- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5671-DB WP No. 32522 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.32522 OF 2024 (GM-POL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI P. SUHAS MAIYA S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANA MAIYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS HOUSE NO.1.242 HEGGADTHIMAKKI ROAD PRAMPALLI VILLAGE SALIGRAMA POST- 576 225 BRAHMAVARA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVANA #49, SHANTHALA NAGARA CHURCH STREET, ASHOK NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DISTRICT POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5671-DB WP No. 32522 of 2024 RAJATHADRI UDUPI-576 104. 3. THE SALIGRAMA TOWN PANCHAYAT SALIGRAMA-576 225 UDUPI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OFFICER. 4. THE GRAM PANCHAYATH SALIGRAMA SALIGRAMA POST-576 225 REPRESENTED BY ITS PDO UDUPI DISTRICT. 5. SRI AYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O MANJUNATHA HOUSE NO.3-150, KARKADA VILLAGE SALIGRAM POST-576 225 UDUPI TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS.KRISHIKA G.VAISHNAV FOR SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDARY, ADVOCATE FOR R.1 & R.2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 2 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR DISCHARGE OF POLLUTED WATER GENERATED FROM THE HOTEL OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT INTO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER, EITHER BY WITHDRAWING THE CONSENT GIVEN FOR OPERATION OR DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.5 TO CLOSE THE OPERATION OF THE HOTEL BY NAME AND STYLE GANESH OPERATED AT PARAMPALLI VILLAGE, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5671-DB WP No. 32522 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Kiran Shetty for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Krishika G.Vaishnav for learned advocate Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdary who appears in course of the hearing to represent respondent Nos.1 and 2-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and the District Pollution Control Board respectively. 2. The prayer advanced in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is to direct respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take steps against respondent No.5 for discharge of polluted water which is generated from the hotel run by respondent No.5. The petitioner wants that action in law should be taken against respondent No.5 under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5671-DB WP No. 32522 of 2024 Pollution) Act, 1974 for discharge of effluents. The petitioner also wants respondent No.3-the Saligrama Town Pachayat to cancel the trade licence of respondent No.5. 3. The case in the background as pleaded in the petition is that the petitioner happens to be the owner of Sy.No.40-35 admeasuring 34.5 cents which is a land converted for commercial purpose. The petitioner executed lease agreement in favour of respondent No.5 which is a lease for 20 years commencing from 16.11.2017 to 15.11.2037. The possession of the property is with respondent No.5 in capacity of lessee where he has been running a hotel. 3.1 The allegations are made by the petitioner-landlord that the tenant is discharging the filthy and waste water directly to the property of the petitioner and thus causes stagnation of waste polluted water in the private areas which results into foul smell and further results in embarrassment and inconvenience to the general public including the petitioner. 3.2 The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5 are that of lessor and lessee. Respondent No.5 has been running - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5671-DB WP No. 32522 of 2024 the hotel in such capacity on the land of the petitioner. The dispute is sought to be agitated in writ jurisdiction, though differently, since it prima facie appears to be a dispute between the landlord and tenant. 4. The court, therefore, is not inclined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to approach the Pollution Control Board, if advised. In such eventuality, the Pollution Control Board shall act in accordance with law. 5. Subject to the above limited observation, the petition is thoroughly meritless and it is summarily dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3