WP/17189/2026 of SMT JAYASHEELA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 27 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. Issue notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. The learned counsel appearing for the said respondents accepts notice. Given the order that we have proposed to pass, we do not consider it apposite to issue notice to other respondents in this case.

HC-KAR

2. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, alleging that respondent No.10 is violating the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 [the Act] by discharging toxic effluent that has seeped through the compound wall of the petitioners’ land (falling in Sy.No.417/3). The petitioners further allege that this discharge has damaged their land adjacent to respondent No.10's unit at Survey No.421/*/3, Tondavadi Village, Begur Hobli, Gundlupet Tauk, Chamarajanagar District.

3. The petitioners further state that they have made several complaints, and that respondent No.4 also issued a show cause notice dated 24.07.2025 to respondent No.10, requiring submission of its compliance report within seven days. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issued an inspection report dated 07.08.2025, which imposed prohibitory orders under Section 32(1) of the Act. The petitioners state that they have obtained information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and have found that respondent No.10 has not secured any permission to run the industry. In the aforesaid context, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

HC-KAR

"a) Grant a writ, order or direction, to stop the functioning of the respondent company until with the compliance of the inspection report at Annexure-F, dated 21.07.2025.

b) To provide a compensation of rupees 10 lakhs for the damage caused by the respondent company to the petitioner."

4. Insofar as the direction sought for restraining respondent No.10 from functioning is concerned, the learned counsel appearing for the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [KSPCB] submits that the consent to operate [CTO] issued by KSPCB to respondent No.10 has since been withdrawn by an order dated 25.06.2026. He also submits that thereafter, an inspection was conducted on 11.08.2026 and that, although certain observations were duly complied with, the inspection also revealed certain deficiencies of non-compliance. He submits that in this respect, the KSPCB has initiated proceedings and would conclude the same within a period of eight weeks from the date in accordance with law. He submits that if the unit of respondent No. 10 is found to be non-compliant, the necessary closure orders would be issued.

5. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be issued to KSPCB.

HC-KAR

6. Insofar as the allegation that respondent No.2 has constructed the building without necessary permissions is concerned, the petitioners are at liberty to make a representation to respondent No.9. Needless to state that in the event the petitioners make such a representation, the same would be considered by the concerned authorities in accordance with law.

7. The petitioners have also sought compensation of `10,00,000/- for the damage caused to their property. Plainly, the same would require adjudication of questions of fact. The petitioners would also have to prove the quantum of damages suffered. We do not consider it appropriate to examine the said prayer in these proceedings. However, the petitioners are not precluded from instituting civil action in accordance with law.

8. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4