M/S Lakshmipriya Steels Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

M/S LAKSHMIPRIYA STEELS PVT. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MRS K N VASAVI, INDUSTRY AT SY NO 331/B6, 331/B7 OF DANANAYAKANAKERE AND SY No. 61A, 61B OF GOLLARAHALLI HOSPET TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA 583222

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. SADANAND G SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PARISARA BHAVANA, 4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, NO 49, CHRUCH STREET, BENGALURU 560001

¶16

THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER VIJAYANAGAR ZONAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:11817-DB WP No. 35019 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CONTROL BOARD, SRI SAI SHARAN PLAZA, NO 71/A, 2ND FLOOR, DAM ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT, HOSAPETE 583203

¶21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI 585102

¶22

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER GULBARGA ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI 585102

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE CLOSURE ORDER DATED 23.10.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A BEARING No. PCB/SEO/MINES/PH-PRO/2025-26/3004 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No. 1 AND CONSEQUENTLY.

¶26

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

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:11817-DB WP No. 35019 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

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

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

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

¶33

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a closure order dated 23.10.2025 [ impugned order ] issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [ KSPCB ].

¶34

The petitioner submits that it has provided all measures to control the pollution as directed by the KSPCB. The only condition, which is not complied with is the construction of a wind-breaking wall. The petitioner submits that although foundation for the said wall is laid, it could not be constructed as the area where the wall was to be constructed was sub-merged on the account of the excessive rains. The petitioner further states that it is committed to installing the said wall and therefore, its operations not be interdicted.

¶35

The petitioner states that more than hundred persons are employed in the industrial undertaking and closure of the unit would

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11817-DB WP No. 35019 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

render them unemployed apart from causing insurmountable loss to the petitioner.

¶39

The present petition was listed on 08.12.2025, when notice was issued to the KSPCB. The KSPCB had thereafter filed a statement of objections pointing out certain measures for preventing pollution that were not been taken. That at a hearing held on 18.02.2026, Mr.Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB had submitted that a fresh inspection would be conducted and report would be submitted regarding the anti pollution measures that the petitioner has failed to implement. The said statement was made in the context of the controversy arising as the petitioner was claiming that it had taken all measures as directed and the KSPCB was contending to the contrary.

¶40

In conformity with the statement made before this Court, officials of KSPCB conducted an inspection and a report has been filed. The conclusions as recorded in the said report are reproduced below:

¶41

5 -

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:11817-DB WP No. 35019 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Conclusion:

¶45

In view of the above observations, it was noticed that the industry is yet to comply with the followings noncompliances reported in the closure order;

¶46

The belt curtains to restrict the cross flow of air to

¶47

the coal storage shed were not installed.

¶48

The approach road from Highway to the unit is

¶49

not concreted.

¶50

The wind breaking barriers of adequate height

¶51

has not been provided.

¶52

The Green belt around the premises is not

¶53

complied as per the Environmental conditions.

¶54

This is for kind information and further needful action.

¶55

The petitioner has accepted the said conclusions and has filed an affidavit, undertaking that the said deficiencies would be addressed with within an outer limit of eight weeks from date. A copy of the said affidavit has been served to the KSPCB and the same is accepted.

¶56

Considering the undertaking given by the petitioner, we consider it apposite to direct the KSPCB to withhold any coercive measures for a period of eight weeks from date. The electricity supply to the petitioner's undertaking, which has been

¶57

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11817-DB WP No. 35019 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

disconnected shall be restored forthwith. The same would enable

¶60

the petitioner to carry on its operations.

¶61

However, we clarify that if the undertaking as provided is not complied with within the period of eight weeks, the KSPCB shall be at liberty to take such steps as necessary in accordance with law.

¶62

The electricity connection restored in compliance of this order, would be disconnected forthwith on any information of non compliance being furnished by the KSPCB to the distributing company-respondent Nos.3 and 4. On KSPCB being satisfied that all necessary measures, as directed by it have been taken, it shall revoke the impugned order as well as any other closure order.

¶63

This petition stands disposed of.

¶64

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶65

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶66

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶67

ND/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 41

M/S Lakshmipriya Steels Pvt. Ltd., v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Lakshmipriya Steels Pvt. Ltd., v. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

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

M/S Dasharatharameshwara Stone Crusher and M Sand Vs Smt. Subha Kalyan Ias.

Mr Anand Kumar H a Vs Ramesh M K

Smt. Renuka N Vs Smt Yeshoda

Chandrashekar R Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bharathamma Vs State of Karnataka

Kempashanaiah K Vs M/S Hdb Financial Services Ltd.