Karnataka High Court

Interim protection continues until the statutory appellate authority considers the pending interim-relief application.

M/S. VIGNESHWARA POULTRY FARM vs KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: October 06, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Interim protection continues until the statutory appellate authority considers the pending interim-relief application.. M/S. VIGNESHWARA POULTRY FARM vs KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioners operated poultry farms in Davanagere District and challenged closure orders issued by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on 6 January 2024 or 11 January 2024, as applicable.

Source reference: pp.6–7, paras.1–3

They had filed statutory appeals before the Karnataka State Appellate Authority under the pollution-control legislation and approached the High Court because their applications for interim relief had not been considered.

Source reference: p.7, para.4

The High Court had directed the respondents not to precipitate the matter, and that interim protection remained in force when the petitions were heard.

Source reference: p.7, para.5
02

Issues

1. Whether the petitioners, having filed statutory appeals against the closure orders, should be permitted to pursue those appeals rather than obtain substantive relief in the writ petitions.

Source reference: p.8, para.6

2. Whether the interim protection granted by the High Court should continue pending consideration of the petitioners’ applications for interim relief before the appellate authority.

Source reference: pp.8–9, paras.6–7
03

Law Applied

The Court proceeded on the basis that a statutory appellate remedy was available against the Pollution Control Board’s orders and that the petitioners should prosecute their pending appeals in accordance with law.

Source reference: p.8, para.6

It also continued interim protection until the appellate authority considered the applications for interim relief, and directed that authority to endeavour to decide those applications within four weeks and the appeals within four months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

Source reference: pp.8–9, paras.6–7
04

Reasoning

Because the petitioners had already invoked the statutory appellate process, the Court considered it appropriate for them to pursue that remedy rather than continue the writ proceedings.

Source reference: p.8, para.6

However, as the appellate authority had not considered their interim applications, the Court maintained its existing protection until those applications were decided, while setting timelines for consideration of the interim applications and disposal of the appeals.

Source reference: pp.8–9, paras.6–7
05

Holding

The Court disposed of all three writ petitions, permitting the petitioners to prosecute their pending appeals.

The interim protection granted on 12 February 2024 was to remain in force until the appellate authority considered the applications for interim relief; the authority was directed to endeavour to decide those applications within four weeks and the main appeals within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Source reference: pp.8–9, paras.6–7
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

M/S. VIGNESHWARA POULTRY FARMvsKARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Karnataka High Court · October 06, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment