Ashok Foundries Vs. the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and anr.

Ashok Foundries vs The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and anr.

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Karnataka Decided Mar 18, 1996

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/383912

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/383912
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: M.S. Vishwanath, J.
Decided On: Mar 18, 1996
Case Number: W.P. No. 16869/1989
Subject: Civil;Constitution
Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

(A) WATER (PREVENTION & CONTROL OF POLLUTION) Act, 1974 (Central Act No. 6 of 1974) - Section 25 & 26 -- petitioner foundry situated on foreshore on water supply source to Hubli-Dharwar twin cities -- chances of fire hazards & coke dust settling on water tank -- held, Health Officer's report of 1974 not ...

Key legal issue: Civil;Constitution
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Constitution of India - Article 226; Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 25 and 26; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 39

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Foundries

Advocate Jayakumar S. Patil, Adv.

Respondent

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and anr.

Advocate Gangadhar N. Sangoli, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226; Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Sections 25 and 26; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Sections 39
Reported In: ILR1996KAR2491; 1996(5)KarLJ480

Excerpt

(a) water (prevention & control of pollution) act, 1974 (central act no. 6 of 1974) - section 25 & 26 -- petitioner foundry situated on foreshore on water supply source to hubli-dharwar twin cities -- chances of fire hazards & coke dust settling on water tank -- held, health officer's report of 1974 not merited to be accepted now. ; (b) air (prevention & control of pollution) act, 1981 (central act no. 14 of 1981) - section 39 - state pollution control board's opinion for shifting foundry deserving acceptance. ; (c) constitutlon of india - article 226 -- court cannot assume the role of super -- specialist to sit in judgment over competent body's opinion -- see section 39 of air (prevention & control of pollution) act, 1981. - industrial disputes act (14 of 1947) section 38 & industrial disputes (central) rules, 1957, rule 62:[subhash b.adi, j] recognition as protected workmen- list of five workmen furnished by trade union - two workmen named in list alleged to be dismissed - application for recognition, however, was made prior to their dismissal workmen are protected workmen inasmuch as recognition would have retrospective effect and would go back to a period for which it was applied, i.e. from 1st may of that year to 30th april of next year. - he has further given the opinion that the place where the moulds are prepared is about 70 feet away from the highest water mark of the tank and there is nothing like trade effluent coming from the factory. 14. this court in a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india cannot assume the role of a super-specialist and sit in judgment over the opinion given by a competent body like the karnataka state pollution control board-respondent no......far back as 16.1.1974.9. in annexure-b the municipal health officer has stated that the licensee has not been using water for melting cast iron andpreparing moulds. he has further given the opinion that the place where the moulds are prepared is about 70 feet away from the highest water mark of the tank and there is nothing like trade effluent coming from the factory. of course, annexure-b supports the petitioner . the opinion as per annexure-d has been given long ago. since then much water has flown under the bridge.10. the contents of annexure-j have to be mentioned again. it also contains the opinion given by the competent body.11. annexure-j dated 8.6.1989 also contains the opinion given by the competent body, the karnataka state pollution control board. as per the opinion given by the competent body, the industry is located on the foreshore of unkal tank which is drinking water supply source for the hubli dharwad municipal council area. the pollution control board on the basis of the regional officer's inspection report, has advised the state government that the industry should be shifted from the present location.12. the pollution control board has stated in annexure-j that the petitioner-industry has not provided air pollution control equipment and the present height of chimney provided by the industry is inadequate and the industry has not provided port hole for monitoring stack emission.13. the report of the statutory competent body as per annexure-j is a damning piece of evidence against the petitioner.14. this court in a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india cannot assume the role of a super-specialist and sit in judgment over the opinion given by a competent body like the karnataka state pollution control board-respondent no. 1.15. for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. rule discharged. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M.B. Vishwanath J.

1. The learned Counsel for petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondents present. Heard.

2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner- Foundries prayed that annexures 'J' and 'K' should be quashed.

3. Annexure-J dated 8.6.1989 has been issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board informing the petitioner that theoperation of its industries without the previous consent of the State Board under the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981 attracts penal provisions of Section 39 of the said Act. It is also stated in annexure-J that no person shall operate the unit without valid consent of the Board.

4. Annexure-J brings to the notice of the petitioner the legal consequences, if it does not comply with the provisions of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981. I do not think that there is anything illegal in annexure-J.

5. Annexure-K dated 9.6.1989 is the order passed by the 1st respondent-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board informing the petitioner that because of health hazards the consent of the Board under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 is refused in view of the power conferred under Sections 25 and 26 of the said Act.

6. At paragraph 1 of annexure-K 'Why the consent of the Board has been refused is stated. The reason given is, that the industry is located on the fore-shore of the Unkal tank which is a source of water supply for Hubli-Dharwar Municipal area. The drinking water source is likely to be polluted due to the operation of the industry and its labour. It is stated that the petitioner has not provided toilet facilities to petitioner-workers etc.

7. It is stated in the statement of objections that the petitioner-industry is adjacent to the lake bund and also very near to the village and so there are chances of fire hazards to the village. It is further stated that coke dust settle on the Unkal tank which is the drinking water source to Hu.bli citizens. It is also clear from the statement of objections that there are complaints regarding the pollution created by running the industry.

8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on Annexure-B. Annexure-B is dated 16.1.1974. It is the opinion given by the Municipal Health Officer, Hubli-Dharwar Municipal Corporation, Hubli as far back as 16.1.1974.

9. In Annexure-B the Municipal Health Officer has stated that the licensee has not been using water for melting cast iron andpreparing moulds. He has further given the opinion that the place where the moulds are prepared is about 70 feet away from the highest water mark of the tank and there is nothing like trade effluent coming from the factory. Of course, annexure-B supports the petitioner . The opinion as per annexure-D has been given long ago. Since then much water has flown under the bridge.

10. The contents of annexure-J have to be mentioned again. It also contains the opinion given by the competent body.

11. Annexure-J dated 8.6.1989 also contains the opinion given by the competent body, the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board. As per the opinion given by the competent body, the industry is located on the foreshore of Unkal tank which is drinking water supply source for the Hubli Dharwad Municipal Council area. The Pollution Control Board on the basis of the Regional Officer's Inspection report, has advised the State Government that the industry should be shifted from the present location.

12. The Pollution Control Board has stated in annexure-J that the petitioner-industry has not provided Air pollution control equipment and the present height of chimney provided by the industry is inadequate and the industry has not provided port hole for monitoring stack emission.

13. The report of the statutory competent body as per annexure-J is a damning piece of evidence against the petitioner.

14. This Court in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the role of a super-specialist and sit in judgment over the opinion given by a competent body like the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board-respondent No. 1.

15. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 1996 Same Parties Ashok Foundries vs The Karnataka State Pollution Control Boar... Same Subject Civil;Constitution Same Judge M.S. Vishwanath, J. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226; Water (Prevention & ...

Civil;Constitution