M/S JAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES v. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
WP/29234/2025 · 2025-10-28
C M Poonacha
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40367 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 40367 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42948-DB WP No. 29234 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 29234 OF 2025 (GM-POL) BETWEEN:
M/S JAYALAKSHMI ENTERPRISES PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO. 406 AND 407 KIADB SOMPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA DABASPET, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562123 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX SMT ASHWINI D W/O TEJASWAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD PARISARA BHAVAN, 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR 49, CHURCH STREET, BANGALORE KARNATAKA 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
2. ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER - RO KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD BENGALURU
Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42948-DB WP No. 29234 of 2025
NELAMANGALA - 1ST FLOOR URBAN ECO PARK 100 FEET ROAD, 3RD STAGE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU - 560058 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH CHOWDHARY A, ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER AND QUASH LETTER NO. KSPCB/RO-NIL/EO /DEO/JE/2025-26/450 DATED 14.08.2025 ISSUED BY R-2 IN SO FAR AS IMPOSING CONDITIONS TO ANNEXURE- L AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 14.08.2025, whereby respondent No.2 [Environmental Officer - RO, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board – hereinafter referred to as 'KSPCB'] had directed the petitioner to obtain a fresh agreement with the building owner for processing its request for revoking the closure order. - 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42948-DB WP No. 29234 of 2025
2. The petitioner is engaged in carrying on the business of manufacturing and processing of food products i.e., “Dal Industry”. The petitioner had taken on lease the premises bearing Plot Nos.406 and 407 in Dabaspet Industrial Estate to set up a Dal manufacturing unit in terms of a lease deed dated 08.03.2021. The petitioner claims that it had spent more than Rs.1,00,00,000/- for establishing the machinery to carry on the said business. 3.
Sometime in July 2022, certain disputes arose between the petitioner and the landlord. It is stated that the landlord had terminated the tenancy and also made complaints to various authorities. Pursuant to the same, the electricity connection to the said premises was disconnected. The petitioner challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition No.19251/2022, which was allowed and the BESCOM was directed to restore the electricity supply on the petitioner paying consumption charges. 4. On 16.01.2025, the petitioner instituted a Com.O.S.No.13/2025 seeking the relief of declaration and injunction against the landlord and also secured interim relief in the said suit. - 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42948-DB WP No. 29234 of 2025
5. On 28.03.2025, KSPCB passed a closure order under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 read with Rule 34 of the Karnataka State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (Procedure for Transaction of Business) and the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Rules 1976. The said order indicates that inspection of the unit was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was operating since 2022 without a consent for establishment [CFE] or consent to operate[CTO]. 6. Similar closure order was also passed under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 read with Rule 20(A) of the Karnataka Air (Prevention & Control of pollution) Rules, 1983. 7. The petitioner had challenged the said notices by filing a Writ Petition No.14779/2025. The same was disposed of with a direction to the KSPCB to decide the petitioner's application for revocation of the closure order within a period of six weeks. The petitioner had also filed an application along with the necessary documents seeking consent to establish and to operate. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42948-DB WP No. 29234 of 2025
8.
The petitioner is, essentially, aggrieved by the impugned notice, which has put the petitioner's application on hold for want of an agreement with the building owner. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB submits that a fresh agreement is necessary as the earlier lease deed in respect of the premises has been cancelled. Thus, consent to operate cannot be granted without a document identifying the location of the unit. 10. We do not find any merit in the said contention. There is no cavil as to the location of the unit operated by the petitioner. As noted above, the said unit is operating in plot Nos.406 and 407 of Dabaspet Industrial Estate. We are also unable to appreciate the said contention for the reason that the KSPCB has issued an order for closing the said unit at the said premises. 11. It is evident that there are disputes between the landlord and the petitioner and the same would be examined and adjudicated by an appropriate forum. The KSPCB is not required to examine the controversy in respect of the dispute between the landlord and the tenant. The examination of the case is confined to examining
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42948-DB WP No. 29234 of 2025
whether the unit has complied with the anti-pollution laws and to impose measures for ensuring the same. 12. In view of the above, we direct the KSPCB to process the petitioner's application uninfluenced by the dispute between the petitioner and its landlord, within a period of four weeks from date. The impugned communication which requires the petitioner to obtain a fresh agreement from the owner is, accordingly, set aside. 13. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 14. The pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37