IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 35361 OF 2025 (GM-POL)

BETWEEN:

1. CHETTYARDTH MOHAMMED NAZEER

S/O KAHIM

AGED 57 YEARS

FLAT NO. 503, RAJMAHAL APARTMENT

M.G. ROAD, LALBAGH

MANGALURU, D K. DISTRICT - 575 003

PROPREITOR

M/S SHAAN ENTERPRISES

HAVING ITS OFFICE AT M.G. ROAD

LALBAGH, MANGALURU D.K. DISTRICT - 575 003

Digitally …PETITIONER

signed by

VEERENDRA (BY SRI NAVEEN KUMAR M.G., ADVOCATE)

KUMAR K M

Location: AND:

High Court of

Karnataka

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ECOLOGY

AND ENVIRONMENT

VIKAS SOUDHA

BANGALURU - 560 001.

2. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARISARA BHAVANA, BENGALURU 560 001.

3. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA, 10B BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANGALURU 575 011.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1;

SRI. A.MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DATED 03.09.2025, NO.PCB/SEO-ENF-CMP/ CLOSURE ORDER-WPC/2025-26/203 AND CLOSURE ORDER - APC/2025-26/204 ISSUED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Issue notice. Ms.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. Mr.A.Mahesh Chowdhary, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning a closure order dated 03.09.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [KSPCB]. The petitioner states that it is in the business of construction of civil engineering projects and had set up a hot mixing plant on the land located in Survey No.98/10 at Tenka Yekkar Village, Mangalore Taluk. The petitioner claims that he had also put up the plant and machineries which were equipped with adequate air pollution control devices as per the prescribed standards and the applicable rules.

3. It is stated that certain local villagers who had personal animosity towards the petitioner had lodged complaints with KSPCB alleging that the petitioner's plant is generating pollution. They alleged that it emits smoke as well as smell. The petitioner alleges that without conducting a proper site inspection or giving an opportunity of personal hearing, KSPCB has mechanically issued the impugned closure order.

4. A plain reading of the impugned closure order indicates that it has been issued inter alia for the reason that the petitioner had neither obtained the consent for establishment [CFE] or consent to operate [CTO].

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that although the petitioner's unit is fully compliant with the relevant laws, the petitioner had inadvertently not obtained the CTO. He also states that the petitioner took immediate steps to apply for the CTO but its application has not been considered on account of the impugned closure order.

6. There is no cavil that the petitioner cannot operate a unit which falls in orange category, without obtaining the CTO. As noted above the petitioner also claims that he has filed an application for obtaining the CTO. Since the impugned closure order is premised on the basis that the petitioner's unit is operating contrary to law inasmuch as the petitioner had not obtained the CTO, we find that the petitioner's challenge to the same must fail.

7. Having stated the above, we direct that if the petitioner has filed an application for obtaining CTO, KSPCB shall, on an urgent basis, conduct an inspection and pr