The following grounds have been raised in the writ petition:

¶33

"13. In the absence of the elected local body, the whole transaction of calling for the tenders and issuing the work order for the construction of the waste segregation unit by the third respondent is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is necessary.

¶34

In the event solid waste/liquid waste is allowed to dumped in the proposed land which is adjacent to the residential area and the farm lands would cause great injury to the health of the residents and ecology/environment of the village and surrounding. Hence the intervention of this Hon'ble Court is just and necessary.

¶35

¶36

The third respondent has not followed any mandatory guidelines to protect the residents from pollution. In gross violation of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, the third respondent issued work order to the fifth respondent.

¶37

The third respondent being the local body is duty bound to provide better living environment to the citizens itself is spoiling the same and causing inconvenience to the public. The third respondent and fourth respondent could have identified alternative site for the dumping and erection of the segregation plant in a distant area far from human habitation as there is alternative land is available.

¶38

The petitioners have not filed any other writ/petition/ proceedings either before this Hon'ble Court or before any court on the same cause of action."

¶39

On the other hand, learned Government Advocate

¶40

has drawn the attention of this Court towards the work order which is on record dated 11.01.2021 and his contention is that

¶41

the work order is under challenge in the present writ petition and that they have followed the statutory provisions as contained under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.

¶42

¶43

He has also stated that the work order issued on 11.01.2021 for constructing Solid and Liquid Waste Processing Unit at Hosakuli Village is already on the verge of completion.

¶44

In the considered opinion of this Court, keeping in

¶45

view the grounds raised by the petitioners as no specific grounds has been raised and the petitioners want to conduct a roving enquiry, this Court is of the opinion that the present PIL is certainly not maintainable keeping in view the vague grounds raised by the petitioners and it is accordingly, dismissed.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

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

¶48

Sd/ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶49

Eashwar Honnappa Naik v. the Secretary to the Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Eashwar Honnappa Naik v. the Secretary to the Rural Development

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 Nazeer Ahmed Vs Smt. Khazi Nafisa

Mallikarjuna a Vs Government of India

Sri H M Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Prashanth Amin Vs the Kanataka State Pollution Control Board

Karthik @ Ullalu Karthik Vs Commissioner of Police

Sri. Shivakumar. M Vs State of Karnataka