- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 14448 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: KRISHNA GARDENIA RESIDENTS WELFARE ASSOCIATION REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT 1960, SY.NO.26/1, 5TH MAIN, BCMC LAYOUT, RAGHUVANAHALLI, KANAKAPURA MAIN RAOD, BANGALORE - 560 062. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT PAVAN KUMAR KALYANI …PETITIONER (BY MR. KANTARAJ TAVANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN, NO.49, CHURCH ST, BENGALURU – 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, 2. M/S V.K DEVELOPERS HAVING ITS REGISTERED PROPRIETARY CONCERN OFFICE AT NO.34, VSK PLAZA, 2nd FLOOR, JOURNAL COLONY, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 002. ALSO AT NO. 417, 18TH MAIN, 4th T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 041. Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT. V.P PUSHPA 3. SENIOR ENVIRONMENT OFFICER – RAMANAGAR OFFICE OF THE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ZONAL OFFICER – RAMANAGAR, PARISARA BHAVANA, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR D.C. OFFICE, BANGALORE – MYSORE ROAD, RAMANAGARA – 562 159. (R3-IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 19.12.2024) …RESPONDENTS (BY MR. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; Ms. JASLEEN KAUR FOR MR. V SANJAY KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R1 TO MONITOR THE MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES OF THE STP BY THE R2 IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO R1 TO MADATE A FORMAL HANDING OVER PROCESS OF STP FROM THE R2 TO THE PETITIONER AFTER A FORMAL THIRD PARTY AUDIT AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO DIRECT THE R1 TO MONITOR THE MODIFICATION ACTIVITIES OF STP INSTALLED BY THE R2 AND ALSO AVOID OVER-LOADING OF THE SAME. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. V KAMESWAR RAO, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner- Krishna Gardenia Residents Welfare Association (in short, ‘Association’) with the following prayers:- a) Issue Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 to monitor the modification activities of the STP by the Respondent No.2 in accordance with law. b) Issue suitable writ/directions to Respondent No.1 to mandate a formal handing over procession of STP from the Respondent No.2 to the petitioner after a formal third-party audit. c) Issue any other writ order or direction as Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. In effect, the prayers sought are primarily in the background that the Respondent No.2, who was the Builder/Promoter of the Apartment Complex-Krishna Gardenia, had put-up a STP in the Apartment Complex. On the flats having been handed-over to the members of the petitioner- Association, the Association had taken-over maintenance of the common facilities in the complex. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 3. The case of the petitioner-Association as contended by its counsel is that, the petitioner-Association had not taken- over the STP as it is the case of the petitioner-Association that the STP was not working properly, resulting in generation of lot of pollution including bad smell, as the water filled remained untreated and Solid Waste was generating worms and mosquitoes. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner- Association, it is the responsibility of the Respondent No.1 to ensure monitoring of STP by the Respondent No.2- Promoter/Builder. In other words, the petitioner-Association has nothing to do with the working of the STP. 5. The counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that, the Flats having been handed-over and the petitioner- Association having been formed it is the responsibility of the Petitioner-Association, in collaboration with the individual residents of the Apartment-Complex, to maintain the STP, and as such, the liability of any nature cannot be fastened on the Respondent No.2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 6. On the other hand, the counsel for the Respondent No.1 states that the Respondent No.1, being the Regulatory Authority in respect of the Pollution, its obligation is to ensure that the water is not polluted and the standards as laid down by the Respondent No.1 in running the STP, are maintained. He also states, upon inspection, it has been found that the STP is not working properly and it is generating polluted water. Various communications including the notice under Section 33-A of the Water Act have been issued to the Association. The liability determined by the Respondent No.1 has to be honoured. 7. An issue has arisen, whether any liability that may arise because of the pollution generated by the STP, has to be fastened on the Association or Respondent No.2-Builder, who had actually installed the STP. 8. There is no dispute to the fact that, the petitioner- Association having been formed in the year 2021, had to take- over the common facilities in the Apartment-Complex. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner-Association is that, the Association has not taken-over the possession of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 the STP knowing well that, the STP is not functioning properly. So, the issue is in narrow compass. If the STP was mal- functioning before July 2021, when the Association was formed and taken-over the common facilities, then we are of the view that the obligation to maintain the STP was on the Respondent No.2 and if it is otherwise, the liability shall be on the Association on a prima facie view. In fact, during the course of submissions our attention has been drawn to the affidavit submitted by the petitioner, where, in Paragraph No.4, it is stated as under: - “4. I state that the petitioner had previously submitted a complaint to the proposed Respondent on 8th March 2022 regarding the dysfunctional Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) in the project. The said STP is currently being maintained by Respondent No.2, who is the Promoter of the Project.” 9. So, it transpires that, even in March 2022, the Respondent No.2-Promotor had carried-out certain modifications to the STP. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24611-DB WP No. 14448 of 2022 10. In the given facts noted from the record, this Court is of the view that, these are all the disputed questions of facts need to be agitated before a Civil Court and not before the Writ Court. Appropriate shall be, the petitioner-Association shall be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy before a Civil Court for the prayers, as made by the Petitioner-Association, in this writ petition. 11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is closed. Sd/- (V KAMESWAR RAO) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KGR* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37