Allowed

Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

NGT17 Feb 2026Appeal No. 39/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against SPCB closure order challenging non-compliance in laundry operations including effluent discharge, greenbelt deficits, and hazardous waste record-keeping. Tribunal set aside closure, clarifying some violations were procedural or corrected, and directed compliance steps.

What did the court decide?

Cascade order dated 21.07.2025 set aside. Appellant directed to obtain approval for effluent handover, adhere to limits, and maintain hazardous waste records within 4 weeks from judgment date.

Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited vs Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.6:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Tuesday, the 17^th day of February, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Appeal No.39 of 2025 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF

¶7

M/s. Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited

¶8

Plot No.14-E, Kumbalgodu Industrial Area, 2^nd Stage, KIADB, Bengaluru – 560 074 Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, Mr. M.S. Sugumar.

¶9

…Appellant(s)

¶10

WITH

¶11

Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

¶12

Through its Member Secretary, Parisara Bhavan, 1^st – 5^th Floor, No.49, Church Street, Bengaluru – 560 001. For Appellant (s): Dr. S.B. Nirmalatha. For Respondent(s): Ms. Rashi Singh represented Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary.

¶13

...Respondent(s)

¶14

Judgment Reserved on: 04^th February, 2026.

¶15

CORAM :

¶16

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶17

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member

¶20

1. The above-captioned appeal is challenged to the closure order issued under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, dated 21.07.2025, by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board against the appellant.

¶21

Page 1 of 6

¶22

2. The appellant is Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited, engaged in mechanised institutional and hospital laundry services, with its unit located at Plot 14-E, Kumbalgodu Industrial Area, 2^nd Stage, KIADB, Bengaluru.

¶23

3. The appellant is also issued with a Combined Consent for Operation. During the earlier occasion of renewal, the Karnataka SPCB had issued a communication dated 18.11.2021, pointing out certain alleged contraventions, for which the appellant had replied on 21.12.2021, explaining the factual position and remedial steps undertaken.

¶24

4. Upon consideration, the Karnataka SPCB allowed the continuity of operations and granted a renewal of consent on 04.01.2022. While so, on 28.11.2023, the Karnataka SPCB had called upon the appellant to submit an Environmental Audit Report for the financial year 2022-23 along with details relating to effluent characteristics, hazardous waste handling and environmental management systems. The appellant was also in dialogue with the Karnataka SPCB regarding the format and scope of such an audit. In the meanwhile, on 20.04.2024, a show cause notice was issued, alleging non-compliances, including the inconsistency in Effluent Treatment Plant ( ETP ) operation, tanker movements and lacunae in record maintenance.

¶25

5. A further show cause notice was issued on 18.10.2024, referring to the sampling results, including the treated/tanker-water sample drawn on 07.06.2024. The appellant was also afforded an opportunity for a personal hearing on 16.04.2025, which was rescheduled on 17.04.2025. The State Level Empowered Committee, in its meeting held on 24.06.2025, recommended closure. The appellant had submitted a comprehensive reply on 30.07.2025. The closure order is based on the multiple inspections and sample analysis conducted by the Regional Office of the Karnataka SPCB. It was observed that the effluent was being discharged outside the premises, transported through tankers to unauthorized persons and that the samples did not conform to the standards stipulated in the consent order. In the inspection dated 07.06.2024, conducted by the District Environmental Officer (DEO) observed that the ETP was not in

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

operation and untreated/partially treated wastewater sent outside the premises through the tanker. The industry has also not provided the flow meter or a separate energy meter for the ETP and no ETP operation log book was being maintained. Regarding the violation of the consent conditions, it was found that the treated water was not reused for washing, surplus water was not utilized for gardening and inadequate greenbelt.

¶28

6. In view of the continued complaints, the industry was inspected to verify the latest compliance status and based on the findings, a letter was addressed to the Karnataka SPCB Office requesting immediate closure of the order, which was now under challenge.

¶29

7. Upon notice, the inspection report dated 20.08.2025 was furnished by the Karnataka SPCB, which has furnished the details about the earlier inspections done by the Karnataka SPCB and based on the violations that were found, a closure order was issued. As the unit was engaged in the mechanized laundry activity, serving mainly for hospitals, an interim protection was granted by this Tribunal vide Order dated 04.08.2025, directing them to comply with all the conditions and directions issued by the Karnataka SPCB.

¶30

8. After notice, the Karnataka SPCB also caused an inspection on 19.08.2025 and it was observed that the industry was operating at the time of inspection and had installed 07 washing machines, 01 tunnel washer and 08 driers to carry out the activity of laundry. The ETP was under operation and the industry has provided the flow meter and separate energy meter on 04.08.2025 to record the quantity of effluent treated and the power consumption for the ETP operation, respectively.

¶31

9. However, it was found that there was no adequate greenbelt area available for utilizing the treated water inside the industry premises. The industry was also maintaining the log book to record the ETP operations. It was found that there was increase in the effluent than the consented 18 KLD. So, in view of the above, once again the Karnataka SPCB had reported that the

¶32

Page 3 of 6

¶33

industry had not fully complied with the earlier directions and were operated with the violation of the conditions.

¶34

10. In its rejoinder, the appellant stated that a detailed letter, along with documentary evidence regarding compliance with the directions issued under the closure order, was submitted for the respondent’s consideration.

¶35

11. Thereafter, the Karnataka SPCB had inspected the premises on 29.01.2026. The inspection report states that the industry falls under the ‘Orange Category’ and the consent granted earlier is valid up to 30.09.2031. The authorization issued under the Hazardous and Other Waste Management Rules, 2016, is valid till 30.09.2026. On 29.01.2026, the industry was inspected and it was found that the industry has made an agreement with M/s. Sai Enviro Tech, a Common Sewage Treatment Plant, located in Kumbalgodu for disposal of excess treated washing effluents of about 15-17 KLD to utilize onland for irrigation/gardening.

¶36

12. For the said purpose, it is found that appropriate approval of the Karnataka SPCB was not obtained. The other observation is that the unit may be generating more effluent than the consented effluent generation. However, the above observation is only based on the quantity handed over to M/s. Sai Enviro Tech. It is only a presumption that the unit might have exceeded the limit.

¶37

13. The other aspect that was found is that there is no greenbelt area available within the industry premises for utilizing the treated water. However, the industry is found to have constructed about 900 Sq. Meters of garden area consisting of coarse stone aggregates, sand and at a depth of soil in 2 feet and planted with the Bamboo vulgaris species. The sample of the treated trade effluent after analysis is found to be within the standard prescribed by the Board.

¶38

14. The other violation found was that the industry has not maintained the quantity of hazardous waste generated or submitted the relevant details.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

15. From the above, it is clear that the industry has not obtained prior approval for entering into an agreement with M/s. Sai Enviro Tech, a Common Sewage Treatment Plant; however, this is only a procedural violation and the unit may obtain the approval from the Karnataka SPCB at the earliest. So far as the greenbelt is concerned, the Karnataka SPCB has found that the unit itself has constructed about 900 Sq. Meters of gardening area and planted the bamboo vulgaris species, which is widely planted as an ornamental edge for erosion control and also as windbreaks. As the said bamboo grows vigorously in moist soil and tolerates a wide range of climatic conditions, the unit has planted the abovementioned bamboo vulgaris.

¶41

16. Regarding the excess generation of effluent, the unit must maintain the agreed quantity and ensure that it does not exceed the prescribed limit. The quantity of generation of the hazardous waste has not been maintained and submitted to the Karnataka SPCB, which is found to be a violation. Though the above violations are procedural in nature, it would be appropriate to revoke the closure order. It goes without saying that the industry has to do the activity in strict compliance with the consent conditions, which is valid up to 2031.

¶42

17. In light of the above, the Appellant unit is directed to obtain approval for handing over the treated effluent to M/s. Sai Enviro Tech, a Common Sewage Treatment Plant, at the earliest. The unit is directed to apply for approval from the Karnataka SPCB within a period of two (2) weeks, and the Karnataka SPCB shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders within two (2) weeks thereafter.

¶43

18. As already the unit is found to be exceeding the limit of generating more effluents than the consented quantity, the unit is directed to adhere to the limits and ensure that it does not exceed the same, resulting in violation.

¶44

19. The appellant unit is also directed to maintain the quantity of the generation of hazardous waste and furnish details of the hazardous waste generation and disposal to the Karnataka SPCB’s authorized recyclers and TSDF.

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

20. In the result, the appeal [Appeal No.39 of 2025 (SZ)] is allowed and the impugned closure order dated 21.07.2025 issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board is set aside. The entire exercise of obtaining approval from the Karnataka SPCB has to be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of this judgment.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶49

Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶50

Internet – Yes/No All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶51

Appeal No.39/2025 (SZ)
17 th February, 2026. Mn.

¶52

Page 6 of 6

Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fabrique Laundromat Services Private Limited v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

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

Jadvaji Raviji Vekariya vs 1. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Prakash Vagadiya vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Ajitsinh Bachubhai Parmar vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Surjeet Singh vs the Member Secretary State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Paryavaran Parisar

Rainbow Environments Pvt. Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Santosh Kumar Singh vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

M/S. Locero Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

M/S. Revenza Ceramic vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs the District Collector

V Veerabadiran vs District Collector

Chandra vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Suo Motu Base on the News Item Published Dt 9TH October 2023 in the Hindu Titled Bengaluru Cracker Godown Blast Toll Rises to 14 Three Held vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Reena Varghese vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board

Reena Varghese vs Kerala State Pollution Control Board