Disposed

K Shankarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026WP/38381/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka treated a closure notice for a poultry farm operating without current permissions as a show cause notice, granting a 15-day reply period and eight weeks for compliance, while restraining respondent authorities from taking precipitative action during that period.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notice treated as show cause notice; 15 days granted for reply; 8 weeks granted to obtain necessary permissions; respondent restrained from precipitative action for 8 weeks.

K Shankarappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21527 WP No. 38381 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 38381 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

K.SHANKARAPPA S/O KEMPANNA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS APPASANDRA VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR BHAT A., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DODDANALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DODDANALA VILLAGE JADAGANAHALLI HOBLI HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:21527 WP No. 38381 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶20

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY IT'S SECRETARY GROUND FLOOR, NISARGA BHAVAN 7^TH D-CROSS, THIMMAIAH ROAD SANEGURUVANAHALLI, SHIVANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 010.

¶21

KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BY IT'S ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE, SHIVANAHALLI SANEGURUVANAHALLI BENGALURU-560 010.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. SPOORTHI V., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BHAKAR GOWDA N.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. A.MAHESH CHOUDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4)

¶24

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE NOTICE BEARING NO.zÉÆ.UÁæ¥ÀA.76/2025-26 DATED 20.11.2025, AS ANNEXURE-Q ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:21527 WP No. 38381 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner is running a poultry farm in Sy.No.48 of Uppasandra Village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk Bengaluru Rural District. Certain residents of the village made a complaint against the said poultry farm alleging that the same is creating pollution and it has resulted in nuisance to the nearby residents. Based on the complaint, respondent nos.3 and 4-The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has issued a notice dated 29.09.2025 to the petitioner directing him to continue with the activities of poultry farm only after obtaining the necessary licence and not otherwise. However, the said notice is not challenged by the petitioner herein. Based upon the said notice and also the complaint lodged by the residents of the village and also based upon the inspection conducted by Lokayukta officers, respondent no.2 has issued a notice dated 20.11.2025 (vide Annexure-Q to the writ petition), wherein, petitioner has been asked to close down his operations. Aggrieved by the said notice, the present writ petition is filed.

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that, though the letter is termed as a notice, no opportunity of hearing has been given to

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21527 WP No. 38381 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

him, and in the said notice it has been ordered that the poultry

¶36

farm be closed. He further submits that, on earlier occasions after obtaining the permission from the Panchayat he has established the poultry farm, and that is improper for the Panchayath to direct him to close it down without affording an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that, he will run the poultry farm only in the manner known to law and not otherwise after obtaining the necessary permissions. He also submit that he will ensure that no nuisance is caused to the nearby residents and the activities on the poultry farm will not be a health or environmental hazard.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent no.2 admits that petitioner was indeed granted permission to run the poultry farm. However, on the complaint of nearby residents and the letter issued by Pollution Control Board and also because of the inspection conducted by Lokayuktha, the impugned notice is issued. He also submits that respondent no.2 has no objection to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereafter and that impugned notice may be treated as a show case notice.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:21527 WP No. 38381 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Petitioner is agreeable for the same.

¶42

Hence, the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The impugned notice dated 20.11.2025 (vide Annexure-Q to the writ petition) issued by respondent no.2 is hereby treated as a show cause notice issued to the petitioner;

¶45

(ii) Petitioner shall cause a reply to the said notice within a period of 15 days from today;

¶46

(iii) If petitioner has not obtained necessary permissions from the concerned authority, he shall do so within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, he shall close down the poultry farm;

¶47

(iv) Respondent no.2 is directed not to take any precipitative action against the petitioner for a period of eight weeks from today and thereafter, considering the reply of the petitioner and the permissions that he might obtain from the relevant authorities,

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:21527 WP No. 38381 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

appropriate action will be initiated by

¶52

respondent no.2 against the petitioner;

¶53

(v) The writ petition stands disposed of

¶54

accordingly.

¶55

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶56

PGG

¶57

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

K Shankarappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Shankarappa v. the State of Karnataka

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

Sri Jayaramu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Vincent D Souza Vs Deputy Commissioner

The Promont Residents Welfare Association Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

A R Ashok Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Suresh Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka