ORDER

Heard learned Advocate Mr.Rupesh Kumar for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate Mr.S.S.Mahendra for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State of Karnataka and its authorities and learned Advocate Mr. Mahesh A Chowdhary for respondent No.4 - the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, upon service of copy of the petition in advance.

2. Preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, what is prayed in this writ petition is to direct respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 to lift the seizure of the factory premises of the petitioner, to break open the lock and to hand over the possession of the property. It is alternative prayed to permit the petitioner to open the lock and enter into the property in question with police help.

2.1 In the third place, to quash the notice dated 25.01.2024 issued by the Pollution Control Board that is respondent No.4. Next prayed is to quash endorsement dated 18.01.2023 issued by the third respondent – Town Municipality Hootagalli, Mysuru. Lastly, it is prayed to direct the third respondent to issue the license and allow the petitioner to carry on the activity.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he has been running an automobile garage in the name of ‘Custom Autoworks’, the licence for which was renewed from time to time by the erstwhile Hinkal Grama Panchayath, Mysuru District.

3.1 It is stated that one Mr.M.K.Dharmendra, late husband of present complainant who happens to be the neighbor, upon his complaint, Hinkal Grama Panchayath refused to renew the licence of the petitioner’s garage for the reason that smoke was being emitted from the workshop of the petitioner and there was violation of the provisions of Sections 67, 68 and 69 of the Karnataka Panchayt Raj Act, 1993. It is also stated that the said Mr.M.K.Dharmendra also instituted Suit No.512 of 2016 seeking relief of injunction before the civil court, now renumbered as Original Suit No.1517 of 2016 is transferred to competent court.

3.2 It further appears that earlier notice of closure was issued to the petitioner by the Hinkal Grama Panchayath on 07.09.2018. The said Grama Panchayath has now merged with Hootagalli Town Municipality.

3.3 The said Mr.M.K.Dharmendra has lodged false complaint before the authorities which has resulted into closure of the unit of the petitioner as ordered by respondent Nos.3 and 4 - authorities who required to shut down the operations.

3.4 It is in light of the aforesaid premise of facts that the prayer in the writ petition is advanced to direct respondent Nos.3 and 4 to lift the sealing of the unit and permit the petitioner to enter and run the unit.

4. The facts available from the records indicate that the petitioner has been facing notices from different competent authorities regarding violation of various statutory provisions. On 21.12.2023, Hootagalli Town Municipality has issued notice under the Town Municipality Act 1964, alleging violation of provisions of the said Act. Two other notices dated 03.01.2023 and 08.01.2024 were also issued by the municipality in respect of the breach allegedly committed by the petitioner under the same Act. The petitioner has also been facing allegations about the violations of provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

5. When the petitioner is required to answer the allegations about violation of different statutory provisions as above and has been facing the notices for non-compliance of the statutory requirements under the Town Municipality Act, 1964 as well as under the pollution laws, the petitioner cannot claim any right to seek the prayer to permit him to start the unit in absence of statutory compliance by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the competent authorities in that regard. The petitioner cannot be permitted to run the unit.

5.1 Respondent No.4 – Karnataka State Pollution Control Board has already issued closure notice to the petitioner on 25.01.2024 and furth