Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 16 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: M/s Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita (Co‑operative sugar factory, registered under Bombay Co‑operative Societies Act 1925), represented by Chairman Sri Basavaraj Shankar Kallatti.
  • Respondents: 1) Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB); 2) Commissioner for Cane Development and Director of Sugar; 3) Deputy Commissioner, Ravivar; 4) Managing Director, HESCOM.
  • Petition: Writ Petition No. 29717 of 2026 (GM‑POL) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking quashing of KSPCB orders dated 06‑06‑2026 (Order No. PCB/153/HPI/17 CAT/2020/2026/133 under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Order No. PCB/153/HPI/17 CAT/2020/2026/132 under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974).
  • Impugned Orders: Closure directions for the petitioner’s sugar manufacturing unit, co‑generation plant and distillery unit at Sankeshwar, Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District.
  • Grounds for Closure: KSPCB observed serious pollution, alleged groundwater contamination, discharge of untreated effluent into the Hiranyakeshi River, and noted a ₹10 lakh environmental compensation imposed by the Maharashtra Human Rights Commission.
  • Petitioner’s Defense: Claims expenditure of more than ₹22 crore on pollution‑control infrastructure and implementation of air‑pollution mitigation measures.
  • KSPCB’s Response: Stated that a committee of experts would inspect the unit and, if compliance is verified, consider revoking or suspending the closure order.
  • Committee Inspection: Conducted after the court’s order; report submitted to the court.

Committee Report Summary

  • The unit has initiated remedial measures and upgraded its pollution‑control and environmental‑management infrastructure.
  • Several statutory, infrastructural and environmental compliances remain pending, including:
  • Valid statutory consents/authorisations (hazardous waste authorisation, Consent for Establishment/Operation for expansion).
  • Completion of lagoon and storm‑water management works.
  • Provision of appropriate sewage treatment.
  • Completion and connection of a proposed 15‑day treated‑effluent storage facility.
  • Installation/commissioning of particulate monitoring systems.
  • The unit was not in operation on 05‑10‑2026, so actual performance of the Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP), quality of treated effluent, functioning and calibration of OCEMS, performance of ESPs, stack emissions, and treated‑effluent utilisation system could not be conclusively verified.
  • The Committee recommends that KSPCB consider the unit’s application for Consent to Operate (CFO) for the existing facility and may consider suspension/revocation of the closure directions, with a follow‑up verification once the unit is operational.

Court’s Order

1. Accept notice from counsel for Respondent 1 (KSPCB) and issue notice to other respondents.

2. Direct KSPCB to consider the Committee’s report and take an appropriate decision on the closure directions.

3. Allow the petitioner to submit its response to the Committee’s report within three (3) working days.

4. Instruct KSPCB to decide on suspension or revocation of the closure order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week of receiving the petitioner’s response.

5. KSPCB shall also consider the petitioner’s applications for Consent for Establishment (CFE) and Consent for Operation (CFO) in accordance with law.

Final Outcome

The High Court does not set aside the closure orders but remands the matter to KSPCB for reconsideration based on the Committee’s findings, granting the petitioner a brief window to respond and mandating a swift decision by the board.

Topics: Environmental Regulation, Industrial Pollution, Judicial Review