SATYAMURTHY Vs. COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.