- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.18368 OF 2026 (GM-POL) BETWEEN: M/S. THE NORTH CITY VENTURES, OPERATING UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "THE KALANIVASTHI", HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT SY. NOS. 62 & 9/2, K.G. LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, LAKSHMIPURA POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 562162. REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS: SMT. REKHA K.N. AND SRI. RANGARAMA G. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIJAY B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 2. THE KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, "PARISARA BHAVAN", 1ST TO 5TH FLOOR, #49, CHURCH STREET, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICER, KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL OFFICE: DASARAHALLI, 1ST FLOOR, URBAN ECO PARK, 100 FEET ROAD, 3RD PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU - 560 058. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 5. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, BENGALURU ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED (BESCOM), CORPORATE OFFICE, K.R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 & R-4; SRI A. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED CLOSURE ORDER BEARING NO.PCB/ENF-CMP/CLOSURE (WPC)/2026-27/90 DATED 02.06.2026 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition impugning an order dated 02.06.2026 [impugned order] passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [KSPCB] directing the petitioner to forthwith close down the operation of its unit (The Kalanivasthi Resort), located at Sy. No. 62 and 9/2 K.G. Lakkenahalli Village, Lakshmipura Post, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru. Additionally, the KSPCB has directed the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, to seize the petitioner's unit, and BESCOM to disconnect the electricity connection. 2. The petitioner operates a resort named 'The Kalanivasthi', which it claims has become a well-established wedding destination. It is stated that the petitioner has made substantial investments in developing a state of the art facilities, which include extensive landscaping, banquet halls, accommodation, and other amenities - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 necessary to host large-scale weddings and other events. Petitioner claims that it has already accepted bookings for wedding celebrations, and the closure of the unit would disrupt the wedding plans of several families. It is contended that a wedding in India is a sacramental event and therefore the impugned closure order ought to be set aside. 3. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to refer to the grounds for directing the closure of the petitioner's unit. The observations on which the impugned closure order is based are set out below :- "1. The premises is being used as a resort/wedding venue under the name "The Kalanivasthi". 2. The resort consists of 21 guest rooms, kitchen facility and swimming pool and is being used for conducting weddings, parties and other commercial gatherings. The activities generate sewage and solid waste. 3. It was observed that the unit has not provided Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for treatment of sewage generated from rooms, kitchen and other activities. 4. The unit has provided two underground sewage collection tanks, however the sewage generated from the resort is being discharged into nearby drains without treatment, which may cause environmental pollution and contamination of nearby land and water bodies. 5. It was also observed that the unit has not provided Organic Waste Converter (OWC) for treatment of organic waste generated from kitchen and event activities. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 6. The resort has installed two Diesel Generator sets of capacity 125 KVA and 40 KVA with acoustic enclosures for power backup. However, the required chimney height has not been provided for the DG sets as per CPCB norms. 7. The unit has not obtained Consent for Establishment / Consent for Operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board for carrying out the above activities. 8. It was also observed that the resort activities are being carried out on agricultural land without obtaining land conversion for commercial purpose from the competent authority." 4. We may note that none of the observations set out in the closure order are disputed. There is no dispute that the petitioner operates guest rooms, a kitchen facility, a swimming pool and conducts wedding parties and other commercial gatherings. It is obvious that such gatherings would generate sewage and solid waste. The petitioner has not established a Sewage Treatment Plant. It has also not provided for an Organic Waste Converter to treat organic waste generated from the kitchen and other activities. The petitioner is operating without obtaining the consent for establishment or consent for operation from the KSPCB. It is also not disputed that the resort has been constructed on agricultural land without obtaining any permission to convert the same for commercial purposes. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 5. Mr Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as it proceeds on an erroneous premise that the petitioner had not responded to the show-cause notice. He submits that the petitioner had, in fact, furnished its undertaking to comply with all the requirements as may be directed by the KSPCB. 6. The petitioner also states that there is a dispute amongst the partners of the petitioner firm. It is stated that a third partner, who has contributed the land on which the resort is constructed, was responsible for statutory and land-related compliance. However, he failed to ensure compliance and did not disclose the initial show- cause notice to the partners of the petitioner firm, who have filed the present petition. 7. After KSPCB had inspected the unit, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining the internal partnership dispute. It is contended that the partners thus had little control over the affairs of the firm. It is also stated that, in the meantime, a receiver has been appointed to take over the custody of the petitioner firm's assets and manage them. Further, the present petition has been filed after seeking permission from the receiver. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 8. We are not persuaded to set aside the impugned order on account of the inter se dispute between the partners of the petitioner firm. The argument advanced is that there is an unintentional failure to take measures to contain pollution and to respond to the show cause. Thus, the unit ought to be permitted to continue its activities. Obviously, there is little merit in this contention. 9. Although the impugned order does not mention that the petitioner had furnished a reply to the show-cause notice, the material facts on which the impugned closure order is premised are not disputed. Plainly, the petitioner cannot be permitted to operate a polluting unit in violation of the relevant statutes. The present petition is without merit. 10. We find no infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 11. We clarify that nothing precludes the petitioner from complying with the statutory requirements and adhering to the anti- pollution norms. It is needless to state that the petitioner is not precluded from approaching the KSPCB for revocation of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30230-DB WP No. 18368 of 2026 closure order or for a grant of CFE/CFO, after the observations made by the KSPCB are fully addressed. 12. The pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5