IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.47293 OF 2018 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SYED MUSTAFA KAMALA PASHA S/O SYED ISMAIL AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF TAHA HATCHERIES, R/AT BHEEMANAKUPPE VILLAGE, KENGERI-2 HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE - 560 060.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE (through VC)

AND:

Digitally

1. RAMOHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH signed by REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GEETHA P G RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI, Location:

BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER RAMOHALLI, GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RAMOHALLI, KENGERI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 060.

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BESCOM, K-1 KENGERI SUB DIVISION, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 060.

4. THE BRANCH OFFICER UNIT NO.2, K AND P BRANCH, RAMOHALLI, BESCOM, BANGALORE-560 060.

5. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD R/O, 1^ST FLOOR, URBAN ECO PARK

100 FEET ROAD, 3^RD PHASE YESHWANTHPURA SUBURB PHASE 3, PEENYA BANGALORE-560 058.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.M. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & R.2 (through VC);

SRI. H.V. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R.3 & R.4;

SRI. GURU RAGHAVENDRA &

SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATES FOR R.5.)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT/ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 3 DATED 16.08.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE DIRECTION/ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO THE BRANCH OFFICER, UNIT NO.2, K AND P BRANCH, RAMOHALLI, BESCOM, BANGALORE-60 IN NO.SAKAANIEM(vi) K1/S.LE/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; DATED 24.09.2018, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THROUGH PHYSICAL HAERING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. Petitioner is running a poultry farm on an agricultural land without obtaining necessary license from respondent no.5-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. Hence, a recommendation is made by the concerned Panchayat to BESCOM to cut the electricity provided to the poultry farm.

Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

2. In the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been running the poultry farm in accordance with law without causing any nuisance to the neighbours. He submits that inadvertently he did not approach respondent no.5 to obtain the necessary license. He further submits that he has no objection for respondent no.5 to make necessary inspection and take a suitable decision in respect of him running the poultry farm and he will abide by it.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 submits that they will inspect the said poultry farm and appropriate decision will be taken in the matter.

4. Hence, the following:

ORDER

Respondent no.5 shall inspect the poultry farm of the petitioner within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and after hearing the petitioner, it shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Till such time, no precipitative action shall be taken against the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

SD/-

(M.I.ARUN)

JUDGE hkh.

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45