- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT PETITION NO. 35258 OF 2024 (GM-POL) BETWEEN: 1. M/S KEERTHI (R) SY. No.113/1 AND 113/2 KAREKATTE VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 416 (SINCE THE M/S KEERTHI IS NOT REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT) REPRESENTED BY SRI HARSHIL ARYA J.S. AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. ITS GENERAL MANAGER …PETITIONER (BY SRI B. VACHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RDPR, OFFICE AT GATE No.3 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUIDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AND ENVIRNOMENT OFFICE AT 7TH FLOOR M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by PRABHAKAR SWETHA KRISHNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 3. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD GOVT. OF KARNATAKA PARISARA BHAVAN CHURCH STREET ASHOK NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 001. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 436. 5. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BEBI GRAMA PANCHAYATH KAREKATTE VILLAGE BASARALU HOBLI MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 571 418. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 & 2, SRI ADIT CHANDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & SRI M.S. DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & 5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT IN THE SAME NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO GRANT PERMISSION TO START THE PETITIONERS INDUSTRIAL UNIT AND FOLLOWING RELIEFS (i) TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER No. KSPCB/RO-MND/EO/DFEO/2023-24/2912 DATED 18.11.2023 PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT AND ORDER No. GRAMPANBABY/OTHER/01/2024-25 17.09.2024 PASSED BY 5TH RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ALL INCIDENTS RELATED THERETO AND ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO RUN HIS INDUSTRY PEACEFULLY RESPECTABLY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 17.09.2024 passed by respondent No.5 (Panchayat Development Officer, Bebi Gram Panchayat) to permit the petitioner to run the industry peacefully. The petitioner also impugns an order dated 18.11.2023 passed by respondent No.3- Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). 2. The petitioner states that it had constructed a factory after obtaining necessary licence, permission, approval from all concerned authorities on a land measuring 2 acres 5 guntas located in Sy.Nos.113/1 and 113/2 at Karekatte Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk and Mandya District. The petitioner has established a Hi-tech Scientific Plant for manufacture of sulphuric acid, as an intermediate product for manufacturing fertilizers. The petitioner claims that it had raised a loan for `18 Crores, which included a sum of `13.90 Crores provided by the ICICI Bank. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 petitioner obtained a licence from respondent No.5 for constructing the factory on the subject land. After the construction was complete, the petitioner applied for permission for manufacture of sulphuric acid plant. The petitioner submits that the said permission was deemed to have been granted in terms of Section 70(2-C) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 [the Panchayat Act]. 3. The petitioner states that during the trial of the said factory, there was gas leak as certain bolts and pipes had not been fasten properly. The petitioner states that immediately a mob gathered at the unit. However, there was no loss of lives and the petitioner paid compensation for the loss caused. The petitioner claims that it undertook an extensive exercise to ensure that machinery and fittings were properly fasten. 4. However, the same was rejected by a letter dated 18.11.2023 and the petitioner was called upon by the KSPCB to close down the operations of the unit. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 5. It is stated that in view of the gas leak, KSPCB once again inspected the site and issued directions to the petitioner for implementing certain safety and other measures. 6. The petitioner claims that it has since implemented all measures as directed by the KSPCB. The petitioner once again applied to the KSPCB for consent to commence operations. However, the same has not been acceded to and the closure order has not been revoked despite the petitioner complying with all the conditions as imposed by the KSPCB. 7. The learned counsel for the KSPCB submits that the petitioner has not been granted the consent to reopen, for want of NOC from respondent No.5. 8. Respondent No.5 had declined to issue NOC. It is stated that a resolution was passed by the Special Gram Panchayat Meeting held on 13.08.2024, not to give permission to the petitioner for reopening the factory. 9. In the aforesaid context, on 18.09.2025, this court had framed the following questions for consideration: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 "(1) Whether the KSPCB can withhold consent to operate on the sole ground that the Gram Panchayat has not issued the NOC or has subsequently decided to cancel the same. In other words, whether consent to operate is contingent upon NOC from the Gram Panchayat? (2) Whether the Gram Panchayat can decline to grant permission after there is a deemed permission in terms of Section 70(2C) of the Act?" 10. Insofar as the first question is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB readily concedes that KSPCB cannot withhold consent to operate on the ground that the Gram Panchayat has declined to give permission. He submits that the power to direct closure is found in Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and if KSPCB requires to take any action, it has to do so in accordance with the said provision. 11. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 is unable to counter the submission that, once the NOC is deemed to have been granted under Section 70(2-C) of the Panchayat Act, there is no requirement to grant any further NOC. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 12. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 70 of the Panchayat Act. The same is reproduced below: "70. Provisions applicable to permissions and licences under sections 66, 67, 68 and 69.- (1) A permission shall be granted under section 66 and a licence under sections 67,68 and 69 shall be granted or renewed, only on payment in advance of such fee as may be prescribed. (2) The Grama Panchayat may, for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to grant the permission under section 66 or to grant or renew a licence, or suspend or cancel a licence granted or renewed , under sections 67, 68, and 69 for default of any of the conditions subject to which the licence was granted. [(2A) save as otherwise provided in this Act, every application for a license or permission under this Act or rule, bye-law or regulations made thereunder, or for the renewal thereof, shall be made not less than thirty days and not more than ninety days before the earliest date with effect from which, or the commencement of the period (being a year or such less period as is mentioned in the application) for which the license or permission is required. (2B) for every license or permission, fees may be charged on such units and at such rates not exceeding the maximum prescribed as may be fixed by the Gram Panchayat. Provided that for every license for hoardings, the fees may be charged at such rates as specified in schedule IV (2C) if orders on an application under sub-section 2A are not communicated to the applicant within sixty days the application shall be deemed to have been sanctioned subject to such conditions ordinarily imposed for the period, if any, for which it would have - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 been ordinarily sanctioned. Provided that in times of election or otherwise the application cannot be processed the orders on an application shall be communicated within a period of ninety days. (2D) when an order of deemed sanction under sub- section 2C has been issued and the concerned Adhyaksha and the panchayat development officer is responsible for issue of such order, it shall be considered as a misconduct and the Adhyaksha shall be proceeded under section 48 and the Panchayat Development Officer shall be proceeded under the relevant service law, applicable to him. (2E) the acceptance of the pre-payment of the fee for any such license or permission shall not entitle the person making such prepayment to the license or permission, but only to a refund of the fee in case of refusal of the license or permission. (2F) if an act, for which any such license or permission is necessary is done without such license or permission, or in a manner inconsistent with the conditions of the license or permission obtained, the licensing authority of the Gram Panchayat may by notice require the person to alter, remove, or as far as practicable restore to its original state, the whole or any part of any property, movable or immovable, public or private affected thereby within a time specified in the notice] (3) Any person aggrieved by the refusal to grant permission under section 66 or to grant or renew licence, or by the suspension or cancellation of a licence under sub-section (2) may, within thirty days of the date of the 1993: KAR. ACT 14] Panchayat Raj 331 communication of the order, appeal to the 1 [Executive officer] 1 and his decision on such appeal shall be final. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 (4) Any appeal under sub-section (3) pending before the General Standing Committee of the Zilla Parishad shall on the date of commencement of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 stands transferred to the Assistant Commissioner and such appeal shall be decided by him as if it had been filed before him." 13. We note that under Section 70(2-C) of the Act, there is a deemed consent, if no response is communicated to the applicant within a period of 60 days from the date of the application. However, we also note that the Gram Panchayat also retains the power to cancel the licence as deemed granted. 14. In view of the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 fairly states that the resolution not to grant NOC may not be sustainable as the permission was deemed to have been granted under Section 70(2-C) of the Panchayat Act. He however, reserves the rights of the Panchayat to initiate proceedings for cancellation of the NOC. 15. In view of the above, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the KSPCB to forthwith issue the consent to operate, if the concerned authority-KSPCB is satisfied that the measures for preventing pollution have been implemented by the petitioner. In the event, the KSPCB comes to the conclusion - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38485-DB WP No. 35258 of 2024 that the unit is required to be closed, KSPCB may take steps in this regard, albeit, in accordance with law. 16. The impugned order passed by respondent No.5 declining to grant NOC is set aside. However, the rights of the respondents to initiate proceedings for cancellation of NOC already deemed to have granted in accordance with law is reserved. All rights and contentions of the petitioner are reserved as well. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE KPS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15