W.P.Nos.26343-26345/2018

                           -1-



   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2018

                        PRESENT

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
         HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT

  WRIT PETITION NOS.26343 TO 26345 OF 2018 (GM-POL)

  BETWEEN:

  MYSORE FRUIT PRODUCTS PVT.LTD.,
  A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
  PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
  HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT
  SY.NO.39-69, VEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
  ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
  BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
  REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS
  DIRECTOR D.A.THEJESWARI.                  .. PETITIONER

  (BY SRI SRINIVASA MURTHY S., ADVOCATE )

  AND:
  1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRIES
     VIKASA SOUDHA,
     BENGALURU-560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

  2. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
     "PARISARA BHAVANA", 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR,
     NO.49, CHURCH STREET,
     BANGALORE-560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY THE MEMBER SECRETARY.

  3. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY,
     NEAR KR CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
     BANGALORE-560 001,
     REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.
                                  W.P.Nos.26343-26345/2018

                        -2-




4. BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWAGE BOARD,
   CAUVERY BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD,
   BANGALORE-560 001,
   REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR.

5. CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
   HEBBAGODI, ANEKAL TALUK,
   BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 099,
   REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.

6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
   BANGALORE URBAN,
   BANGALORE-560 001.

7. THE REGIONAL OFFICER,
   THE REGIONAL OFFICE,
   KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
   SARJAPURA,
   BANGALORE-560 010.             .. RESPONDENTS

 ( BY SRI S.H.PRASHANTH, AGA FOR R-1
   AND SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

      THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS AND PROCEEDINGS
CULMINATING IN THE IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS DATED
16.4.2018, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND ORDER DATED
16.4.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B ISSUED BY R-2 AND
NOTICE DATED 19.4.2018 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-U
ISSUED BY THE R-3 AND TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE
SAME AND DIRECT THE R-2 TO GRANT THE CONSENT FOR
OPERATION UNDER THE WATER AND AIR ACTS PURSUANT
TO APPLICATIONS DATED 16.10.2015 AND 18.6.2018,
PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-G AND R RESPECTIVELY AND
TO DIRECT THE R-1, 5, 6 TO RESTORE THE RAJAKALUVES
SITUATED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S FACTORY
AND ADJOINING LANDS LEADING TO HEBBAGODI LAKE
COMING FROM VEERASANDRA LAKE AS FOUND IN THE
VILLAGE MAPS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-J AND K AND
ENSURE FREE AND UNOBSTRUCTED FLOW OF WATER AND
PREVENT SEEPAGE OF SEWAGE WATER.
     THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                            W.P.Nos.26343-26345/2018

                               -3-



                             ORDER

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length, we are not persuaded to entertain these writ petitions against the order dated 16.09.2018 [Annexure-`A'], issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, essentially for the reason that the order in question is an appealable one under Section 33B (c) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavored to submit that the imputation of causing pollution on the petitioner is not correct and in fact, the entire problem has its genesis in the encroachment over Rajakaluves whereby the drainage water, which was otherwise supposed to be drained out, is entering the industrial premises of the petitioner.

We have only noted these submissions, but would not be making any comment thereupon for the reason that all such submissions could effectively be made for appropriate consideration of the Appellate Authority. Even otherwise, the matter entails such inquiry into the facts, which we do not W.P.Nos.26343-26345/2018 -4- consider appropriate to take up in writ jurisdiction, particularly when an alternative statutory remedy is available.

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

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bk