Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12402 (KAR)

SRI BHANU PRAKASH B L v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/4110/2026 · 2026-02-12

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9091 WP No. 4110 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 4110 OF 2026 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI BHANU PRAKASH B L S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA B, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 2. SRI. CHETHAN KUMAR B L S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA B AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SRI.DIWAKAR B L, S/O LATE LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA B AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE R/AT. BYRASANDRA VILLAGE, ARALLUMALLIGE POST, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN 561203 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVANANDA REDDY R V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE PIN-560001 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9091 WP No. 4110 of 2026 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVANA BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU 562110 3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT DODDABALLAPURA, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT- 561203 4. THE PANCHYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DODDATUMUKURU DOGRAMA PANCHAYAT, DODDATUMUKURU, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561203 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BOPPANNA BELLIYAPPA, AGA FOR R1; SRI. N.M.BHASKAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE VIDE NO.119/2025-26 DATED 27/01/2026 ANNEXURE-A ISSUED T BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, I.E., PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DODDATUMUKURU GRAMA PANCHAYATI, MADURE HOBLI, DODDDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9091 WP No. 4110 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Sri. N.M.Bhaskar Gowda, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: (a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ to quash the impugned notice vide No.119/2025-26 dated 27/01/2026 annexure-A issued t by the respondent no.4, i.e., Panchayat Development Officer Doddatumukuru Grama Panchayati, Madure Hobli, Dodddaballapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, by allowing the writ petition in the interest of justice and (b) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in and proper, advance justice to the petitioner. 4. The petitioners are the owner of the land in Survey No.8, Byrasandra Village, Madhure Hobli, Doddaballapura Taluk, measuring 3 acres 6 guntas. The petitioners have started a piggery farm in the said property after having borrowed a loan from the Corporation Bank and mortgaging the land in favour of the said bank and invested more than Rs.60,00,000/- for the said purpose. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9091 WP No. 4110 of 2026 Respondent No.4 had issued an approval/permission on 12.08.2021 for the said purpose, so also a certificate was issued by the Senior Veterinary Officer of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences on 06.02.2022. 5. Thereafter, the petitioners carried on the said business of the piggery by registering with the appropriate authorities. Notice had been issued on 27.01.2026 calling upon the petitioners to close the said piggery farm on account of permission not having been obtained from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) due to the pollution being caused by the said piggery. It is challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the business of piggery is an agricultural activity, and therefore, no permission is required from the pollution control board. The PDO, having issued the permission followed by a certificate by the Animals, Husbandry and Veterinary Department, the activities of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9091 WP No. 4110 of 2026 the petitioners are being carried out in accordance with law, in a clean and hygienic manner. 7. I am unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the piggery is an agricultural activity inasmuch as the piggery has been established for the purposes of sale of the pigs which have been bred in the said piggery. On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are more than 300 pigs in the said piggery. I am therefore of the considered opinion that with such a large population of pigs in the said property, there is a large amount of waste which would be generated and have to be dealt with in a proper manner and in that regard, it is but required that the petitioners obtain necessary consent for establishment and consent for operation from the State Pollution Control Board. 8. Faced with the above situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the necessary application would be filed within a week's time from now, i.e., on or before 21.02.2026. If such an application is filed with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9091 WP No. 4110 of 2026 KSPCB, by that date the KSPCB is directed to consider the same and pass necessary orders within a period of 15 days of the said application, if necessary, by directing the petitioners to implement such measures as may be required to cater to the waste which is generated in the piggery. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is disposed of directing the KSPCB to consider the application submitted by the petitioners if filed by 21.02.2026 and pass necessary orders by 13.03.2026. ii) Until such orders are passed, respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps against the petitioners. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6