SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(Kar) 317

High Court of Karnataka
D.H. WAGHELA & RAM MOHAN REDDY, JJ.
M/s. Devi Enterprises - Petitioner
Versus
The Environmental Officer Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 44828 of 2013 (GM-POL)
Decided On : 12-03-2015

Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sabarish Gandhi for N. Devaraj, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, Pushpakantha, R2, P. Prasanna Kumar, R3, Prashant T. Pandit, Advocates.

Headnote:ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - Section 5 - AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 21, 22 & 31A: [D.H. Waghela, Chief Justice & Ram Mohan Reddy, JJ] Industry manufacturing injection moulded components - Only when 2 out of 6 extruders working noise level outside was 60 dB - Failure of industry to reply the notice - Not attending personal hearing - Order directing closure of unit and also directing disconnection of electricity, water and cancellation of licence - No steps taken by BESCOM, BWSSB & BBMP - Held, The right of clean environment, peaceful living, unpoluuted air and humane conditions of living are often read as part of the fundamental right to life enshrined in the Constitution under Article 21. The air and noise pollution have not only attained sustained high level, but the plight of residents in the residential areas, patients in the hospitals, children studying for their examinations and all the people compulsorily exposed to high levels of noise and air pollution is simply ignored even by the statutory agencies, by not preventing and controlling such pollution. On the other hand, the other agencies, through which the directions of the Board have to be implemented, have openly displayed callous attitude in discharge of their duties and even attempted to press into service their own rules of procedure and requirements of issuing show-cause notices, while the activity prohibited by the mandatory orders of the Board merrily continues in flagrant violation of law, as it is found to have actually happened in the facts of the present case. Writ Petition dismissed with cost of R.10,000/-. Directions issued to KSPCB to file Criminal complaints against petitioner and Officers of BESCOM, BWSSB and BBMP and report to Court.

Judgment

D.H. Waghela, J.

1. The petitioner is M/s. Devi Enterprises, represented by its proprietrix Smt. Sukadi Devi; and the prayer in the petition is to quash the closure order dated 03.07.2013, which is annexed to the petition as Annexure-D. That impugned order appeals to have been culmination of a complaint received on- 05.02.2013. M/s. Ambe Polymers is described in the impugned order by adding to it : (New Ownership operating in the name of M/s. Devi Enterprises) which was engaged in manufacture, of injection moulded components, without obtaining the consent of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). According to the impugned order, after receipt of the complaint by the Board against the industry regarding noise pollution, a copy thereof was forwarded to the office of the Environmental Officer, KSPCB at Nisarga Bhavan, Bengaluru and inspection of the unit was carried out on 14.02.2013. At the time of inspection, the unit was not working since it had given a holiday to the workers. Thereafter, a show-cause notice was issued on 23.02.2013, which was neither replied nor complied. Then, another complaint dated 12.03.2013 was made and received by the KSPCB on 15.03.2013. The officer of KSPCB again inspected the industry on 25.03.2013 and reported the observations that the industry was operating and engaged in injection moulded components, without valid consent of the Board and at the time of inspection, two extruders were working out of six extruder machines- When the industry was not in operation, the noise level inside the establishment was 49 dB and outside the factory, it was 50 dB. Whereas, while the industry was operating with only two extruders in operation, the noise level outside the factory was upto 60 dB and the inspecting officer has drawn a mahazar on the observations made. In view of non-compliance and the noise level crossing the standards fixed under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, a notice proposing to issue directions was issued on 04.04.2013 and the industry was called for personal hearing on 16.04.2013, but no one for the industry attended the personal hearing. These facts lead the Environmental Officer of KSPCB to believe that the industry was not interested in complying with the directions of the Board, even though sufficient time was granted and the industry was allowed to continue to operate, whereby Sections 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 ("Water Act" for short) were also violated. It was on such basis that the KSPCB issued directions for closure of the industry under Section 33A of the Water Act read with Rule 34 of the Procedure Rules of KSPCB. Thus, by the impugned order, the petitioner, operating under the new name of M/s. Devi Enterprises at No.96/A, Basappa Reddy Compound, Y.V. Annaiah Road, YelachenahalH, J.P. Nagar Post, Bengaluru, was directed to close the industrial operation or process forthwith and until further orders. Simultaneously, the Managing Director, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM) was directed to issue necessary directions to the concerned Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer to stop/cut-off power supply to the said industry "forthwith" and until further orders. The Managing Director of Bengaluru Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB) was also directed to issue necessary directions to the concerned Engineer not to give water supply to the said unit forthwith and until further orders. The Commissioner, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) was directed to withdraw the licence issued to the said unit forthwith and until further orders.

2. Before the petition could be heard on merits, after issuance of notice on 05.11.2013, it was sought to be withdrawn, without inviting any order by learned counsel Mr. Sabarish Gandhi. None of the respondents have cared, in the meantime, to file any affidavit-in-reply or response to the petition. Upon a query being made to learned counsel appear





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top