Disposed

Sri M Yogamurthy v. the Chief Engineer

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2024WP/22921/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged power disconnection due to pollution board order closing his industrial unit. Court noted interim order directed snap, respondents had already restored connection, and unit is now vacant. No further direction issued; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to file memo furnishing inspection report. No further direction to BESCOM Authorities.

Sri M Yogamurthy Vs the Chief Engineer — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:52270 WP No. 22921 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 22921 OF 2024 (GM-KEB)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. M.YOGAMURTHY S/O SRI. M.CHENCHU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45/1, SRI. BALAJI NILAYAM, KHADI LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G.V.SUDHAKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

THE CHIEF ENGINEER, BENGALURU RURAL AREA ZONE, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., NO.1-4/3, 5^TH FLOOR, RAJAJINAGAR IT PARK, RAJAJINAGAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶13

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.), C, (O&M) DIVISION, KANAKAPURA, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., SANGAM ROAD, KANAKAPURA TALUK-562 117.

¶14

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE.), C (O&M) HAROHALLI, SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD., RANGANADODDI, BIDADI ROAD, HAROHALLI VILLAGE, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562 112.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:52270 WP No. 22921 of 2024

¶17

THE CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BHAVAN, 1^ST TO 5^TH FLOOR, NO.49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶18

THE ENVIRONMENT OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BHAVAN, NEAR DC OFFICE, BANGALORE-MYSORE ROAD, RAMANAGARA-562 159.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.V.DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. H.DEVENDRAPPA., ADVOCATE FOR R4 & 5)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Sri.G.V.Sudhakar., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.V.Devaraju., counsel for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.

¶25

2. The short facts are these:

¶26

The petitioner contends that he is the owner of Industrial converted land measuring 03 Acres 02 Guntas in Sy.Nos.46/4, 46/6, 62/6 and 62/8 of Hulugondanahalli Village, Harohalli

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:52270 WP No. 22921 of 2024

¶28

Industrial Area, Kanakapura Tlauk having acquired the same vide sale deed dated 03.06.2014. On 09.05.2019, the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District issued rectified official memorandum for conversion of the aforesaid land for the industrial purpose.

¶29

It is said that the petitioner had let-out an industrial shed measuring 41,650 sq.ft. to M/s.Enviro Recyclean Private Limited who had established a plastic recycling unit. For the non-compliance of provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board issued a Closure Order on 16.07.2024. The same was intimated to the BESCOM Authorities to do the needful in the matter for disconnection of power connection on 24.07.2024. Taking note of the same, the BESCOM Authorities disconnected the power connection to the RR No.HSHT-254. Hence, the petitioner has filed the captioned Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶30

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:52270 WP No. 22921 of 2024

¶33

This Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 had passed an interim order and directed the BESCOM Authorities to restore the power connection to the RR No.HSHT-254, which is admittedly in the name of the petitioner, the owner of the property in question.

¶34

Counsel Sri.H.V.Devaraju., submits that pursuant to the interim order, the BESCOM Authorities have restored the power connection. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

¶35

Counsel for the petitioner acknowledges the submission about the restoration of power supply. Counsel further submits that a memo has been filed furnishing a copy of the Communication dated 09.09.2024 issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, to contend that the Pollution Control Board has inspected the Unit and observed that M/s.Enviro Recyclean Private Limited has been dismantled and cleared all the machineries which were in the industry and now the Unit is completely vacant. Counsel therefore, submits that the memo may be placed on record and an appropriate order may be passed.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:52270 WP No. 22921 of 2024

¶38

The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties and the memo is placed on record.

¶39

A perusal of the Communication dated 09.09.2024 reflects that the Unit was inspected by the officer concerned of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and has reported that the unit authorities have dismantled and cleared all the machineries which were in the industry and it is completely vacant, as of today.

¶40

Because of the closure of the unit i.e., M/s.Enviro Recyclean Private Limited, the petitioner is justified in seeking a Mandamus directing the BESCOM Authorities to restore the power connection. Taking note of the fact that the unit is closed and power connection has been restored to the RR No.HSHT254, there is no need to issue further direction to the BESCOM Authorities.

¶41

6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of .

¶42

Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE

¶43

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Sri M Yogamurthy v. the Chief Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri M Yogamurthy v. the Chief Engineer

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

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd. Vs Smt Anasuya S

M/S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd. Vs Sri Basavarajaiah R

M/ S Astrazeneca Pharma India Ltd. Vs Mr Charles H

The Executive Engineer (Ele) Vs Smt. Gangamma

M/S Tool Tech Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Limited

N. M. Chinnappa Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka