Allowed

Smt Shahida Begum v. the Assistant Commissioner

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2023WP/55869/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order for disconnection of machinery causing noise pollution and a consequent notice. The High Court quashed both orders for lack of notice and opportunity of hearing, directing the authorities to issue appropriate permission in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; impugned order dated 15/16.11.2018 and consequent notice dated 29.11.2018 quashed; liberty to authorities to take action in accordance with law.

Smt Shahida Begum Vs the Assistant Commissioner — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:41170 WP No. 55869 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 55869 OF 2018 (GM-KEB)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SMT SHAHIDA BEGUM W/O ASSADULLA KHAN GALIB R/A WARD NO.3, SREEDHARANAGARA, SAGARA-577401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶7

SRI VASEEM KHAN S/O ASSADULLA KHAN GALIB R/A WARD NO.3 SREEDHARANAGARA, SAGARA-577 401 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

(BY SRI. SRIKANTH PATIL K.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR-577401, SHIMOGA DIST.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) TOWN OPERATION AND MAINTAINANCE SUB-DIVISION, MESCOM, SAGARA-577401 SHIMOGA DIST.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHANMUKHA G C., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:41170 WP No. 55869 of 2018

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 16.11.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY IN (ANNX-A) AND ALSO IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY IN (ANNX-A1), BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE; DIRECT THE R-2 AUTHORITY HEREIN TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.12.2018 (ANNX-F).

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioners have assailed the first respondent’s order dated 15/16.11.2018 [ AnnexureA ] and the consequential notice dated 29.11.2018 issued by the second respondent [ Annexure-A1 ]. The first respondent by the impugned order dated 15/16.11.2018 has directed the second respondent to temporarily disconnect the installation in the petitioners’ property in Shridhar Nagar, Sagara Muncipal Council, Ward No.3, Shivamogga District recording that the municipal Officers have visited the petitioners’ property and verified that the petitioners have installed certain machinery which is run round

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:41170 WP No. 55869 of 2018

¶23

the clock creating nuisance for the residents who are complaining about the same. The first respondent has observed that if installation is disconnected, nuisance would be prevented.

¶24

The second respondent has consequentially issued the impugned notice dated 29.11.2018 calling upon the petitioners to produce appropriate permission obtained from the office of the Assistant Commissioner. This Court has granted interim order recording that the petitioners hold a license issued by the erstwhile authority and if there is any change in the local authority, it would be a transitional phase and no action can be taken during this period on the ground that license is not obtained.

¶25

Sri Shanmukha G.C., the learned counsel for the first and the second respondents, submits that the petitioners’ property is a residential property located within the residential locality, but they have installed the machinery to sieve and segregate

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:41170 WP No. 55869 of 2018

¶28

arecanut and the impugned notice is issued in view of the Assistant Commissioner’s opinion that running such machine causes noise pollution and nuisance. However, the learned counsel fairly submits that the petitioners are provided with commercial installation because of the No Objection dated 06.08.2018 [ Annexure-D1 ] issued by the erstwhile local authority viz ., Beemaneri Grama Panchayat.

¶29

It remains indisputable that if the second respondent proposes to initiate action for disconnection of the installation which is issued based on the No Objection dated 06.08.2018 issued by the erstwhile local authority, the second respondent should have called for the details of the current license issued to operate the machinery apart from calling for the permission or approval issued by the concerned for running a commercial activity within a residential locality.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:41170 WP No. 55869 of 2018

¶32

As regards the first respondent’s impugned

¶33

order dated 15/16.11.2018, it would suffice for this Court to observe that if any action was contemplated pursuant to the report obtained in the face of the installation granted on the basis of the No Objection as aforesaid, the first respondent had to put the petitioners on notice and extend an opportunity of hearing especially with the allegation that the noise pollution and nuisance are caused. Therefore, neither the first respondent’s order dated 15/16.11.2018 nor the second respondent’s notice dated 29.11.2018 can be sustained and they must be quashed but with liberty to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law if there is any reason for the same. Hence, the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition is allowed quashing the first respondent’s impugned order date 15/16.11.2018 [ Annexure-A ] and the

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:41170 WP No. 55869 of 2018

¶37

consequential notice dated 29.11.2018 [ Annexure-A1 ] issued by the second

¶38

respondent but with liberty as aforesaid.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

SA ct:sr

Smt Shahida Begum v. the Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shahida Begum v. the Assistant Commissioner

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

M/S Shriram Vs the Deputy

Mr. Narayanaswamy Perumanna Vs Income Tax Officer

Putta Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Balaji Enterprises Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Sri. Shankar a Kunder Vs the Commissioner of Excise

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Doddathimmappa