Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, six residents of Hiriyur Town, Chitradurga District, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the consent order (Annexure-E) granted by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (respondents 1-4) to M/s Nagasree Home Products (respondent 7) for establishing a home products industry on Lakkavanahalli Road, Hiriyur. The petitioners alleged that the industry would cause pollution and nuisance to the residents, and that they were not given an opportunity of hearing before the grant of consent. The consent order was issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The court considered whether the petitioners had locus standi and whether principles of natural justice required a hearing at the stage of consent to establish. The court noted that the consent to establish is only a preliminary permission and does not finally determine the rights of third parties. The petitioners could raise their objections at the stage of consent to operate or before other authorities like the municipal council. The court held that there is no statutory requirement to give a hearing to residents before granting consent to establish, and the petitioners failed to show any legal right that was infringed. The writ petitions were dismissed as devoid of merit.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Consent to Establish - Locus Standi - Right to Hearing - The petitioners, residents of the locality, challenged the consent order granted to the 7th respondent for establishing a home products industry, alleging that they were not heard before the grant of consent. The court held that the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the consent order as they are not persons aggrieved within the meaning of the relevant statutes, and there is no statutory requirement to give a hearing to third parties before granting consent to establish. (Paras 1-10) B) Environmental Law - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - The court examined whether the principles of natural justice require a hearing to be given to residents before grant of consent to establish. It held that the consent to establish is a preliminary step and does not finally determine any rights of third parties; therefore, no hearing is required at that stage. The petitioners can raise their objections at the stage of consent to operate or before other authorities. (Paras 5-10) C) Environmental Law - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Consent to Establish - The court interpreted Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air Act, and held that the grant of consent to establish does not require prior hearing to residents. The Board is required to consider only the application and relevant factors. (Paras 5-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who are residents of the locality, are entitled to a hearing before the grant of consent to establish an industry by the Pollution Control Board, and whether the consent order is liable to be quashed for alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- locus standi
- consent to establish
- pollution control
- environmental clearance
- opportunity of hearing
- public participation
