Disposed

Mr M Veerabhadra Swamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Mar 2022WP/17568/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners filed a writ petition complaining of noise pollution from power looms in Vittal Nagar West. The bench dismissed the petition without expressing opinion on merits, directing the Pollution Control Board and Environmental Officer to conduct a joint inspection of the premises to assess noise levels before taking action.

What did the court decide?

Directing Respondents 5 and 6 to conduct joint inspection of premises of Respondents 8 and 9 regarding noise levels and take appropriate steps if necessary.

Mr M Veerabhadra Swamy Vs State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

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

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.17568 OF 2021 (GM-POL)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

1 . MR.M.VEERABHADRA SWAMY S/O LATE MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT 14/5-1-1, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR

¶11

BANGALORE 560 026

¶12

2 . GOWRAMMA

¶13

S/O LATE MAHALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT 14/5-1-1, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR BANGALORE 560 026

¶14

3 . ROHINI

¶15

W/O NAGARAJ J., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.72, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR

¶16

BANGALORE 560 026

¶17

4 . SUVARNAMMA W/O M.P. MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT NO.14/5, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR BANGALORE 560 026

¶18

5 . KOUSALYA

¶19

W/O LATE MR.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.72, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR

¶20

¶21

BANGALORE 560 026

¶22

6 . SOWMYA B.C. W/O MR MAHESH M., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT NO.15/4, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR BANGALORE 560 026

¶23

7 . MR. KISHORE GOWDA S/O LATE MR.VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.72, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR BANGALORE 560 026

¶24

8 . MR NAGARAJ J. S/O LATE JAYARAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.72, 5^TH CROSS VITTAL NAGAR WEST BANGALORE 560 026

¶25

... PETITIONERS

¶26

(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR B.M., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY its SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001

¶29

2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU 560 001

¶30

3 . THE COMMISSIONER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU KARNATAKA 560 002

¶31

4 . OFFICE OF THE HEALTH MEDICAL OFFICER REP BY THE HEALTH OFFICER BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE CHAMARAJAPETE DIVISION BENGALURU 560 026

¶32

5 . KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REP BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY

¶33

¶34

NO.49 PARISARA BHAVANA CHURCH STREET, M.G. ROAD BENGALURU 560 001

¶35

6 . OFFICE OFTHE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION BOARD BENGALURU CITY SOUTH 3^RD FLOOR, NISARGA BHAVAN THIMMAIAH ROAD BENGALURU 560 010

¶36

7 . THE JOINT COMMISSIONER -SOUTH BBMP COMMERCIAL COMPLEX 2^ND BLOCK, 9^TH CROSS JAYANAGAR BENGALURU 560 011

¶37

8 . MRS R.KALAPANA W/O VASANTH KUMAR AGED MAJOR PROPREITOR OF VARSHA TEXTILES NO.81, 4^TH CROSS, VITTALNAGARA BENGALURU 560 026

¶38

9 . PROPRIETORS OF THE POWER LOOM SHRI DHANRAJ AND DHANALAKSHMI BEARING NO.66 (OLD NO.91/1) 4^TH CROSS, VITTAL NAGAR WEST BENGALURU 560 026

¶39

... RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL., AGA FOR R1 & R2 SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4, R7 (VAKALATH FILED ONLY FOR R3, R4) SRI A.MAHESH CHOWDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6 SMT.Y.P.VIJAYA VASANTHAKUMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R8 & R9)

¶41

¶42

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 7 DIRECTING RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO CANCEL ALL THE LICENSES ISSUED TO DIFFERENT ENTITIES AND INDIVIDUALS TO RUN/OPERATE POWER LOOMS IN THE OF WARD NO.141, 4^TH CROSS AND 5^TH CROSS, OF VITTAL NAGAR WEST, BENGALURU-560 026 AND ETC.

¶43

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

¶47

a) Call for records from Respondent Nos.2 to 7.

¶48

b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing Respondent Authorities to cancel all the licenses issued to different entities and individuals to run/operate power looms in the of ward No.141, 4^th Cross and 5^th Cross, of Vittal Nagar West, Bengaluru – 56 026.

¶49

c) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandams or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing Respondent Authorities to close down all the power looms running/operating in and around the of ward no.141, 4^th Cross and 5^th Cross, of Vittal Nagar West, Bengaluru – 560 026.

¶50

d) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing Respondent Authorities to cancel all the licenses issued to Respondent No.8 to run/operate power looms in the of ward no.141, 4^th Cross and 5^th Cross, of Vittal Nagar West, Bengaluru – 560 026 and also to cancel all the licenses issued to Respondent No.9 to run/operate power looms at premises Bearing No.66(old No.91/1), 4^th Cross, Vittal Nagar West, Bengaluru – 560 026.

¶51

e) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.2 to consider and take appropriate action and close down the power

¶52

¶53

loom in pursuant of complaint dated 16.04.2021 vide Annexures-L;

¶54

f) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent authorities to take appropriate action and close down the power loom of Respondent No.8 and 9;

¶55

g) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.3 to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the complaint dated 16.04.2021 vide Annexures-L1;

¶56

h) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.4 to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the complaint dated 16.04.2021 vide Annexures-L2;

¶57

i) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.5 to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the complaint dated 19.04.2021 vide Annexure-L3;

¶58

j) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.6 to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the complaint dated 19.04.2021 vide Annexures-L4;

¶59

k) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.7 to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the letter dated 19.06.2021 bearing No.PCB/Bng.CitySouth/EO/ DEO/AEO/2021-2022/177 vide Annexure-N;

¶60

¶61

l) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, Order or direction, directing the Respondent No.6 to consider and take appropriate action close/shut down the power loom of Respondent No.8 pursuant to the Notice bearing No.PCB/RO-BNG CITY SOUTH/EO/DEO/ SCN/2020-21/184 issued in June 2021 vide Annexure-N;

¶62

m) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to consider and take appropriate action pursuant to the notice dated 09.06.2021 bearing No.Aa.Y.(Cha.Pae) PR/97/2122 vide Annexure-P and notice dated 25.06.2021 bearing No.Aa.Y.(Cha.Pae)PR/146/21-22 vide Annexure-Q;

¶63

n) Grant such other relief(s) or pass such other Order/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit or proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice and equity.

¶64

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶65

learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶66

In addition to reiterating the various

¶67

contentions urged in the petition, it is the grievance of the petitioners, who claim to be residents of Vittal Nagar area in Bengaluru that respondent Nos.8 and 9 are running power looms in the said area, which is resulting in noise

¶68

¶69

pollution and thereby affecting all the residents of the area including the petitioners.

¶70

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9 submits that the power looms are being run by respondent Nos.8 and 9 in accordance with law after obtaining all statutory permission, licence and clearances etc. It is also submitted that apart from respondent Nos.8 and 9, there are several others who are running power looms in the said area and the noise generated on account of running of power looms is well within the permissible limits as per the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000.

¶71

So also, learned counsel for the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board submits that if reasonable time is granted, the Board would conduct inspection of the power looms being run by respondent Nos.8 and 9 after duly notifying the petitioners as well as respondent Nos.8 and 9 and will take appropriate action pursuant thereto, if required, in accordance with law.

¶72

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submission made at the Bar, without expressing

¶73

¶74

any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions, we deem it just and proper to dispose of this petition directing respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bengaluru to conduct joint inspection of the premises of respondent Nos.8 and 9 in relation to the noise/decibel levels in the said premises and take appropriate stapes in that regard, if necessary, in accordance with law, after duly notifying respondent Nos.8 and 9 as well as the petitioners.

¶75

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of.

¶76

SD/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶77

SD/JUDGE

¶78

BMC

Mr M Veerabhadra Swamy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr M Veerabhadra Swamy v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri E Radhakrishnan Vs Union of India

Sri Mathew Thomas Vs the State of Karnataka

Aravind B Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Shri Nandi Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

V Markandaiah Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri D Shankar Vs Senior Geologist(Mineral)