1
    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
         DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2013
                        PRESENT
       THE HON'BLE MR.D.H.WAGHELA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                          AND
        THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
       WRIT PETITION No.12094/2013(GM-POL)

BETWEEN :

1.M/S.VIOM NETWORKS LTD
FORMERLY M/S QUIPPO TELECOM
INFRASTRUCTURE LTD,
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE COMPANIES ACT,1956 AND
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
RMZ GATEWAY, NO. 63/3,
EJIPURA, 100 FEET ROAD,
SRINIVAGILU, KORAMANGALA 4TH BLOCK,
BANGALORE- 560095
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR GAUTHAM                        ... PETITIONER

           (BY SRI B.N.JAYADEVA, ADV.)
AND:

1.KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
PARISARA BHAVAN
NO. 49, CHURCH STREET
BANGALORE- 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MEMBER SECRTARY                      ... RESPONDENT

                (BY SRI D.NAGARAJ, ADV.)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT    THE   RESPONDENT     TO   CONSIDER     THE
REPRESENTATION DT.1.3.2013 AT ANNX-C MADE BY THE
PETITIONER AND GRANT A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY
OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AND
QUASH THE CLOSURE DIRECTION DT.1.2.2013 AT ANNX-A.
                                2

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

                            ORDER

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

1. Sri D.Nagaraj, Adv. appears for respondent-Pollution Control Board. .

2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 01.02.2013 of the respondent whereby, the consent for operation of D.G Set has been revoked upon failure of the petitioner even to reply to the notice or to comply with the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Consequently, the Electricity Supply Company has also been directed to disconnect electricity supply to the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that by now the D.G Set which was the cause for complaint has been removed by the petitioner. Therefore, his consent and electricity supply is required to be restored by setting aside the order dated 01.02.2013.

3. Clearly, it is for the respondent to enquire and examine afresh the case of the petitioner and issue necessary direction, particularly, when the electricity supply company is not even a respondent in the present petition. Under the circumstances, 3 the petitioner is permitted to make an application for appropriate orders by the respondent and the contents thereof are required to be examined by the respondent for appropriate orders.

4. Learned counsel submitted that, their applications and representations dated 07.02.2013 and 01.03.2013 are already pending with the respondent. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed with a direction that respondent shall consider the representation/application of the petitioner within a period of two weeks and the decision taken thereon shall be communicated in writing to the petitioner immediately.

5. With these directions, the petition stands disposed and the interim application is dismissed as it does not survive for consideration.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-

JUDGE Sk/-