Karnataka High Court
WP/25260/2025 of ADV. MANJUNATHA G Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010546122025 NC: 2026:KHC:54155-DB WP No. 25260 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 25260 OF 2025 (GM-POL)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 25260 OF 2025 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
ADV. MANJUNATHA G.,
S/O LATE GANGADHARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
O/A No.860, BSK 6TH STAGE,
11TH BLOCK, GANAKAL,
80FT MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 060.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINATH A R.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560 001.
2.
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD.
REP. BY SECRETARY,
PARISARA BHAVAN,
No.49, CHURCH STREET,
BENGALURU 560 001.
3.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGAR DIST.
Digitally signed
by C K LATHA
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
DISTRICT OFFICE COMPLEX,
B.M. ROAD,
RAMANAGARA DIST 562 159.
4.
THE COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,
OLD BENGALURU- MYSURU ROAD,
RAMANAGARA, KARNATAKA 562 159.
5.
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
POLICE BHAVAN, B.M ROAD,
RAMANAGARA DIST 562 159.
6.
THE TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF TAHSILDAR,
BENGALURU MYSURU MAIN ROAD,
RAMANAGARA- 562 159.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1, R-3, R-5 AND R-6; SRI. A MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO IMMEDIATELY SEAL, CLOSE, AND PROHIBIT ALL UNAUTHORIZED SANDBLASTING AND
CRUSHER UNITS OPERATING IN THE VICINITY OF THE PETITIONER’S
PROPERTY 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 MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
HC-KAR
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition inter alia praying to : “a. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to immediately seal, close and prohibit all unauthorized sandblasting and crusher units operating in the vicinity of the petitioner’s property;
b. Direct the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and District Administration to conduct an immediate site inspection and environmental audit of the entire area, including assessment of air quality, water table, and structural safety;
c. Direct the respondents to recover compensation and environmental restoration costs from the polluting units as per the Polluter Pays Principle;
d. Direct the respondents to compensate petitioner for damages incurred for sum of Rs.15,00,000/-;
e. Issue directions for initiation of disciplinary and penal proceedings against public officials who failed to discharge their statutory duties despite repeated representations;
f. Direct the respondents to undertake environmental remediation and ensure compliance with NGT guidelines and environmental norms;
g. Grant such other reliefs, orders, and directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and protection of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.”
HC-KAR
2. We note that the petition is bereft of any particulars. It does not specify the address of the premises which is allegedly damaged or adversely affected. It also does not provide the address or location of the stone crusher units which according to the petitioner are operating illegally. There is also no specific particulars as to how the damages have been quantified. In the absence of the relevant particulars, it would not be apposite for this court to entertain the petition without the relevant details. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
3. However, this order would not preclude the petitioner from filing fresh petition clearly specifying the relevant details.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22