MAILARAPPA Vs. SAMPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. Heard Sri C.V. Angadi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Arun L. Neelopant, learned Counsel appearing for caveator/respondent, No. 1, Sri M.G. Naganuri, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 and Sri Vinayak S. Kulkarni, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 4. Issuance of notice to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with. Parties are referred to as per the rank in the Trial Court.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS have filed a suit in O.S. No. 291/2012 seeking for declaration that wood factory situated at Michigan compound, Dharwad, is an illegal factory since it is run without valid license and same is causing nuisance by way of noise pollution. When the matter was set down for evidence, i.e., after a period of one year from the date of filing of the suit, an application for temporary injunction came to be filed by the plaintiffs. 1st defendant resisted the said application by filing detailed statement of objections. Trial Court after considering rival contentions by order dated 2.9.2013 dismissed the application on the ground that the plaintiffs had kept quiet all along from the date of filing of the suit and Pollution Control Board had issued environmental clearance certificate specifying that the noise level should not exceed 75 decibels during day time and 70 decibels at night time and also on the ground that 1st defendant had already obtained an order of perpetual injunction against the hubli Dharwad Municipal Corporation namely the Corporation restraining them from running the industry.