Sri Satyamurthy vs The Commissioner Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike and Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

A.S. Bopanna, J.—Sri S.N. Prashanth Chandra, learned counsel to accept notice for respondents No. 1 and 2. He is permitted to file his Vakalath in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No. 3 and 4 is not necessary at this stage. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No. 4 is running a flour mill adjacent to the property belonging to the petitioner. In that regard, considering that the same is hampering the enjoyment of the property due to noise pollution and traffic congestion in view of the business activity therein, the petitioner is said to have made a complaint to the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (for short the ''Board''). The Board after holding a spot inspection is said to have communicated to respondent No. 1 on 06.12.2012 as per Annexure-D indicating that the noise level is more than the limit prescribed in the residential area and therefore, to take action in that regard.

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said communication being addressed by the Board to respondent No. 1 and also the petitioner having made representation as at Annexures-''E'' to ''F'', the same has not evoked any response from respondents No. 1 and 2. In that context, the petitioner is before this Court.

Having noticed these aspects of the matter, it is premature at this stage to state as to whether the action initiated by the Board is after notifying respondent No. 4. Though such communication indicates that spot inspection said to have been carried out, the said order in any event is to be brought to the knowledge of respondent No. 4. Therefore, at this juncture, respondent No. 2 is directed to notify respondent No. 4 based on the representation as at Annexure-F and thereafter consider the action required in response to the said representation and opportunity being granted to respondent No. 4 in accordance with law. The action taken in that regard shall thereafter be notified to the petitioner. In order to hasten the process, the petitioner shall now file one more copy of the representation along with the enclosures with certified copy of this order with respondent No. 2 within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 2 shall thereafter look into the same in the manner stated above and intimate the course of action adopted by respondent No. 2 in this regard to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date on which a copy of this order is furnished.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of No costs.