Loading...

Sri Suresh S/O Basanagouda vs Deputy Commissioner on 27 November, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh S/O Basanagouda vs Deputy Commissioner on 27 November, 2008
Author: N.Kumar
In 'rm: men: court? or KA'R.KA'3."AKA CIRCUIT §sfE;1§t"g*:§i_

AT nnmwm _ ; ~ V'
Dated this the 2731 day of Novcmbcijzy    3
BEFORE.1__ ' A n V
THE I-IOWBLE MR..»J1:sT1t:m; H.  "
Writ Petition No. 3o§94j_3oo8  
Between:  V. 'A "   V'
SR1 sumsts V
s/0 BASANAGQUEA
AGE'; : 43 YEAEESAZ--' ._ g 
R/O {3HIKKA':i'AN'~'§fAKAL_'  

TALUK : c}.a;:§z<':t;fa'x.{A':'1"'--« .    
1f3Is'r1£e:V{:'§%.T;_K{);5:J;a§_   ~   .. PE'I'i'{'I()NER

[BY sIé=1_J.:3;sv§V1i§."i§'::)f;'Am«fG.<:ATE:)
Am: « 1. V 1  ,, 
1. V, . ;j M DEPUTY'-»:§c)'rhM1§§si0NER

 1<,;QPE-AL i3IS*F§%!{,T
KQPPAL

A  1 A5§s~a1's1i'Ar¢*r COMMISSIONER

'  KO??--Aig=
§;~:1D_PjAL ms'rR1c::1'

 A3, " p§jLLu*:'I0N CGNTRGL OFFICER

'~ POi;LUTI(}N CONTROL BOARD
 KOPPAL, 913?. KOPPAL

 51. TAHSILDAR

GAN GAVA'¥i TALUK
DIST. KOPPAL



5. GRAMA PANCHAYATH

CHIKKA JANTAKAL

TALUK : GANGAVATI

DESTRICT : KOPPAL

BY ITS SECRETARY   

6. JOINT DIRECTOR

DISTRiCi' iNDUSI'R§ALV.CENTRE{ 
HOSAPET' ROAD ~ 
KOPPAL

DISI'RiC"I': KOPPAL

*7. M18 INDRA POWER ENER;3;;,ES--1[;rtD%.;
CHIKKAJANTAKAL V§LLA (}E   
GANGAvA'nTAL£;i<"»--.7 " " 
K0PI3A1,;,'t;«;:€.3%;*. K{)F'P.Mi. -

BY  MA:i;v_V_QINc:~_D;§2E§:T§:+R.' V'  .. RESPONDENTS

(BY s;j~:-'{'I%:;13.T..;é;DY;$§i;§AI{;-AGA, 150% '§1, 2 81'. 4)

This .Wi"it Pe.i:'if.ici13._i'~3. uuder Articles 226 and 227 of
the Cons*E:itutior1"sf '§V:;£ciia;«--.._;pfaying to issue a writ of mandamus
to consiclefithe Vrepxtseiméxtion made by the petitioner dated
24.fi."2GQ8, 7;8,Z(}08, '29,8.2008, 24.6.2008, 21.6.2008 afld
 '$9 the fat-pendants at AJ3J1€X1}J('6S A to G and dimcfing

 'A théia térappmpriatc action against R-7 to stop his illegal
' a<:i~of  the power unit and et(:.,

. h  Pmifion coming on, for pxeliminaxy hearing this
clay, the cgim made the follmving:

ORDER

Sn’, K.B.Adhyapak, the learned Government Aévacate, is

x ” c1irccted to take nofice for the respondents.

h/

2. Issue rule.

3. Though the petition is listed for

the same is heard finally with the consent .

disposed of by this oxdcr.

4. The petitioner has p:'”§_:’fc::I’ed ‘thi’$: ‘JV L’

a writ of mandamus ziiifiectjng rébnsider his
repmscntafion made V G and to take:

appropriate acting to stop his
illegal and for other

conscéguential V % ‘ ‘ R’

5. ‘Vf’i1{::A case-offietitioner is that, he is a permanent

rea:§¥5ti»€:1),Et_iAVk)f V__’Ch_ii::ka….Jar1taka1 Village. He is an agzricuiturist by

‘ g:) rof::ssigjn. «v§ i«’é is owning agricultural land bearing Sy. N9. .435

eicviés 34 guntas in the Said village. He is a smail

faI’1;1ey.V”‘v.His4′.Vfamfly members are mainiy depending an the said

., agti;:z111’cv1V”zral incomc frcrm the land in question anéi he, is

paddy in the said field. The 7*?’ m$po1:1d¢mt is a

Wéempany which has established its power unit in Chikka

Jantaka}. Villagfi. He is generating the pawer by using low

V.

quality of eoai and because of the ash and heat of the of
the said company and the pollution which has ‘By
the company while generating the power,
of the safety measures and ‘ eehhel
agricultumi field of the petitienerthihaxtéi.V_;ttea.1;b’Vi:§f
lands has. been completely ttjpoweft V
generafion and the peiiut.:ion,¢.Athe:’fitfi:iQ_neI*’e and other
hands is covered with last three years
the petitioner incurring loss to
the tune ef He has produced
photogfiiapheh ._ pewer generation by the 7*?’
respondeiiti’ = ffhe is released after power

gen’eg€§’atic.n hasV”a{?Vfeeted’t31e environment of the vifiage and it is

eleteriorafing. It amounts to public nuisance. The

not taken any action against the 73-‘

zespond._e11t.VA.f~”A Therefore, the petiiiener made severe}.

V”‘represen.tations Iequesting the authorities to initiate

-apprteépfiate action under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal

__P}’ocedu1e, 1973. Though all the representations axe received

by the first respemziexzt 1333 today no action is taken. Therefoxe,

V

he is constrained to apfiroach this Court seeldngéa? of

mandamus.

6. Under Secfion 133 of the ‘ .

1973 an obligation is cast on the

Divisional Magistrate or 3fl’~v.,EX€CufiV6__ M;a§gi.s{it§1t:: “Vii:

appropriate action aga”u}.§t; mg.V-pc§§o:1s..5:au$ing..pu&ésance while
carrying on their the persons
who are affeqteni by :’~éi”.right to approach
the Distxirfi” Magistrate or an
Executive of such nuisance and
requésft ‘Ghee a citizen of this country has
been c§i1f¢m~,a’%a_ a statute and a comasponding

obfigéxfion 0113;-h_.s’V:: of the authori ‘es for mdrttssal of such a

» ‘right v§h¢n the authoxitics by their inaction have not taken

. 2 ééfibn, tifise for issue of a Writ of mandamus is made out.

thafi: of the matter, I pass the fo}}owing_on:1cr :–

V’ _ V{%¢fz’,’F~_. Writ Petition is allowed.

(19) The second respandentfissistcmt Cornmissioner,

Kappa}, Kappa! District, is directed to consider the

represeniatien of the petitioner under Section ‘ ”

of the Cede of Criminai Procedure, 29;73_ s¢;_ VA
take appropriate aciion in
and to initiate proceedings 1t:iibi*4tfti:::’€AITt_zzr§e VV
from the date of tflfs

(C) No mass. ‘. ‘ *

Sd/-3
Judge

Cid] –

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information