- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42223-DB WP No. 31683 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH 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. 31683 OF 2025 (GM-POL) BETWEEN: 1. ESHWAR SHETTY PROPRIETOR , AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, M/S ROHINI CONCRETE PRODUCTS, ALDUR HOSAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK AND DISTRICT 577 101 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M C JAYAKIRTHI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK AND DISTRICT 577101 REPRESENTED BY POLLUTION CONTROL OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42223-DB WP No. 31683 of 2025 DATED 18.09.2025 BEARING No.KaRaaMaaNiMan/PraaKa (Chikama) / 2025-26/363 AS PER ANNEXURE-D PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT, 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 petition impugning a notice dated 18.09.2025 [impugned notice], whereby the petitioner has been directed to temporarily stop the manufacturing process. 2. The petitioner states that it has set up a small-scale industry for manufacturing cement concrete blocks in a property described as property number 42/2, Havalli Aldur Hosahalli villages, Alduru Hobli, Chikkamagaluru Taluk and District. The said industry is carrying on its business under the name and style of 'M/s. Rohini Concrete Products' since 03.01.2019. The petitioner claims that he - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42223-DB WP No. 31683 of 2025 has also obtained the necessary consent from respondent No.1 [KSPCB], and its activities do not result in causing any pollution beyond the prescribed limits. The petitioner states they received the impugned notice alleging that the petitioner's unit is creating noise, which is beyond the permissible limits. Additionally, the said unit is also causing air pollution as sand and cement is being dispersed in the air. 3. The petitioner states that it had stopped functioning and it had responded to the impugned notice by a letter dated 25.09.2025. However, no action has been taken by the KSPCB thereafter. The petitioner submits that since its unit is closed, the petitioner and all workers dependent on it, are adversely affected. In these circumstances learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that directions be issued to KSPCB to pass an appropriate order after considering the petitioner's response to the show cause notice and after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the KSPCB submits that the English translation of the impugned notice is erroneous, in as - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42223-DB WP No. 31683 of 2025 much as it reads as the petitioner being directed to temporarily stop the manufacturing process. He submits that no such directions had been issued. The impugned notice is in Kannada and the correct translation of the said notice on a plain reading of the same, indicates that the petitioner was merely advised to stop the manufacturing process. He also states that the petitioner has been carrying on the manufacturing process without any hindrance and therefore neither the petitioner nor the workers working in the said unit are prejudiced. 5. We do not consider it necessary to examine the controversy whether the petitioner has been carrying on the manufacturing activity or whether any directions had been issued to the petitioner to stop the same. It is apparent from a plain reading of the impugned notice that the petitioner had been called upon to respond to the same. The petitioner has done so and therefore KSPCB, is required to take an informed decision. In view of the above, he requests KSPCB to consider the petitioner's response to the said impugned notice and take an informed decision. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42223-DB WP No. 31683 of 2025 6. In the event any orders adverse to the petitioner is proposed to be passed, the petitioner would also be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Any such orders would be passed, within a period of eight weeks. 7. Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22