1


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

          DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014

                             BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP B BHOSALE

               W.P.NOS.25815-25816/2014 (LB-BMP)

BETWEEN

1.    WELPAC PRODUCTS AND SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED
      A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
      THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956,
      AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
      AT: NO. 31, VENKATA REDDY LAYOUT
      80 FEET ROAD CROSS, KORAMANGALA
      6TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560095
      REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
      MR MAYOOR KURVA

2.    MAYOOR KURVA
      S/O LATE K L KURVA
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
      RESIDING AT 14 B, S J R EASTWOOD
      HARLUR ROAD, OFF SARJAPUR ROAD
      BANGALORE-560102                      ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI ADITYA NARAYAN, ADV.,)

AND

1.    THE BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560001
      REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

2.    THE DEPUTY HEALTH OFFICERQQ
      B T M RANGE
      BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
      BTM RANGE OFFICE, BBMP BUILDING
      16TH MAIN ROAD
      OPPOSITE CHAMUNDESHWARI KALYANA MANTAPA
      BTM 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560076     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI B V MURALIDHAR, ADV.,)
                              2


      THESE W.Ps. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
CLOSURE ORDER DT.2.6.2014, VIDE ANNX-A ISSUED BY R-2 AND
ETC.,

     THESE W.Ps. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B'
GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

PC:

      By consent, heard learned counsel for the parties for

admission of the writ petitions. I have perused the

amendment application and the proposed amendment.


      2.    In the present writ petitions, the petitioners

have impugned the order dated 02.06.2014 issued by the

2nd respondent-The Deputy Health Officer whereby he has

directed the petitioners to close their industry. Petitioners

run a printing press at Venkata Reddy Layout, which is

predominantly a residential area.    They were running the

press after obtaining trade licence under the provisions of

the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. The trade

licence expired on 31.03.2013.       Petitioners, therefore,

applied for its renewal and the renewal application,

according to the petitioners, was kept pending till the

impugned order dated 02.06.2014 was issued.
                                 3


      3.    It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent took

action against the petitioners in view of the show cause

notice dated 11.02.2014, issued by the Karnataka State

Pollution Control Board (for short "the Board").         It would

be relevant to reproduce the text of the show cause notice

which read thus:

             "With reference to above subject, this office
      has received the complaint against the above
      industry engaged in the business of digital printing
      vide ref(1) regarding Smell nuisance and dust
      particles while cutting sun boards used for
      hoardings. In response to the complaint, the DEO
      of this office has inspected the unit on 6.1.2014
      vide ref(2) and submitted a report.
      As per the report, you have established and
      operating the industry in the name & style of
      M/s. Welpac Products and Systems Pvt Ltd,
      No.31, Venkata Reddy Layout, 80 Feet Road,
      Cross, 6th Block, 3rd Cross, Koramangala,
      Bangalore-560095 and engaged in Digital
      printing activity without obtaining consent for
      establishment (CFE) and consent for operation
      (CFO) from the KSPCB under the Water (Prevention
      and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air
      (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
      During inspection the following observations were
      made:
  •   The industry is operating and engaged in the
      Digital printing activity (Printing on Flex/Vinil) and
      due to which there is a smell nuisance to the
      surrounding residence.
  •   The industry is established in a residential area
      even     though    no    industry    is  allowed    to
      establish/operate in the residential area.
  •   The industry is established in a building having
      Ground floor, First floor and Second floor. There
      are Two Large Digital Printing machines which are
                                    4


          installed in the ground floor and Two Small Digital
          Printing machines in the First floor and no activity
          in the Second floor.
     •    The industry has installed 62.5 KVA DG set with
          acoustic enclosures.
     •    During inspection it was informed to the Proprietor
          Sri.Mayoor - to shift the industrial, activity to the
          industrial area to prevent Health hazardous to the
          surrounding residents. In view of the above, you
          are hereby called upon show-cause within 7
          days time as to why this office shall not
          recommend the Board to initiate suitable action as
          per the relevant provisions of the Water & Air Acts.
          The receipt of this 'Show Cause Notice' may be
          acknowledged."

          Copy of the show cause notice was forwarded to 2nd

respondent for information and suitable action, including to

withdraw the trade licence in view of the complaints from

residents in Venkata Reddy Layout. The petitioners replied

to       the   show   cause   notice   vide   their    letters    dated

28.02.2014 and 06.03.2014 (Annexure-K and L).                      This

Court is informed that the show cause notice is yet not

decided by the Board.          Learned counsel for the petitioner

also informs the Court that the petitioners have also

applied for "No Objection" to the Board for running the

printing press vide their application dated 23.05.2014 and

the same is also pending consideration.               In this view of

the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
                               5


impugned order dated 02.06.2014.         It is not in dispute

that the Board has powers to issue a show cause notice,

as issued in the present cases, and even to pass further

orders including the order of closure.    Similarly, it is also

not in dispute that "No Objection" of the Board for running

printing press is necessary. Unfortunately, the petitioners

have not added the Board as respondent in the petitions.

Be that as it may, I do not find any reason to interfere with

the order impugned in the present writ petitions and I am

satisfied that the following order shall meet the ends of

justice:

                            ORDER

i. The Board is requested to decide the show cause notice on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

ii. The Board is further requested to consider and decide the petitioners' application for seeking No Objection.

iii. If the orders passed by the Board on the show cause notice as well as on the application filed by the petitioners for seeking no objection are not adverse to the petitioners, it is open to them to approach the BBMP for issue of trade licence or for renewal of earlier trade licence issued to them.

iv. It is needless to mention that if the orders passed by the Board are adverse to the petitioners, it is always open to them to take appropriate remedy against such orders.

v. It is made clear that this Court has not examined merits of the show cause notice and the petitioners' application for seeking No Objection.

With these observations, the writ petitions are disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE TL