-1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
        DATED THIS THE 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014
                         PRESENT
        THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK B HINCHIGERI
                WP No.14520/2014(GM-MMS)
BETWEEN

SRI.C.V.MATHEW KUTTY S/O C.M.VARKEY
AGE:65 YEARS,
R/O SHIVAPURA VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT
                                            ... PETITIONER
(By Sri. R.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR
Sri. ANANDA SHETTY A, ADV.,)

AND

1.     THE INCHARGE
       MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPRTMENT,
       REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
       SANTHEKATTE-576105
       TALUK:UDUPI, DISTRICT:UDUPI

2.     THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
       MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
       MANGALORE-575001

3.     THE DIRECTOR
       MINES & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
       BANGLAORE-560001

4.     THE KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
       REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY
       NO.36, SHIVAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       MANIPAL-576104
                             -2-


5.   THE KARNATAKA POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
     BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY,
     PLOT NO. 1 TO 5, NO.45, CHURCH STREET,
     BANGALORE-560001.

6.   THE DEPUTY CHIEF CONTROLLER OF EXPLOSIVES
     MANGALORE-575001

7.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     UDUPI DISTRICT
     UDUPI-576100

8.   THE TAHSILDAR
     KARKALA TALUK,
     KARKALA-575104

9.   SRI.ASHOK HEGDE S/O K.H.HEGDE
     AGE:50 YEARS, R/O 'ASHIRWAD'
     SHIVAPURA VILLAGE & POST,
     KARKALA TALUK-576112
     UDUPI DISTRICT                        ... RESPONDENTS

(By Sri.D.NAGARAJ, AGA FOR R.1 TO 3, 7,8
Sri.R.RAMACHANDRAN, ADV. FOR R.5
Sri.JAYAKUMAR S.PATIL, SR.ADV. FOR
SRI.K.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR R.9
R.4 AND 6 SERVED)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-1 TO
CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS AS WELL AS THE REMINDERS
FILED BY HIM FOR TAKING ACTION AGAINST THE QUARRYING AS
WELL AS THE CRUSHING OF THE JELLY IN SY.NO.216 OF
SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT
PURSUANT TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.06.2012 VIDE
ANNEXURE-C & FOLLOWED BY REMINDERS DATED 11.09.2012 AS
PER ANNEXURE-D & DATED 11.09.2012 AS PER ANNEXURE-D &
DATED 14.08.2013 AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                -3-


                              ORDER

D.H.WAGHELA, C.J. (Oral) :

1. The petitioner has invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to consider representations as well as reminders filed by him for taking action against the quarrying as well as crushing of jelly in Sy.No.216 of Shivapura Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District.

2. Upon notice being issued, the respondents concerned have filed their statements of objections and respondent No.9, against whom serious allegations are made, has stated on oath that the petitioner has suppressed several true facts regarding agreement of sale, dated 28.05.2011 with respondent No.9 in respect of several parcels of land including Sy.No.216/2. It is also alleged that after payment of substantial sale consideration, respondent No.9 has initiated litigation in the form of OS No.59/2012 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Karkala, for specific performance, which suit is pending. It is further stated that the schedule property referred in the writ petition i.e., -4- Sy.No.216 is government land and there is no quarrying activity thereat either by respondent No.9 or any other person, as contended.

3. Thus in short, the petition raises not only questions of disputed facts but appears to be suppressing certain material facts and under such circumstances, the petition is not required to be entertained. However, in view of the allegations made about damage to trees and plantation on account of alleged industrial activity of stone crushing, etc., by respondent No.9, the petitioner is permitted to make appropriate application with all the necessary details to the local office of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, even as one complaint already appears to have been made as early as in August 2013. It is stated on behalf of the State Pollution Control Board, respondent No.5, that upon a proper complaint being received with all the relevant and essential facts, action will be taken in accordance with law in respect of violation, if any, of the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Upon that -5- statement being made and recorded, the petition does not survive for any further consideration and accordingly it is disposed as dismissed, with no order as to cost.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE mv