Karnataka High Court
WP/38068/2025 of SRI THIMMAYYA NAIKA Vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010825042025 NC: 2026:KHC:51703-DB WP No. 38068 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA WRIT PETITION NO. 38068 OF 2025 (GM-POL) BETWEEN:
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 38068 OF 2025 (GM-POL)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. THIMMAYYA NAIKA
S/O LATE SRI. CHANDU NALKA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.3-137,
MALEYADKA, NADA VILLAGE,
PERMANU POST,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214
E-MAIL ID: vishwaprasad1990@gmail.com
2.
SRI. NARAYANA NAIKA
S/O SRI. NONAYYA NAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALEYADKA,
NADA VILLAGE, PERMANU POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.
E-MAIL ID:narayanasurya2025@gmail.com
3.
SRI. DAYANANDA NAIKA
S/O SRI. SURESH NAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 9/2, ECHHAVU,
UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 240
E-MAIL ID: dayanandarn@gmail.com
Digitally signed by
PAVITHRA B
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
4.
SRI. MUNISH,
S/O SRI SWAMINATHA
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
RESIDING AT ICHHAAVU, SURYA ROAD,
UJIRE VILLAGE AND POST,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 240.
E-MAIL ID:munishnaiko@gmail.com
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHAR RAJAVAMSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
TO THE GOVERNMENT (ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT), FOREST, ECOLOGY AND
ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.
3.
THE MEMBER-SECRETARY / CHAIRMAN,
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD (KSPCB),
"PARISARA BHAVANA", NO.49,
4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, CHURCH STREET,
BENGALURU-560 001
4.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU-575 001.
5.
THE TAHSILDAR,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.
HC-KAR
6.
THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
NADA GRAM PANCHAYAT,
BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.
7.
THE PROPRIETOR / GENERAL MANAGER,
M/S MUGRODI CONSTRUCTIONS,
HOT-MIX PLANT, SY. NO. 105-3
NADA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.
8.
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BELTHANGADY POLICE STATION,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574 214.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R1, R2, R4, R5 & R8; SMT. KRISHIKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHESH CHOWDHARY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
SMT. SIRI R, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO R/W
RULES 13 AND 14 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) RULES, 2018 PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO. 3
TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE AND VALIDITY OF ANY CONSENT
FOR ESTABLISHMENT / CONSENT TO OPERATE GRANTED TO
RESPONDENT NO. 7, TO REVOKE SUCH CONSENTS IF FOUND
TO BE GRANTED IN VIOLATION OF LAW OR SITING NORMS, AND IN ANY CASE TO IMPOSE STRINGENT CONDITIONS FOR
EFFECTIVE POLLUTION CONTROL AND, WHERE NECESSARY, RELOCATION OR THE PLANT AND ETC.
THIS
PETITION,
COMING
ON
FOR
PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
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 JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: “A. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondent no.3 to verify the existence and validity of any Consent of Establishment /Consent to Operate granted to respondent No.7, to revoke such consents if found to be granted in violation of law or siting norms, and in any case to impose stringent conditions for effective pollution control and, where necessary, relocation of the plant.
B. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing respondents 4 to 6 to determine, after due enquiry, whether a red-category hot-mix plant can lawfully function at the present site in view of proximity to dense SC/ST habitations and, if not, to take consequential action, including closure and/or relocation in accordance with law.
C. Direct respondent No.7 to organise periodic medical camps in the affected villages as its own
HC-KAR
cost and to pay compensation to the petitioners and other affected residents for medically documented health impacts, treatment expenses and related losses as may be assessed by this Hon'ble Court or a committee appointed by it.
D. Declare that allowing a highly polluting hot-mix plant to operate in the present location in disregard of environmental law and the safety and rights of the surrounding SC/ST community is unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 15, 21, 46, 47, 48A, and 51A(g) of the Constitution of India.
E. Issue appropriate directions to respondent Nos.1 and to secure strict enforcement of environmental and SC/ST-protective obligations under various laws, in relation to siting and operation of red-category hot-mix plants in densely inhabited SC/ST localities, including by issuing necessary circulars/instructions to the concerned authorise in the State.
F. Award costs of this petition in favour of the petitioners and grant such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and protection of fundamental rights.”
HC-KAR
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents in the matter.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 that the combined consent issued to respondent No.7 has been withdrawn by order dated 04.08.2026, on the basis of personal hearing conducted on 29.05.2026 and the proceedings communicated on 27.07.2026.
4. It is submitted that the said withdrawal of consent was called in question by respondent No.7 before this Court in W.P.No.26257/2026 and that the said writ petition has been disposed of, declining to interfere and directing respondent No.7 to submit a comprehensive reply before the Board.
5. In the above view of the matter, it is submitted that the writ petition has become infructuous.
HC-KAR
6. Having considered the contentions advanced and the nature of the prayers raised in this writ petition, we are of the opinion that appropriate action has now been taken by respondent No.3, in accordance with law.
7. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of, without prejudice to the contentions of the parties. The proceedings for withdrawal of consent shall be taken to their logical conclusion in accordance with law.
Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.P.VIVEKANANDA) JUDGE
SMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13