AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manjula Chellur, J.—Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. High Court Government Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. D. Nagaraj is directed to take notice to respondent 3.
On perusal of the records, especially Annexure-D dated 23.9.2009, we note that the so-called permission granted to the private party who is made as respondent 5 in this proceedings, is only a provisional consent. It is issued to the 5th respondent to proceed with the formalities, namely to obtain necessary clearance from other statutory departments. He is specifically directed not to proceed with trial or regular production. In other words before commencement of regular production or trial, they have to obtain a separate consent of the Board for operation.
According to Mr. D. Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for 5th respondent, as per the guidelines of the High Court, issued in the case of Obayya Pujary and Others Vs. The Member Secretary, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Bangalore and Others, which were confirmed by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the last date for implementation is 7.4.2010. According to the learned Counsel keeping in view the guidelines issued by this Court, such consent would be issued to the party who approach them.
The petitioners seems to be the owners of neighbouring land of the proposed unit of stone crushing to be set up by the 5th respondent. If they have any grievance, they are at liberty to approach the 3rd respondent bringing to their notice their apprehension of pollution from the so-called stone unit proposed to be set up by the 5th respondent. Even otherwise, the order under challenge is an appellable order.
With these observations, we dispose of the writ petitions.