1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
                AT GULBARGA

       DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY, 2012

                     BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.N.NAGAMOHAN DAS

             WP No.83597/2011(LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

M/S KAILASH TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD
KAPNOOR INDUSTRIAL AREA, GULBARGA
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR
CHANDRAKANTH B.PATIL.
                              ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR MALIPATIL, ADV.)

AND:

1. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD, I FLOOR, GULBARGA
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BUILDING
STATION ROAD, GULBARGA
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICER

2. M/S NEW PANJA MURMURA INDUSTRIES
PLOT NO.23P, I PHASE KAPNOOR
INDUSTRIAL AREA, GULBARGA.
                             ..RESPONDENTS
                                  2




(BY SRI GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, ADV.FOR R1
SRI A.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV. FOR R2)

     THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NO.1 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

     THIS  WRIT   PETITION    COMING     ON   FOR
PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The second respondent is a industry engaged in manufacture of puffed rice situated at Kapnoor industrial area. Since the activity of second respondent is causing pollution the petitioner gave a complaint to the first respondent -Pollution Control Board. Acting on the complaint of petitioner the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the second respondent on 24.8.2010 as per Annexure-B. Since the first respondent has not taken further action in the matter, the petitioner is before this court for a writ of mandamus.

2. Learned counsel for the second respondent brought to my notice that subsequently on 25.09.2011, the first respondent has withdrawn the consent to run the activity by the second respondent. Aggrieved by this withdrawal of the consent, the second respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Water and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 1981 in Appeal No.30/2011. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 24.1.2012 allowed the appeal filed by the second respondent and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. After remand no further action is taken. In the circumstances, the first respondent is hereby directed to comply the order of the appellate authority dated 24.1.2012 in Appeal No.30/2011 in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE DKB*