1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
          DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2016
                        PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
          THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
        WRIT PETITION NO.33771 OF 2016 (GM-POL)

BETWEEN

M/S. AMBIENT CONTROLS PVT LTD
A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRI ANIL KUMAR, HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT NO.14, BILESHIVALE, DODDAPETE
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
                                          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
   VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001

2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
   DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE
   DIRECTOR OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE
   BANGALORE-560001

3. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
   CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BHAVAN
   NO.49, CHURCH STREET
   BANGALORE-560001
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI H VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R-1 & 2;
 SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
                                  2


   THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE    ORDER/NOTIFICATION     DATED   28.05.2016   AT
ANNEXURE-A AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED IN
CONTRAVENTION TO THE CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT DATED 05.03.2016 AT ANNEXURE-J.

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


                              ORDER

By filing this writ petition, an order passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, dated May 28, 2016, has been impugned.

2. Mr.Gururaj Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3, rightly, points out that the writ petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

3. As the writ petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the appellate forum, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

4. The writ petition is, therefore, rejected.

5. However, this order of rejection will not prevent the writ petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. We express no opinion. 3

6. In view of the rejection of this writ petition, I.A.No.I of 2016 does not survive for consideration and is, also, rejected.

7. We make no order as to costs.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE bkv