M/S Maridi Bio Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S MARIDI BIO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY. NOS. 1/37 AND 1/38 KANAKAPURA ROAD 35^TH MILESTONE GABBADI KAVAL VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI KANAKAPURA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY DHARMA VEERA HG

¶13

(BY SRI K.N. PHANINDRA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI RAHUL DEV S. DESHAMUDRE, ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (KSPCB) REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY PARISARA BHAVAN NO. 49, CHURCH STREET BENGALURU - 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 & SRI MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS ALL DATED 11.09.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.2 (KSPCB) VIDE ANNEXURE-Q TO V AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning closure order and other related orders, all dated 11.09.2025, issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [ KSPCB ]. In terms of the closure order, the petitioner was directed to close down its unit located in Survey Nos.1/37 and 1/38, Kanakapura Road, 35^th Milestone, Gabbadi Kaval Village, Harohalli Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District.

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The impugned closure order indicates that the Consent for Operation [ CFO ] granted on 19.08.2017 was, inter alia, subject to the condition that the petitioner would shift the said unit to a suitable designated industrial area within a period of six months from 20.03.2017. The petitioner had failed to comply with the said condition. This is one of the principal reasons for issuance of the closure order.

¶32

Apart from the above, the inspection carried out on 15.10.2024 by the Zonal Senior Environmental Officer and Environmental Officer, Ramanagara had revealed several deficiencies. The same were informed to the petitioner and thereafter, further inspection was carried out on 21.05.2025. The said inspection also revealed that there were certain deficiencies. Since the deficiencies were not cured, KSPCB took the decision to issue the impugned closure order.

¶33

The observations made during the inspection as recorded in the closure order are set out below.

¶34

"1.Biomedical bags collected from different hospital/HCE's/clinics were not labelled properly.

¶35

1. No proper demarcation of designated storage space for bio-medical waste was done.

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

No proper storm water drains/rain water harvesting facility/management has been provided in the industry.

¶39

House-keeping of the ETP area was not good.

¶40

House-keeping of the facility at the back yard is not good.

¶41

No proper segregation of biomedical waste done in the premises.

¶42

Biomedical waste like syringe, apron, gloves etc were thrown behind the incineration area.

¶43

The surface runoff was directly flowing outside the premises of the industry."

¶44

It is apparent that the concerned officials of the KSPCB had

¶45

found that there were non-compliances on the part of the petitioner. In view of the above observations, we are unable to accept that the impugned closure order warrants any interference in these proceedings.

¶46

The present petition was listed on 05.11.2025 and it was contented on behalf of the petitioner that it had taken all remedial steps to cure the deficiencies as observed in the closure notice. It was contended that since the deficiencies had been addressed, the petitioner ought to be permitted to operate its unit. It was also highlighted that since the petitioner's unit handles medical waste, the closure of the said unit would itself result in pollution as there is insufficient capacity to handle the medical waste which is collected

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

from various hospitals. The petitioner also assured that within a period of five months from date, the petitioner would close down its unit and shift the machinery to another unit which is operating but, not at its optimal level.

¶50

In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing for KSPCB submitted that the officials would conduct another inspection and consider the petitioner’s assurance.

¶51

KSPCB has filed a memo indicating that yet another inspection was conducted and it was found that whilst certain deficiencies had been addressed, the petitioner was wanting in complying with respect to other observations.

¶52

The aspects on which the deficiencies were found as noted

¶53

in the joint inspection report dated 07.11.2025 are set out below:

¶54

The unit was not operating at the time of inspection and was closed. They have stopped all the operations of incineration of bio medical waste and also observed that, the BESCOM authorities have disconnected the power supply of the unit on 09.10.2025.

¶55

The efficiency of the common chimney attached to the incinerator could not be ascertained since the unit was not in operation and there was no discharge of emissions to the atmosphere.

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

The bio medical waste which was dumped at the backyard of the unit has not been cleared completely and the area was still filthy and there was no segregation of different categories of bio medical waste. GPS photos were also taken at the time of inspection.

¶60

The bio medical waste /bags collected from different hospitals/HCE's/clinic were not labeled properly and all category of bio medical waste was dumped at the backyard of the unit in an indiscriminate manner and no proper facility has been made by the unit authorities for the collection of leachate which is being generated.

¶61

All these bio medical waste was dumped in an open area without proper shelter protected from sun and rain, which may cause pollution to different domains of the environment viz, soil, sub soil and underground water pollution during rainy season. No proper demarcation of designated storage place for bio medical waste was not done by the unit authorities.

¶62

The storm water management plan has not been properly provided in the premises nor have not submitted any time bound management plan to this office. It was also observed that unit authorities have not taken up any steps for collection of surface run off generated from the industry premises, it was also noticed that the same was flowing outside the industry premises.

¶63

It is contented on behalf of the petitioner that further steps

¶64

were taken after the joint inspection and the issues as raised have been eventually addressed. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed a memo enclosing therewith

¶65

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

photographs which do indicate that some of the issues raised during the joint inspection conducted on 07.11.2025, have since been addressed.

¶68

However, the learned counsel appearing for KSPCB submits that there is one major issue regarding storm water management and the petitioner had not submitted any plan for storm water management. It is also pointed out that in terms of the CFO granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was bound to ensure that the effluent is not mixed with storm water and is properly treated.

¶69

There is no cavil that the petitioner is required to ensure that all the effluents are treated and channelled through the effluent treatment plant [ETP]. The only issue that seems to be raised by the KSPCB is regarding management of the storm water to ensure that the same is not mixed with effluents and no polluted effluent runs off along with the storm water.

¶70

The learned counsel appearing for KSPCB fairly states that a fresh inspection would be conducted after a period of one week and the petitioner may furnish the plan for addressing this issue as well. The said contention commends itself to the Court.

¶71

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45755-DB WP No. 32234 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

We, accordingly, direct KSPCB to conduct an inspection after expiry of one week's time. In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall ensure that all observations are addressed. If the KSPCB is satisfied that the petitioner has taken all measures as are necessary to contain the pollution within the standards, KSPCB shall temporarily suspend the closure order and other related orders which are subject matter of this petition, for a period of five months to enable the petitioner to shift its machinery to another location and permanently close the unit in question.

¶74

The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶75

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶76

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶77

AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12

M/S Maridi Bio Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Maridi Bio Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ibc Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S Tulip Enterprises

Jayalakshmi Industries Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

M/S Attar Fullers Earth Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Adinarayan Reddy Vs Mr Ashwin D H

M/S. Integrated Lighting Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S. Indian Eye Security Pvt. Ltd.

Syed Shabeer Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka