SRI. KUTTY POOJARY v. KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
WP/9099/2024 · 2025-09-04
C M Joshi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 70229 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 70229 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34889-DB WP No. 9099 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH 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. 9099 OF 2024 (GM-POL) BETWEEN:
1.
SRI KUTTY POOJARY, S/O LATE BABU POOJARY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-145, KANDATTU HOUSE, EEDU VILLAGE, HOSMAR POST, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 107.
2.
SRI PEER MOHAMMAD, S/O ZAFAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-140, EEDU HOSMAR, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 107. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P VITTAL SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE UDUPI, PLOT NO.36, "C" SHIVALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, HALEYUR ROAD, MANIPAL, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 219, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICER.
2.
THE TAHSILDAR, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34889-DB WP No. 9099 of 2024
3.
THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, EEDU VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
4.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104.
5.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL CENTER,
"C" SHIVALLI INDUSTRIAL AREA, HALEYUR ROAD, MANIPAL UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 219.
6.
SRI SANTOSH PAI H, S/O H DAMODAR PAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PROPREITOR OF M/S SLV INFRA SOLUTIONS, SY NO. 213/1, MADDIBETTU, EEDU VILLAGE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT - 574 104. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. RASHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MAHESH A CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 & 5;
SRI ASHOK NARAYAN NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R-3 & 4;
SRI N.C SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R-6)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER OF CONSENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT (CFE) CONSENT BEARING ORDER NO.CTE- 125676/183103/213355/GREEN/SMALL DATED 21/12/2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A 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 JOSHI
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34889-DB WP No. 9099 of 2024
ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the Consent For Establishment [CFE] dated 21.12.2023 issued by respondent No.1-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [KSPCB].
2. The petitioners claim that they are farmers holding agricultural land in Eedu Village, Karkala Taluk, Udupi District. It is stated that respondent No.6 had purchased agricultural land in Survey No.213/1 of the said village measuring 99 cents. The said land is adjacent to the land held by the petitioners. Respondent No. 6, thereafter, applied for conversion of the said land and the user of the said land has been converted. At the material time, respondent No.5 had proposed to set up an Industry for 'Autoclaved Aerated Cement Blocks'. The impugned consent for establishment was granted on various conditions, including that the Industry would obtain the authorisation under the Hazardous and other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 and also take certain pollution control measures as
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34889-DB WP No. 9099 of 2024
stipulated. The petitioners contend that the establishment of an Industry in the vicinity of agricultural land would adversely affect the petitioners and other villagers.
3. This Court is informed that pursuant to the CFE, KSPCB has also issued a Consent to Operate, after verifying that whether the Industry has complied with the conditions for taking appropriate measures for pollution control as stipulated.
4. We are unable to accept that the impugned CFE is vitiated or contrary to any provisions of the law. Accordingly, the impugned CFE cannot be set aside. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE
tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60