Disposed

Sri. Sunil Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Dec 2024WP/15643/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging waste disposal activities on petitioners' land. The court directed the respondents to consider representations and implement an alternative 25-cent site earmarked by the Deputy Commissioner for a segregation unit, reserving liberty to file further submissions.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; liberty reserved to file certified copy of order with third respondent to direct use of Sy. No. 62 for segregation unit.

Sri. Sunil Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50973 WP No. 15643 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 15643 OF 2023 (LB-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. SUNIL SHETTY S/O LATE SHEKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶8

SRI. ANIL SHETTY S/O LATE SHEKARA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶9

MRS. MALLIKA SHETTY W/O LATE BHUVANA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

¶10

MRS. MANJULA H CHOWTA W/O HEMANTH CHOWTA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

ALL ARE R/AT HOUSE NO.1-116, UCHILA, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-575 114.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. SANDESH SHETTY T., ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:50973 WP No. 15643 of 2023

¶19

DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA SOUTH DIVISION, KUNDAPURA SUB DIVISION, KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶21

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER UCHILA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-575114.

¶22

THE REGIONAL OFFICER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD, TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS PWD ANNEXE BUILDING, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001

¶23

THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, NO.3-29, BETHAL, THARE THOTTA, NEAR PUMPWELL CRICEL, N.H. 66, MANGALURU-575 001

¶24

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, KUNDAPURA-576 201 UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4 TO R6 SRI.ASHOK N.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶27

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 30/12/2021 AT ANNEXUREG AND H DATED 18/02/2023 AT ANNEXURE-L, DATED

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:50973 WP No. 15643 of 2023

¶30

20/06/2023 AND 20/06/2023 AT ANNEXURE-N AND P, AND DIRECT THE R3 TO SHIFT THE WASTE DUMPING SHED AND NOT TO RECONSTRUCT THE SAME, WHICH IS SITUATED AT SY. NO. 47/A1, AND SY. NO. 47/A2 IN BADA VILLAGE, KAUP TALUK, UDUPI IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS CONCERNED.

¶31

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

The petitioners are owners of certain properties in Bada village, Kaup Village, Udupi District within the limits of Uchila Grama Panchayat, Udupi District. The petitioners have filed this petition for a writ to the third respondent [ PDO, Uchila Grama Panchayat ] to consider the different representations filed by them to shift the waste dump in Sy.Nos.47/A1 and 47/A2 of Bada Village, Kaup Taluk, Udupi District.

¶35

Sri Sandesh Shetty T., the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:50973 WP No. 15643 of 2023

¶38

Additional Government Advocate for the first, second, fourth to sixth respondents, and the learned colleague Sri Ashok N. Nayak, who is on record for the third respondent, are heard. It is submitted in unison that the properties in Sy.Nos.47/A1 and 47/A2 of Bada Village, Kaup Kaluk, Udupi District are owned by the National Highway Authority of India and these properties are only used as a transitory premises to sort out solid waste and presently, the Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, has issued orders on 27.03.2023 earmarking 25 cents in Sy.No.62 of Bada Village, Kaup Taluk, Udupi District for the purposes of establishing a solid based segregation and disposal unit.

¶39

Sri Sandesh Shetty T. submits that if the present extent is not used and if the extent of 25 cents in Sy.No.62 of Bada Village is in fact used for the purposes of sorting out the solid waste, the petitioners' grievance would be redressed. Sri Rahul

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:50973 WP No. 15643 of 2023

¶42

Cariappa submits that the third respondent could consider the petitioners' representation in the light of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 27.03.2023 and the learned counsel for the third respondent submits that if reasonable time is granted, the third respondent will place it before the Grama Panchayat for appropriate decision. In the light of the afore, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

[A] The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty

¶45

to the petitioners to file with the third respondent a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 27.03.2023 for appropriate decision on using only the property measuring 25 cents in Sy.No.62 of Bada Village, Kaup Taluk, Udupi District for the purpose of establishing a Segregation Unit.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:50973 WP No. 15643 of 2023

¶48

[B] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to file such representation within four [4] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, and if such representation is filed, the third respondent shall communicate the decision on the representation within eight [8] weeks therefor.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶51

SA ct:sr

Sri. Sunil Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sunil Shetty v. the 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

Hotel Paraag Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt. Bindu Ramanan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Smt M Shanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Joy Esther Chandra Vs the Commissioner of Bbmp

Shree Shree Mariswamymutt Hitarakshana and Jeernodhara Samithi Vs the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. Basavaraju Vs State of Karnataka