S IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DAI!ED THIS THE 2ND !.Y OP JUNE 1998 BEFORE : THE H OWBI 4 E MR • JUST TOE TIRA PH 5, THAKTJR WRIT PETITION No.1001/1998. BETWEEN :— Sri ,P,Narayana Reddy, s/o late Papaiah Reddy, Ma3or, Residing st Doddakannahalli village, Carmel Rem Post, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, BANGALORE—560 035. ., ,titioner, C By Sri.M.Shiva Prakash, Adv., ) AND: 1. The State of Karnataka, by its Chief Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, BANGALO! — 560 001. 2. The Secretary, Department of Forest, Echology & Environment, M,S .Building, BAI1GAL0RE—56O 001. 3. The Director, Country & Town Planning Authority, Visweswaraiab Tower, BANGALOEE—560 001. 4, The Secretary, Housing & Urban Development Authority, BANGALORE, 2 A —2— 5. The Chairman, Karnataka State Pollution Control Boaxd, Public Utility Building, BANGALORE. 6. The Speoal Deputy Ccnmiseioner, Bargnlore Urban District, Hudson Circle, BANGAL ORE. 7. The Chairman, Karnataka ElectrIcity Board, Cauvery Bhavan, BANG.ALOThE —56(’ 009. 8. The Secretarjr, Doddakannalli Grama Panchyath, Varthue Hobli, Bangs lore South Taluk. 9. M/s.Indus Textile Limited, No.78/2, Doddakammanahalli village, Sarjapur Road, BANGALORE—560 035. .Respondents. ( By Sri.Basava Prabhu Patil, for R—9; M/s.Vijay Shankar Associes, for R—5; Sri.N.Kumar, for M/s.Kumar & Kumar, for R—7, and Sri.N.K.Ramesh, for H—i, R—4 & R—6 ) This writ petition filed praying to declare thst the act of H—i to R—8 more particularly the act of R—5 pollution Control Board, is illegal for acting in con trary to the rules, regulations under the statutes and to initiate appropriate action against the R—9 for closure of the industrial activities, fsctory aotiV.’iee at Doddakannahalli village and to evict the R—9; etc., This writ petition cing on for orders this day, the Court male the following order , , . 2/— ORDER Although posted only for orders this writ petition has been heard for final disposal with consent. 2. he 9th Respondent—Company M/s.Induetry Textiles Limited has established an Industrial Unit for the manu facture of Cotton xtiie Fabrics at Doddakannafli, on the Sarjapur Road at Bangalore. The petitioner who owns his residential house in the vicinity of the said Unit appears to have filed a cplaint before the Karna— take Pollution Control Board on the 11th of February, 1997, inter alia alleging that the Irustry established by the Company was causing air, waster and environmen tal pollution adversely affecting the inhabitants resi ding in the area. Having evoked no response the peti tioner filed the present writ petition in which his primary grievance was against the alleged inaction of the Pollution Control Board in the matter of king suitable action against the offending unit. A declara tion was also sought to the effect at the setting up of the industrial Unit in a residential area was illegal besides a mandamus to the Pollution Control Board to initiate appropriate action for its closure. A direction \ —4— for disconnection of the electrical supply to the 9th Respondent is one among other incidental reliefs claimed by the Petitioner. 3, Wtzen the writ petition initially came up for orders on 27th of March 1998, this Court issued an interim direction asking the Respondent—Pollution Control Board, to expediate proper action in accor dance with law against the 9th Respondent on the basis of the complaints received by it fr the petitioner and to submit a report to this Court indicating the nature of the action taken within two months from the date of Ihe said order. In compliance with the said direction, Counsel for the Respondent—Board, has sub mitted a brief note on the action taken by the Board against the offending industry. From a perusal of the report it apars that the Board has taken cognizance of the complaint filed by the petitioner, issued a Notice to the 9th Respondent, inspected the unit and granted a personal hearing to the parties on the 8th of September, 1997 and the 30th of September, 1997, The report further indicates that the Industry was directed to furnish proof of having male an application . . .5 V N’ —5— for conversion of land and to complete the construc tion of the affluent treatment plant with a view to minimising the hazards of pollution. The environmental Officer of the Board appears to have thereafter ins pected the industry on the 28th of March 1997 and ob served that the same had continued operating in vio lation of the conditions of the temporary consent gran ted in its favour. The Board had consequently issued a prohibitory order on 4th of November, 1997, u/s. 32(ic) restraining the second Respondent from dis charging the effluents directly or indirectly outside the factory premises. Suffice it to say that the Pollu tion Control Board has monitored the developments from time to time and issued directions depending upon the nature of the violations noticed by it. The Board appears to have eventually fixed a personal bearing for the factory ithorities as also the complainants for the 8th. of May 1998 on which date while the factory authorities were reported to be present, the complai— nant did not turn up to associate hini,lf with the pro ceedings, T he note also states tha 3 Board is fixing an alternative date for personal hearing in the matter before initiating any further action in terms of the . . .6 —6 provisions of the relevant entmente. It is therefore evident that the Board is seized of the matter and is actively considering the propriety of taking appropria te tioa after affoing to the parties an opportunity of being heard in regard to the same. 4. Counsel for the petitioner argued that no notice of the date fixed for personal hearing was ever issued by the Boax to the petitioner and that the Industry had continued its operations depsite the direotions of the Board to provide for effective measures against Pollution. He urged that the Industry continued to make the life of the inhabitants miserab1 1 e by creating noise aid other environmental pollution. He submitted that this court could keep the present proceedings pending and monitor the further developments in the case to ensure that the Board did not sleep over the matter and that effective steps are taken as required by law. I do not however consider it necessary to keep these proceedings pending in this Court, Whether or not the continuance of the Industry in the area is causing any water, or air, Pollution is a matter which the Pollution Controll Board is presently examing’ If the Board ccnee to the conclusion that the Industry has ...7 4 —7— been established illegally or at it has failed to abide by the nos prescribed for control of pollution, it j expected to take suitable action, in accordance with the provisions of the law, which confers suffi ciently wide powers for effecting any such directions. It would therefore be unnecessary for this Court to express any opinion on any one of those aspects, Since the remedy provided by law md the mhinery envisaged thereunder is effective I see no reason ‘why this Court should clutch at the jurisdiction of the expert body unlesd it becomes absolutely to do so or unless the body concerned is shown to have fallen in some palpa— lable error. Such as situation does not exist at present. he report submitted does sufficiently demonstrate the keenness of the Pollution Control Board to take effec tive steps in the matter. The apprehensioJexpressed / by the petitioner that the Board may sleep over the matter can in my opinion be sufficiently alljed in case I direct that the process of verification id evaluation or the unit frcn the point of view of taking suitable action against it, if any such action is other wise warranted shall be finalised within a period of —8- three months from today. 5, In the result I partly allow this writ petition and direct the 5th Respondent—Board to take the procee dings initiated by it, on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner to their logical conclusion in accordance with the procedure established by law and to pass effective orders on the same within a period of three months from today. Since the Board has not yet fixed a fresh d ate for grant of a personal hearing to the p&’ties I direct that 1ie said aring shall be granted to both te parties on the 16th of June, 1998 at 10.30 a,m, The parties are directed to appear bore the Chairman of the Respondent—Board on the said date and time. 6. No costs. Sd! 3UDGE AL