Disposed

M/S Siddhasiri Souharda v. Karnataka State Pollution

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2024WP/2769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sugar mill challenged pollution board's prohibition notice and closure order for effluent discharge. Petitioner undertook to stop cane crushing pending fresh proceedings. Court treated the closure order as a show cause notice, directing that its reply be considered after hearing, with CFE-Expansion application to be decided within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-D treated as show cause notice; petitioner at liberty to file reply, to be heard in accordance with law; CFE-Expansion application to be considered within four weeks; no costs.

M/S Siddhasiri Souharda Vs Karnataka State… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:5401-DB WP No. 2769 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR P.S.DINESH KUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 2769 OF 2024 (GM-POL)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

Digitally signed by YASHODHA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

M/S SIDDHASIRI SOUHARDA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT CHINCOLLI TALUKA KALBURGI DISTRICT-585307 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI RAMANAGOUDA B PATIL S/O SRI BASANAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SHRI DALWAI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ”PARISARA BHAVANA” 1 TO 5TH FLOOR NO.49, CHURCH STREET BANGALORE-1 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:5401-DB WP No. 2769 of 2024

¶18

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ZONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.12/2 MANAFDAR LAYOUT M G ROAD SANTRASAWADI KALBURGI-585101 REPRESENTED BY ITS ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER

¶19

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD ZONAL OFFICE, PLOT NO.12/2 MANAFDAR LAYOUT M G ROAD SANTRASAWADI KALBURGI-585101 REPRESENTED BY SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SHRI SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SHRI A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:5401-DB WP No. 2769 of 2024

¶26

ORDER

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated January 18, 2024 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.3 and also the order dated January 25, 2024 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.1.

¶28

Heard Shri Dalwai Venkatesh, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶29

3. Petitioner filed a memo of even date undertaking to stop cane crushing activity. It reads thus:

¶30

“1) It is respectfully submitted that petitioner has questioned impugned orders at annexure-C and D passed by the Respondent No 1 and 3. It is submitted that Consent for Establishment-(CFE)-Expansion for the petitioner industry was submitted on 2-11-2023 to increase the capacity from 3500 TCD to 5000 TCD an establishment of 30MW Co-gen Plant and 423 KLPD Multi Feed distillery and the same pending consideration with Respondent No 1. Further the petitioner has applied for Consent for Operation (CFO) and the same is pending consideration with Respondent No 1.

¶31

2) It is submitted that the Respondent No 1 without considering and granting CFE-Expansion and CFO, closure through the impugned orders will be economically harsh on petitioner and has cascading effects. Hence this Hon'ble High court may be pleased to consider the issuance of necessary direction to Respondents herein.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:5401-DB WP No. 2769 of 2024

¶33

3) In the interregnum, the Respondent No 1 and 3 have passed orders without following rules of natural justice which has adversely affected the petitioner. However the petitioner undertakes to stop cane crushing activity as alleged by Respondents till the Respondents re-issue show cause notice and hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. As the simultaneous measure, the Respondent No 1 needs to consider and grant the CFE-Expansion and CFO at the earliest before any adverse orders are passed.

¶34

Wherefore it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble High court may be pleased to issue necessary direction to the Respondent No 1 to consider and grant CFE-Expansion and CFO in favour of the petitioner and also kindly direct the Respondents to re-issue show cause notices, and hear the petitioner before taking any measure under Section 32(1) C and 33 A of Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1974 and its rules by quashing the impugned orders at Annexure-C and D at the earliest and the petitioner undertakes to stop cane crushing subject to aforesaid directions in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶35

4. Shri Venkatesh, for the petitioner submitted that petitioner

¶36

would be satisfied if the applications filed for ‘Consent for Establishment for Expansion’ and ‘Consent for Operation’ are considered.

¶37

Learned Advocate General for the respondents submitted that the question of considering the application for ‘Consent for Operation’ arises only if the application for ‘Consent for Establishment for Expansion’ is considered. He submitted that the application for ‘Consent for Establishment for Expansion’ shall be

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:5401-DB WP No. 2769 of 2024

¶39

considered within an outer limit of four weeks. His submission is placed on record.

¶40

Petitioner has sought for quashing of Annexures-C and D. Annexure-C is notice dated January 18, 2024 issued under Section 32(1)(C) of the Act¹ prohibiting petitioner from discharging effluents in the interest of public health. In view of the undertaking given by petitioner that no cane crushing activity will be undertaken, consideration of Annexure-C does not arise.

¶41

Annexure-D is the order dated January 25, 2024 directing petitioner to close the operation of industry forthwith. Petitioner’s main grievance is that he was not heard before passing the said order.

¶42

In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to treat Annexure-D as show cause notice granting liberty to the petitioner to file his reply. Reply shall be considered after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶43

Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of .

¶44

1 Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:5401-DB WP No. 2769 of 2024

¶47

In view of disposal of the petition, pending interlocutory

¶48

applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and they stand disposed of.

No costs.

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/JUDGE

BKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48

M/S Siddhasiri Souharda v. Karnataka State Pollution

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Siddhasiri Souharda v. Karnataka State Pollution

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

Siddhartha. S Vs Shri. Basavaraju. Kas

M. K. Kathyayini Vs Sri. Anjum Parwez

Sri Hanumantaraya Vs Dr Prakash G C., IAS

Prof. K C Krishne Gowda Vs Sri. G Jagadeesha I.A.S.

Sri Narasimhegowda Vs Dr Kumar IAS

Sri. B. S. Karthik Vs State of Karnataka