Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 33 in The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
The Transport of Animals Rules, 1978
Section 31A in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Article 19(1)(g) in The Constitution Of India 1949

advertisement
advertisement

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Karnataka High Court
Shrusti Agro And Cold Storage vs The Chairman on 19 July, 2018
Author: Chief Justice Dixit
                                        W.P.No.103763/2018

                           -1-




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY, 2018

                        PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

          HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

        WRIT PETITION NO. 103763 OF 2018 (GM-POL)

  BETWEEN

  SHRUSTI AGRO & COLD STORAGE,
  PLOT NO.SPL, Q-1, KSSIDC,
  KANBARGI INDUSTRIAL AREA,
  AUTO NAGAR,
  BELAGAVI - 590016,
  REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,
  SHRI. AMOL
  S/O VIDYADHAR MOHANDAS,
  AGE: 34 YEARS,
  OCCUPATION : BUSINESS,
  R/O: PLOT NO:1202, SAHYADRI NAGAR,
  BELAGAVI - 591108.
                                       ... PETITIONER

  (BY SRI. SANTOSH PUJARI, ADVOCATE)

  AND

  1.    THE CHAIRMAN
        KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
        CONTROL BOARD,
        "PARISARA BHAVANA",
        NO.49, CHURCH STREET,
        BENGALURU - 560001.
                                            W.P.No.103763/2018

                          -2-




2.    THE MEMBER SECRETARY
      THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
      CONTROL BOARD,
      "PARISARA BHAVANA",
      NO.49, CHURCH STREET,
      BENGALURU - 560001.

3.    THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER,
      KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
      CONTROL BOARD,
      BELAGAVI DIVISION,
      AUTO NAGAR,
      BELAGAVI - 590015.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE)

                          ---

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2018, BEARING
NO.PCB/203/CMP-18/2018-2019/109     VIDE      ANNEXURE-A
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER TO RESTART
THE   FUNCTIONING OF THE        FACTORY WITHOUT         ANY
DISTURBANCE OR HINDRANCE.


      THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY        KRISHNA S. DIXIT.J.,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                  W.P.No.103763/2018

                               -3-



                              ORDER

In this writ petition, challenge is laid to the order dated 28.05.2018, whereby the 1st respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (hereafter 'KSPCB') has directed the petitioner to close down its industrial operations and further, the Managing Director of HESCOM is instructed to issue necessary direction to the concerned Engineers for withdrawal/disconnection of power supply to petitioner's industry forthwith.

It is the case of the petitioner Firm that it has been carrying on its business relating to meat-trimming, packing and preservation (cold storage) having obtained the Combined Consent Order dated 29.05.2015 issued by the respondent-KSPCB and the Permission dated 22.06.2015 issued by the Directorate of Industries & Commerce, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore.

It is further the case of petitioner that the jurisdictional police has registered Crime No.45/2018 against the petitioner and that the industrial premises were seized by the police inter alia alleging the violation of the provisions of the W.P.No.103763/2018 -4- Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Protection Act, 1964 as also the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. However, the Dharwad Bench of this Court in petitioner's W.P.No.102915/2018 (GM-POL), has directed the police to deliver back the seized premises by the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018.

Thereafter, the respondent-KSPCB, because of undue political influence and after formal exchange of some letters, has issued the Closer Directions dated 28.05.2018 under Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 read with Rule 34 of Karnataka Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Procedure for Transaction of Business) and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1976 and also under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Rule 20 (A) of Karnataka Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner is before this court.

Having heard the Sri.Santosh P Pujary, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Gururaj Joshi, the learned W.P.No.103763/2018 -5- counsel for the respondents, we decline to entertain this writ petition.

The KSPCB Order impugned in this writ petition is appealable under Section 33-B(C) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. This Court in more or less similar factual matrix in W.P.Nos.26243-26245/2018 decided on 02.07.2018, has declined to entertain the challenge on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal.

However, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Shah Nawaz Akhtar and others Vs. 1st ADJ Varanasi and others reported in JT 2002 (8) SC 69, submits that for a writ of certiorari, alternative remedy is not a bar; the rule of non- interference in writ jurisdiction on the ground of availability of alternative remedy is just a self-imposed restriction and therefore, in a case where there is a prima facie violation of principles of natural justice, this Court may not decline the relief to the petitioner since his fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India is violated.

W.P.No.103763/2018 -6- We are not impressed by the above argument of the counsel of the petitioner since apparently, the case involves disputed questions of facts which need adjudication at the hands of the Statutory Tribunal in a regularly constituted appeal. The case does not involve any extraordinary circumstances that warrant indulgence of writ Court even when there is an alternate and equally efficacious remedy provided by the statute is available.

Therefore, without any other comment in the matter, exercise of writ jurisdiction is declined. The petition stands dismissed, while leaving it open for the petitioner in taking recourse to appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE Snb/