IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020

                       PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

         WRIT PETITION NO.6670 OF 2020 (GM-POL)

BETWEEN:

RAVINDRANATH GE MEDICAL ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED
OPERATING ONE OF ITS UNIT HOSPITALS
- BGS GLOBAL HOSPITALS
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
INDIA OPERATIONS DIVISION
MR. SHRIRAM VIJAYA KUMAR

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SURVEY NO.67
BGS HEALTH AND EDUCATION CITY
UTTARAHALLI ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU - 560 060.                   ...PETITIONER


(BY SRI. NIKHIL K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
       MINISTRY OF FOREST,
       KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
       ROOM NO.442, GATE NO.2,
       M S BUILDING
       BENGALURU - 560 001.
                               2



2.    THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
      LAKE SUB-DIVISION
      ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS,
      MALLESHWARAM
      BENGALURU - 560 003.

3.    THE KARNATAKA STATE AND POLLUTION
      CONTROL BOARD
      REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
      PARISARA BHAWAN, CHURCH STREET
      BENGALURU - 560 001.

4.    THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
      BANGALORE - RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR
      KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
      2ND FLOOR, NISARGA BHAVAN, 7TH D CORSS,
      SHIVANAGAR, RAJAJINAGAR
      BENGALURU - 560 010.            ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 AND R-2
    SMT. SHOBA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 AND R-4)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE INQUIRY IN QUESTION
INITIATED BY THE R-3 REFERRED TO IN THE NOTICE
CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A UPON THE COMPLAINT MADE BY
THE R-2 ALLEGING DISCHARGE OF RAW SEWAGE IN TO THE
MYLASANDRA LAKE BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE
SCHEDULE PROPERTY; QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 2.3.2020
ISSUED BY THE R-3 CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-A HEREIN &
ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
                           ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner, the learned AGA for the first and second respondents and the learned counsel appearing for third and fourth respondents. 3

2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the notice of proposed directions under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as the Rules framed in both the enactments.

3. The grievance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that though the notice may be styled as a show cause notice, there are conclusions already recorded in the said notice. He invited our attention to clause 4 of the said notice. He submitted that though there are no allegations made by anyone that the construction of new STP for hostel buildings is in the buffer zone of the concerned lake, the said finding has been recorded in the impugned notice. He also submitted that the notice directs the Managing Director of BESCOM to issue necessary direction for disconnection of the power supply to the hostel and STP. He submits that a fresh inspection will have to be carried out.

4. From the last paragraph of the impugned notice, it is apparent that it is a show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why a direction to close the 4 operation of the hostel building and STP should not be issued on the ground that the STP is in the buffer zone of Mylasandra lake.

5. As stated in the writ petition, on 17th March 2020 the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply. A very drastic action of closure is proposed to be taken. Therefore, it is necessary for the third and fourth respondents to give opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. At the time of hearing, it will be open for the petitioner to contend that the conclusions recorded in the show cause notice are completely erroneous. We must make it clear that the conclusions recorded in the impugned show cause notice will have to be treated as tentative findings, as Annexure 'A' is a show cause notice and not a final order. Moreover, it will be open for the petitioner to call upon the third respondent to make one more inspection on the site, especially, in the light of the assertion in the show cause notice that the STP of hostel building is in the buffer zone of the said lake. Whether the said structure is within the buffer zone is a matter of physical verification. Therefore, there will not be any prejudice to both the parties, if 5 a fresh inspection is carried out in presence of the representatives of the petitioner for ascertaining whether the STP for hostel building is in the buffer zone of the said lake.

6. Hence, we need not keep the petition pending and in the light of the discussion made above, we dispose of the petition by passing the following:

ORDER

(i) We direct the third respondent to grant opportunity of being personally heard to the representative of the petitioner on the impugned notice at Annexure 'A';

(ii) The observations made in the impugned notice are tentative observations and it will be always open to the petitioner to contend at the time of hearing that the observation regarding the location of the STP is erroneous;

(iii) If a request is made by the petitioner for inspection and survey, as observed earlier, for ascertaining the truth, the third respondent may consider of ordering a fresh survey before final order is passed;

(iv) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, after considering the reply filed by the petitioner and after considering the fresh survey 6 report, if any, appropriate order shall be passed by the third respondent within a period of three months from today;

(v) Needless to add that, the direction issued to the Managing Director, BESCOM to withdraw the electricity supply to the hostel and STP shall not be acted upon till final order is passed;

(vi) If order passed by the third respondent be adverse to the petitioner, the same shall not be acted upon for a period of one week from the date of the service of the said order upon the petitioner;

(vii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on any factual controversy involved in the petition and all issues are kept open to be decided after hearing the petitioner.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkp