1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014

                          PRESENT

      THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.

      WRIT PETITION NOS.42072-42073/2014(GM-POL)

BETWEEN

M/s Saraswati Industries
No 739/20, 1st Main
3rd Cross, Behind PES School
SRS Road, Peenya
Bangalore-560 058.
Represented by its Partner
Sri M K Raju.                        ... PETITIONER

(By Sri Pradeep Naik K, Adv)

AND

1.     The Secretary
       Forest Environment and
       Ecology Department
       Vidhana Soudha
       Ambedkar Veedi
       Bangalore-560 001.

2.     The Karnataka State
       Pollution Control Board
       Parisara Bhavana
       1st to 5th Floor
       No 49, Church Street
                               2




      Bangalore-560 001
      Represented by its Chairman.

3.    The Managing Director
      BESCOM
      Nrupatunga Road
      K R Circle
      Bangalore-560 001.

4.    The Deputy Commissioner
      Bangalore Urban District
      Kandaya Bhavan
      K G Road
      Bangalore-560 001.

5.    The Assistant Executive Engineer
      BWSSB
      Kaveri Bhavan
      Bangalore-560 001.                 ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri R Devdas, PGA for R1,
 Sri Jeevan J Neeralgi, Adv for R2
 Sri Prashanth T Pandith, Adv for R3 and R5
 R4 served through hand summons- unrepresented)

      These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order
vide Annx-A passed by the R2 dated 12.6.2014 to this W.P.

      These Writ Petitions coming on for preliminary hearing
this day, Chief Justice made the following:


                          ORDER

D.H.WAGHELA, CJ (Oral)

1. Petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 3 12.6.2014 of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board directing the petitioner to close the industry forthwith with further direction to disconnect the power supply and "seize the industry" as also to stop water supply.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court on account of the fact that the appellate authority under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is not available. It was found from the record and not disputed that the impugned order was made pursuant to the complaint dated 16.12.2009 against the petitioner and the inspections held in the year 2010. In spite of such proceedings initiated in the years 2009 and 2010, petitioner appears to have continued operation of their industry, which is admittedly located within the residential area. Petitioner only submitted that they are in the process of shifting their industry to an industrial area after January 15, 2012, even as a 4 mahazar was drawn and hearing was held on 10.8.2011 to shift the industry.

3. Under the circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner only submitted that petitioner require time of two more months for shifting of their industry and in the meantime, petitioner is required to be permitted to operate at its existing location. No ground or legal basis is made out for entertaining such request when admittedly the industry was required to be closed when it failed to comply with the directions issued to them and had violated the provisions of Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

4. Therefore, petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to shift their industry and operate it at the new location after obtaining necessary consents from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. As and when necessary applications are made for consent, they may be considered as early as practicable, for the 5 petitioner to re-start their industry in accordance with law.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkp