-1-


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
            DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2014
                           PRESENT
        THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                             AND
             THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH
                 WP No.46358/2012 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN

DR. SATHISH RAJASHEKARAYYA ILALMATH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O NISARGA AGRO FORMS NH 63,
KOPPAL TALUK AND DISTRICT.
                                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. M H SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.     THE MEMBER SECRETARY
       THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
       PARISAR BHAVAN,
       4TH & 5TH FLOOR, CHURCH STREET,
       BENGALURU-560 001.

2.     ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER
       REGIONAL OFFICE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION,
       CONTROL BOARD NO.9.6,621,
       SHARMA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, HOSPET ROAD,
       KOPPAL-583 231.

3.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       VANYA STEELS PVT. LTD.
       HEREBAGANAL VILLAGE
       KOPPAL TALUK & DISTRICT-583 231
                                         ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.JEEVAN J NEERALAGI, ADV FOR R-1 & R-2;
SRI.VISHWANATH R HEGDE, ADV FOR R-3)
                              -2-


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R1
POLLUTION BOARD TO ACT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE
PROCEEDINGS IN AN ENQUIRY HELD BY R2 REGIONAL OFFICER IN
HIS ORDER DATED 08.03.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C BY VIRTUE OF
DIRECTION IN WP NO.60404/2009 DATED 02.08.2010 AND ETC.,

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

                           ORDER

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

1. Pursuant to the order dated 24.03.2014, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed with a memo, the documents related to analysis reports of the ambient air quality in and around the area in question for the purpose of determining whether respondent No.3 is consistently releasing pollutants beyond the permissible limit and whether respondent No.2 is required to take any preventive and regulatory measures.

2. Upon a copy of the memo being supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that according to the reports about ambient air quality, the norms prescribed by the Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, do not appear to have been crossed by respondent No.3 during the period of observation and taking -3- of samples. He, therefore, submitted that in case there is persistent pollution in the subsequent period and any damage on that account and if the petitioner still insists that air pollution continues on account of working of the industry of respondent No.3, the petitioner will collect necessary material and data having evidentiary value for the purpose of making a complaint before the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. He further submitted that in case of such complaint not being acted upon by the State Pollution Control Board in a legal and effective manner, the right of the petitioner or such other affected persons may be reserved to approach this Court.

3. The petition is disposed accordingly as withdrawn, with liberty as aforesaid, with no order as to cost.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE mv