- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 12765 OF 2025 (GM-POL) BETWEEN: 1. A.K. VENEERS PVT LTD., PLOT NO. 449, INDUSTRIAL AREA BAIKAMPADY BAIKAMPADY MANGALURU 575011 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, ABDUL KHADER NIYAZ, AGED 53 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KAVERY K.J.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, PARISARA BHAVANA, 1st TO 5TH FLOOR, No.49, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE - MANGALURU, Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 10B, NEAR GAUSIYA MASJID, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA, MANGALURU, KARNATAKA 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 DATED 27.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS AS BEING ERRONEOUS, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) The instant writ petition challenging the demand notice dated 27.03.2025 [Annexure-A] issued by respondent No.2. 2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a company engaged in the manufacture of wood veneers. It is stated that the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short ‘the Board’) had issued consent to operate in favour of the petitioner. It is further stated that during the course of an inspection, certain violations were - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 observed. In response thereto, the petitioner, by communication dated 25.11.2020, informed the Board that requisite compliance measures had been undertaken. 3. Thereafter, the Board issued a show-cause notice dated 23.12.2021, to which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 03.01.2022. Subsequently, a notice proposing closure of the unit was issued by the Board. In response, the petitioner submitted another reply setting out the corrective actions taken. Another show-cause notice dated 15.09.2022 was issued proposing withdrawal of the consent and imposition of a restraining order under Section 32(1)(c) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply thereto, indicating the measures adopted to remedy the alleged violations. It is submitted that no further action was taken by the Board thereafter. 4. However on 05.08.2023, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice proposing the levy of environmental compensation in a sum of Rs.96,87,500/-, purportedly based on the general directions issued by the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No. 307 of 2022. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 5. Learned Advocate Smt. K. J. Kavery, appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned notice has been issued in arbitrary exercise of power and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the demand raised towards environmental compensation has been made without affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit a reply or to be heard in person, thereby rendering the action voilative of the principles of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel further submits that, in a similar circumstance, this Hon’ble Court, in the case of M/s. Sansera Engineering Limited v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others [W.P. No. 5389 of 2020, dated 04.07.2024], while examining an identical factual matrix, held that the failure to provide a personal hearing vitiates the entire proceedings. 7. Learned Advocate Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary appearing for the respondents, sought to justify the issuance of the impugned notice. However, the learned Advocate fairly submits that the directions issued by this Hon’ble Court in M/s. Sansera Engineering Limited (supra) may be made applicable to the present case. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 8. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the principal ground of challenge pertains to the denial of an opportunity to submit a reply and the absence of a personal hearing prior to the issuance of the impugned demand notice. 9. The grounds urged in the present writ petition warrant no further deliberation, inasmuch as this Court has already extensively considered similar contentions in M/s. Sansera Engineering Limited (supra). The present petition, therefore, can be disposed of by issuing directions as issued in the aforesaid case. In M/s. Sansera Engineering Limited, this Court issued the following directions: (i) The respective cases are remitted back to the respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. (ii) In each petition, the Demand Notice which are detailed in the tabular form in paragraph 7 shall be treated as show- cause-notice issued by the State Pollution Control Board. (iii) The petitioner concerned shall be permitted to file its reply which may be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 (iv) The respondent-State Pollution Control Board shall consider the reply and the defence of the respective petitioners. (v) The Board shall give them opportunity of hearing. (vi) The Board shall intimate the date to the petitioner concerned in this regard. (vii) The petitioners shall be entitled to raise all the contentions, both on facts and in law, against the impugned Demand Notices asking for payment of Interim Environmental Compensation. (viii) The respondent-State Pollution Control Board after affording opportunity to the petitioners, as above, shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (ix) The entire exercise shall be completed within a total period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of the order. (x) In order to enable the State Pollution Control Board to undertake the aforesaid exercise of treating the Demand Notices, to be show-cause-notices and giving opportunity to the petitioners of having heard and pass fresh orders, the Demand Notices impugned in each of the respective petitions are hereby set aside." 10. In light of the aforesaid directions, the impugned demand notice shall be treated as a show-cause notice issued by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17924-DB WP No. 12765 of 2025 respondent-Board. Consequently, the directions issued in M/s. Sansera Engineering Limited (supra) shall mutatis mutandis apply and operate in the present case. 11. It is clarified that this Court has not entered upon the merits of the case of the petitioner, nor has it expressed any opinion thereon. All contentions raised by the petitioner before the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board shall be considered by the said authority strictly in accordance with law and on their own merits. 12. Writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above directions. In view of disposal of writ petition, the interlocutory applications if any, stands disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4