High Court Karnataka High Court

Shantharaju vs State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Shantharaju vs State Of Karnataka on 10 August, 2010
Author: J.S.Khehar(Cj) And Chellur
T '    MULTISTOREYED BUILDING

IN THE HIGH comm: OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
Qated this the 10th day of August 2010_ » _:
PRESENT _""": A_
HONBLE Mr. J.S.KHE}iAR,pHIEF_JU$fFICE:::  3  "
HONBLE    

WRIT PETITION No.22553';2o09{G1\¢é}P§jL-§1L1

BETWEEN:

1.

4.

SEWIANTHARAJU:VS./O.P1UI§R25glAH««.V:"~--.V V
AGED      
sr~£1vANN,;5-,s;:bgQiAi1AIA:¢:"' 1  "
AGEIJSOV .. * M " 

 * '
AGED so YEARS"  ~ 

ERAPPA   
AG_i§§D 59 YEARS V

 . ALL  01+' MALAL1 GRAMA.

MA1+A1..TI 'POST; SAKLESHPURA TALUK

mss_ANA%D'1~s%m1cr

. . PETITIONERS

{By Sri.Raghu Prasad B.S, Adv.)

STE-YI'E OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE
REPRS EINTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

 



2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKLESHPURA SU}3--DIVISION
SAKLESHPURA TM,UK
HASSAN DISTRICT

4. THE TAHSILDAR
SAKALESHPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN

5. KARNATAKA STATE PQL--LUTIOI\I f ~

CONTROL BOARD  
'PARAISARA BHAVANA.'_  '
PLOTNO.1--A..--_ _   _  - 
SKATIHALLI IN;;D'USTRIAL"AREA_  '= 
B.M.ROA3J  . '  ' 4.  "   I
HASSAN~':3_73fi_2p1 ' ._  '_   I
REPRESENTED'£3_Y_ ITS EXEC-LITIVIZ OFFICER

6. SAME,-SSHPLIRA'?rOv.rN'MUNICIPALITY
SAKLESHPURA   " ~ 4. 
SAK1,SS'H:PURA"irA;;.u»K 
HASSAN D'IS_TRI.C:--T  
RJEPIQESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER

.. .RESPO1\IDENTS.

 .  S':fI.,_E5'.:I:S':§varaj Kareddy, Pr1.G.A. for R. 1 to R4

 _ .  Sri.D.Nagaraj, Adv. for R5
Sri';(3.'i'IKt,n"nar, for M / S.K.Sreedhar Associates. Advs. For
*~  R6]

I THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

_  AND227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

 'I Q':?}ASI"I TIII3-I IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.3.2003
 -"PROI)I,ICED AS A1\INEXURE-C GRANTING LAND TO
 RESPONDENT N013 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

QUASII THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1.12.2008
PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE--K GRANTING PERMISSION TO
RESPONDENT NO.6 FOR DISPOSAL OF WASTE IN LAND
BEEJONGING TO RESPONDENT NO. I.



.3.

TI--{IS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS SAY. THE CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE

F0 I.,LO1='VIN G:

ORDER

The issue raised in the instant°pt1bIic_interest’ petition

filed at the hands of the Villagers’.__oi”‘__IVIalali_.._pIfirainafilofjv”

Sakaleshpur. relates to the 1ocati.oi1rpof the.
where solid waste otherpppthan.”‘bioIfrnedic waste is to be

disposed off.

2. To of the learned
counsel for that the dumping
gI’0Ll1’ldI;pxi}’1’CIi.léII3}Vg__I:ItI’1E:’.._T1;)i_§S. where solid waste was

proposedtojl be is located in the middle of

_ the yrjfiléigst, and the same would be harmful to

residents of the Village. In order to

asce:r§;aiIn«t_i_i.e veracity of the instant contention, we have

.V pe1*i.iIs§.g'(\1.._jiahe’photographs appended to the writ petition
I_jdepia:_irii1Ig;f the location of the site in question. In
ad§dii:ior’1 thereto, an affidavit dated 11.22.2010 was also

Hfvileci on behalf of the petitioners wherein additional

pht>top;:’2ip}1s were appended as A3:1nexure–V. We have

C3″

perused the same as wet}. None of the photographs

depicts the presence of any residential
buildiiigs wherein’ human habitation could *

in the vicinity of the area where thedumping’grsw,1ri.d_jis V

A7″/’3″

to be iocated. It is therefore

human habitation in the immediate Vicinit (0f_tfhe”si’te’ in
question. We, therefere, find = no frnerit fine the first

Contention.

3. P1ir%sua_n”‘eto’tihe order passed by this
Court <jii'i.%'"29»..G'i? learnedYioirernment Counsel has
handed Vvfmrer to. fu.g,.gi'v.nroj'eg:t report for the Integrated

MLm,i<'i_p2'-11 Cohd 'WasteAi\_/ianagement System for Sakaleshpur

._i_.e, where' 'thedumping ground has been planned.

'I'heC'report?'dvenfionstrates the manner in which the aforesaid

proieftvji would executed. The only impediment in the

'.Vexec::1.';on;of the project. we are told is financial. However,
..f'1eai*ni=:c'1 Government Counsel on instructions from the
' Depiiiy (jomkmissioner. I-Iassan, who is present in Court in

" m;jersoi'1 states. that release of funds for the project in terms of

the 1*econ"1mendation made in the report is not a serious

issue e.1:';(.'1 that funds win be positively released within eight

weeks.

4. In View of the statement made to us, immediate1y.._’om_

receipt of funds. the 6*” respondent shalt execute _

in i.em1s; oi.’ the project report. without sny furt.1’Ier * _ u

The instant Writ petition is :V”t}i1.e?j_:

ai’oi’esa.i<i terms.

_
;’Ch§ef justice

A JUDGE

I”I1V*’ 3 ” ~

‘ Vi’I. I1.fI(?)§’1 Y/”N”.