Disposed

Mr. Amit Kumar Pishe v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2026WP/33235/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for an order against two respondents to stop third respondent from operating a unit in violation of zoning regulations. The Court found the prayer satisfied as the Pollution Control Board had already issued a communication directing the unit to stop operations for operating in violation.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to revive in case of genuine difficulty by filing an application.

Mr. Amit Kumar Pishe Vs Bruhath Bengaluru… — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:17856-DB WP No. 33235 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.33235 OF 2024 (GM-POL)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. AMIT KUMAR PISHE, SON OF LATE JAGANATH RAO PISHE, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 366, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR, BENNIGANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 038.

¶12

Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. S. GURU PRASANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONER

¶16

BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, CORPORATION BUILDING, N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BAVANA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17856-DB WP No. 33235 of 2024

¶19

BENGALURU - 560 020, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶20

M/S. BHARANI MIXTURES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, MR. RAJENDRAN, 454, 7TH MAIN ROAD, NGEF LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR, BENNIGANAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 038,

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY MS. RASHI SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R2; RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227

¶24

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 TO ENSURE THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DOES NOT OPERATE THE MANUFACTURING UNIT OR CARRY OR ANY ACTIVITY THAT IS VIOLATIVE OF THE ZONING REGULATIONS AT 457, 7^TH MAIN ROAD NGFT LAYOUT, SADANANDA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 038 AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17856-DB WP No. 33235 of 2024

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and

¶28

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

¶31

Following is the prayer made in the present petition, which

¶32

was highlighted by learned advocate for the petitioner,

¶33

"To direct Respondents No.1 and 2 to ensure that the Respondent No.3 does not operate the manufacturing unitor carry on any activity that is violative of the zoning regulations at 457, 7^th main road NGFT Layout, Sadananda Nagar, Bengalore-560038."

¶34

Today, when the petition comes up for consideration learned advocate Ms. Rashi Singh for learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Chowdhary for respondent-Pollution Control Board tenders memo dated 16.04.2025. Memo is taken record and copy of the same is served to the learned advocate for the petitioner.

¶35

In the memo, the Pollution Control Board has stated as under:

¶36

"The counsel for the Respondent No. 2 most humbly submits that having received complaint from the Petitioner against Respondent No. 3

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17856-DB WP No. 33235 of 2024

¶38

unit and after conducting an inspection, the Respondent No. 2 Board has accordingly issued the communication vide letter dated 12.07.2024 directing the Respondent No. 3 to stop its operation as the unit was operating in violation. A copy of the letter dated 12.07.2024 has been enclosed as Document No. 1 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."

¶39

In view of the above, since the Board has issued communication directing respondent No.2 to stop the operations of the unit, the prayer stands satisfied and nothing survives in the petition.

¶40

The petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶41

In case of genuine difficulty, liberty to revive the petition is granted by filing an application.

¶42

Sd/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶43

Sd/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶44

SMJ

¶45

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Mr. Amit Kumar Pishe v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Amit Kumar Pishe v. Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases