Kempegowda S/O Subbegowda vs The State Of Karnataka By Its … on 25 February, 2009

126 mm HIGH comm? or KARNATAKA. AT  ', ' 

DATED THIS THE 25"' DAY OF FEBRUAf§H}.VV2:Q(in9 T  

PRESENT 

TI-IE 1-mrrnnm MR. an. DIN>A.I_{ARJ4&1|l, 'C3I-IIEi?':v5li'£,f3TiCF;  V

THE HOBPBLE MR.q§rsriéE'fi®n:' :».;x VE RMAV  
WRIT Pglzrigw No. 123141 %2oo6%.(_c:_;grg;;~1M-s)(p1L1

BENNEEN:

1 KEMPEG0iazpA"';~"_ ..
S/G SU--BB§JGOWD;{&'-- " _ 
AGED:.ABOU'l'?€g5_¢YEAR$ % %

AGRICUL1-*UR1s'F    _
R] 01:' H1R112;.n;r1' 'J_ILL.AGE=.._  "
. GUNDLUPET'1'ALUK'A._ " 
CHAI-.1£ARAJAi*i.AGA§?A BISTRICF
'  .,NA'GEG(3~Wi3A
, .s;*«0sAN:s1%E:.G0wDA
 _Ac3§:13. «mo u'"r».5Q. YEARS
A(}';21%cuL*::i.rR:*:3'"r
R] Q?' HIRIKA-1'1 VILLAGE
1 c;UN'nLm>E*r TALUK
V._CHAM'ARA.JANAGARA DISTRICT

".PEWHONERS

.. ,% ,   Q 1  ' ' ~  %      GANGrA.DHARAPPA&s RAVISHANKAR, ADV)

 



'=_ _ i}>iSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF THE STONE CRUSHING
 'MACHINE av THE R8 IN THE LANE) smao. 139 or: HIRIKATI

3 H s SOMASHEKHAR

3/0 H M SWAMY

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

R] OF HIRIKATI VILLAGE
GUNDLUPET TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTIRCT

9 H P PUTFANNA
s/0 H C PUTPASWAMAIAH  %
R/A 11TH CROSS, M.(3}.S.ROA1),_  
BEHIND MAHALAKsHMI~~-sw1=3E1fs;' »  
NANJANGUDU TOWN, 19rrsor2_Ej:--n[1s1°.%.j%   _

10 MCHANDRASHE'K_HARAI}&H:":V   1
ASPHALTING;M.!?i9.HINE OWNER A V  w. 
HIRIKATIGATE, r: A A 'W*if11out any authority of iaw and
t_he~   both noise and air. Hence, the

petitioner   following reliefs:

a) V251' w1'ii:.i11"'i:l1e nature of mandamus or any other
i ' = appibpriate writ or order directing respondents

to 7 to take immediate action as per

i representation at Annexures-D and E to stop

the installation and operation of the stone

3'

    



T'  on date, ighe-$5 respondent is not operating the crushing

  "  The learned counsel appearing for the 8'31 responcient

 that, as on date, the 8*" respondent is not operating

-5-

crushing machine by the 8th respondent in the
land Sy.No. 189 of Hirikatzi village,  

Taluk, Chamarajanagara District'  

b) any other appropriate    
this Hon'ble Court    
circumstances of  anttorvder
as to costs.    «V .' ty 1'

2.    Counsel appearing
for PoHu1ion"'(',ontrolrespox1dent in their objection
statement have proceeding dated 14.8.2007,
   Board had akready cancelled

the ieovnsent favour of 8m respondent and therefore

,~"*<
M  W

"7""'

: "'-\

a

....v..

(5 ' 5 V 
.{....w''

'it

 



-5-

the crushing unit, however, they have 

deficiencies and have complied with the   

applied for flesh consent to the Pollution'  on 

10.2.2009 and the same is under   

counsel further submits that the and hvifltfi  a1so 

do not comply with the   one 'ariother third'

party, a crushing industrye' this Court, is

also rurming a    '

4. If   it" clear that merely because
others do not'co3_;:1'p1yV'i:eri.ii.ii:.  of running the industries
without   consent letter, will not entitie

tiieu  respo11deii'i ___to commit illegality as there cannot be

   suifice it to pass the following

 ._orc'aer:

ORDER

C if The 211” respondent ?o11ut;;ion Control Board shall

expeditiously process the application made by the

2″

K”

5. With these observafions, the writ petition

of.

L’ C}! ief ‘,Iu;s.tjg;.;..i

2’ –

/
V ;

.v ‘I

Index: Yq:s/No–. .

‘-1

la