High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Suresh Ganapathi Bhyat vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary on 24 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh Ganapathi Bhyat vs Union Of India Rep By Its Secretary on 24 August, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 
DATED TI-HS THE 2401 DAY OF AUGUsfIf:"'2«iiQAfTI.II' KINEI*_<_S: "' 

[By Sri : A MADHUSUDHANA RA(J,WAU'.7Q¢:3ATE; :}'    F'

1 UNION OF INDIA  
REP BY ITS SECRETARY   --
MINISTRY OF ENVIRON-IVIENT "-»
AND FOREST   --_   
PARYAVARAN BHA'~_f'ANS~..f"  _  " 1.
CGO COMPLEX, I..,ODHI'ROAD';~;   
NEW 1:)EI_;I%~II_ '  .  -I  '

2 THE CHIEF cQNS'ER'JATOR.,_"' _ * "
OF IrORESTS[CE1x1'1fRAL}§V ' "  _
MINISTRY OF EN'!IRCi1\BVIEIN'P~.AI'*JD' FOREST
REGIONAL OEFIOE SOUT1'iI ZONE 
KENDIRYA SADAN, "  .. 
4TH FLOOR, E &"Ir WING. ._
17TH  

 A « ..... ..

3 TI-IE STATE'O1;?*KA.R'NATAI<A
 RERSBY"-TITS  TO GOVT
' '.FORES'.I.' ECOLOQEYIAND

 ENVIROi\?ME.N'I'~F}'EPT

 S BUILDINGS.

" 'I BA.N'GAI,ORE~«1

  THE PR--INE:1PAL CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

' If ~IC}'OV"£31'iN1\/EENT OF KARNATAKA



2. It is averred in the writ petition that this PIL is filed

for the purpose of protecting the interests of Mavneelnand

Kagakl Maneer Villages of Kumta Taluk and  

Biodiversity and Ecology of Western Ghats in, 

question is located in the Western  l'Responde11tllNAo.S:

has passed an order divertinglllvtveo' h_eCtaresl:of in forest
Sy.No.108/A on the  respondent No.1

culminating the final seVlec’tion:loi patently illegal
and they arel”:in’V = various statutory
provisionslandl’_l’i”~%ulels “proposal is sought to be
imp1e;rnented.:v5»v_V 15:71 to the interest of the
residevntsl of land in Sy.No.108/A is the

forest landlwhichprneasures approximately 800 acres and the

land is a pro’tected reserved forest land and the said

is»;looateVd–..in Manaki village which compiises of Kagal

Maneer. Maneer and other areas. The villagers

complairxed to the Deputy Conservator of Forests and

Alpulrsuant to the said complaint the forest officials stopped

respondent No.10 from dumping any such waste and also

\,;?

residing in the surrounding areas, representations were also

given to the Regional Commissioner, Belgaurriljliliilxfision

stating that there are nearly 600 to 700 hotisesenearl

land which is also called Murur C.-zudda and that’ld_11ring»the

rainy season, the rain water would ‘even enter the”

which are in the lower level the land.,,,AlHowe\}e1*” to the”

shock and surprise of the petitioners, a ‘notification was

published by respondentv:Iilo.llvl0llbidated 1.1.2008 in
‘Karavali Muiijaijfi-l’a. calling for
tenders plant. In the said
notifieation where the actual MSW
plant llwouldl was not published and

therefore, l4lbeing_agg’neVed by the establishment of MSW

the fores’t’***area, the present writ petition is filed

1’ *sele1:in.g _ following reliefs:

_ 0 all the impugned order (it. 27.11.2007 issued by
the found at Annexure–Q.

b) Declare that the application given by R10 found at

“”_lAT1i’1:(i’X1i1’€”}”I dt. N11 to establish a MSW plant in forest

‘\\,/.3.’

12

10. In View of the decision taken by the Governrnent by

order dated 6.4.2009, it is clear that in View

that could be caused to the underground vi’I’*l:V”:Q1nit5.r.tV

and health of the residents in the aIfea,jj.the

chosen in the forest–Sy.No.i0S/Al has”beenVwabandoned”for

establishment of MSW P1antlV’Vi’b§’ respondent’:No;§1O–Ku1nta

Town Municipal Council. a_lt.ernative has been
selected for establishment Respondent
No.10 can after obtaining

necessaryil Pollution Control Board and

other~,_Authoritiesarequired law and it is open to the
petitioners in the .iiéanng that would be held by the

Poll1itio.n Contr_o1VlBoard to air out their grievances, if the

of MSW plant in the said land also would

. p-ollnte thee environrnent.

l .. In any View of the matter, the establishment of the

* Ifilant at the alternative site now chosen by notification dated

v’§6.éli.2009 shail be in accordance with law after obtaining