M/S Ultra Conmix vs. The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Ultra Conmix, filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 27.02.2025 issued by the Senior Environmental Officer of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). The notice was issued following a complaint by a Member of Legislative Assembly and an inspection by the KSPCB team, which allegedly found certain irregularities and breaches of pollution laws. The notice proposed actions including closure of operations, cutting off power and water supply, levying environmental compensation, and seizure of the industry. The petitioner was asked to submit an explanation and objections within fifteen days, failing which the Board would take action. The petitioner stated that they had already submitted a reply to the show cause notice.
Held
The Court held that the impugned communication dated 27.02.2025 was solely in the nature of a show cause notice, requiring the petitioner to submit objections to proposed actions. As of the date of the judgment, no closure order or any definitive decision had been made by the Board. The Court found that the petition was premature because the Board had not yet taken any decision pursuant to the notice, and the petitioner had already filed a reply that was under consideration. Therefore, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was not warranted at this stage. The Court explicitly stated it was not going into the merits of the petitioner's case. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions challenging show cause notices are generally not entertained when the issuing authority has not yet made a final decision and the affected party has an opportunity to respond.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable at the stage of a show cause notice, given that the petitioner has already filed a reply and the Board has not yet taken a final decision? (Question of law) Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the notice was issued under the influence of a Member of Legislative Assembly, suggesting bias. However, the Court did not delve into this aspect as it found the petition premature. Revenue/State's argument: The respondents, represented by the KSPCB, argued that the impugned communication was merely a show cause notice, and the petitioner had already submitted a reply which was under consideration. They implicitly argued that the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised at this stage.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. Shridhar Hegde for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Mahesh Chowdhary, who appeared upon service of copy of the petition in advance on behalf of respondent-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and its authority.
The challenge is sought to be raised by the petitioner against notice dated 27.02.2025 issued by competent authority respondent No.1-the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board [for short 'Board'] whereby the petitioner asked to submit its explanation within fifteen days and to file the objections failing which, it is provided that the NC: 2025:KHC:16171-DB Board will take necessary action in accordance with law and the directions issued in the notice.
The submissions sought to be advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner was that the said notice was issued at the instance and under the influence of Member of Legislative Assembly who submitted complaint dated 25.02.2025. 3.1 At first blush, the said argument looked attractive when the reference is mentioned in the notice included the reference of the said complaint by the Member of Legislative Assembly.
2 However on a closure look of the notice it became clear that the notice is based on the inspection of the unit of the petitioner by the team of the Pollution Control Board which in course of the inspection noticed certain irregularities. The notice stated that in view of the irregularities and breach of the various pollution laws prima facie found by the petitioner, it has proposed to issue the directions to the petitioner.
3 The directions proposed as stated in the impugned notice arise as under, NC: 2025:KHC:16171-DB "(i) To the Occupier, M/s Ultra Conmix, Sy. No.61/1 & 61/2, Sheshagirihalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk and District to close the operation or process forthwith and until further orders and also why Board shall not levy Environmental Compensation on the industry for the environment damage.
(ii) To the Managing Director, BESCOM, Bangalore 560001, to issue necessary directions to the concerned Executive Engineer, and Assistant Executive Engineer of BESCOM, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara to stop/cut-off power supply to the said industry forthwith and until further orders.
(iii) To the Executive Engineer-1, KIADB No.14/3, 2nd Floor, Maharshi Aravinda Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore to stop/cut-off water supply to the industry forthwith and until further orders.
(iv) To levy Environmental compensation as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble NGT in the matter OA No. 593/2017(WP (CIVIL) No.375/2012 as mentioned in CPCB Office order vide ref (8) from the date of observations of the non compliance of your industry.
(v) To request the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara to seize the industry forthwith and until further orders."
4 The notice only calls upon the petitioner to submit explanation and file a reply to the said aspects.
Learned advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has already submitted its reply to the impugned show cause notice and in respect of the contents thereof. NC: 2025:KHC:16171-DB
It is evident from the facts that the impugned communication dated 27.02.2025 is only in the nature of show cause notice whereby the petitioner has asked to submit its objection to the proposed action which may be taken after consideration of the objection of the petitioner and the Board. As on date, there is no closure order, much less any provisional closure order.
1 When the matter is at notice stage and the petitioner is asked to submit its explanation, the juri iction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not liable to be exercised. The petition is premature as the Board has not taken any decision pursuant to the notice. A further aspect which was admitted by learned advocate for the petitioner is that it has already filed a reply which is under consideration of the Board.
In the aforesaid view, without going into the merits of the petitioner's case.
The Board will be taking appropriate decision in accordance with law after taking into account the reply filed by the petitioner, this petition is not entertained and stands dismissed. NC: 2025:KHC:16171-DB It goes without saying until appropriate decision in accordance with law is taken by the Board in response to the show cause notice, there shall be no coercive steps against the petitioner. (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.