WP/18375/2026 of SMT R MANJULA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 29 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.4 to consider the Petitioner's renewal application for Consent for Operation bearing No.329419 at the earliest within a stipulated time-frame and consequently direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner's application for establishment of a stone-crusher in a timely manner in accordance with the Karnataka Regulation of Stone Crushers Act, 2011;

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and quash the closure directions issued by the Respondent No.4 bearing No. PCB/261/SEO/MIN/2026-2027/75 dated 20.05.2026 ("Impugned Order") under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Annexure A);

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari and quash the closure directions issued by the Respondent No.4 bearing No. PCB/261/SEO/MIN/2026-2027/76 dated 20.05.2026 ("Impugned Order") under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Annexure B);

HC-KAR

iv. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Smt. Monica Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayer erroneously seeks consideration for the application for renewal of Consent for Operation [CFO]. The petitioner's application is for renewal of Consent for Establishment [CFE] and not CFO. She submits that the said application for renewal of CFE had been filed more than two years ago, but the same has not been processed as yet. She also submits that under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, there is a deemed consent for establishment in the event the application is not rejected within the stipulated period. She also submits that the impugned closure order is ex facie erroneous as the petitioner's crusher unit was not in operation. Although it had been set up, it was yet to commence operation and therefore, no closure order could have been issued.

3. Mr. Mahesh A. Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [KSPCB] states that the application for renewal of CFE was filed on

HC-KAR

29.06.2026. He submits that certain observations have been made in regard to the said application, which are available on the portal, which have not bee addressed. He also refers to the letter dated 19.04.2025 issued by the KSPCB setting out certain observations. He points out that one of the observations relates to an objection raised by the Upalokayukta to the effect that the crushing unit has been constructed in a buffer zone or lake bed area. He states that the petitioner's application for CFE would be processed within a period of six weeks from date and the decision in this regard would be communicated to the petitioner.

4. In view of the aforesaid statement, we do not consider it apposite to issue any further orders regarding consideration of the petitioner's application bearing No.329419. The KSPCB shall process the said application and in the event it requires any further information, it would communicate the same to the petitioner.

5. Insofar as the closure order is concerned, since it is the petitioner's case that the unit is not operational, the said closure order does not prejudice the petitioner. We, however, clarify that the closure order would not come in the way of the petitioner to

HC-KAR

carry out certain works, which may be necessary, pursuant to any observation that may be made by the KSPCB or to dismantle the unit in the event the necessary permissions are not forthcoming and the petitioner chooses to do so. Admittedly, the petitioner cannot operate the unit without the CFO. We also consider it apposite to clarify that the impugned closure order would not impede the KSPCB for processing the petitioner's application for the CFE or CFO.

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

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

KPS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13