Karnataka HC asks pollution board to decide on sugar unit’s closure after inspection finds compliance gaps

The petitioner, an integrated sugar, co-generation and distillery unit, challenged KSPCB’s orders dated 6 June 2026 directing closure of its operations under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

The closure orders cited pollution concerns, including alleged untreated effluent discharge and adverse effects on groundwater and the Hiranyakeshi River.

At an earlier hearing, the petitioner submitted that it had spent over ₹22 crore on pollution-control measures. KSPCB undertook to arrange an expert inspection and consider appropriate action in light of its findings.

The committee subsequently reported that remedial measures had been initiated, but certain statutory and infrastructural requirements remained incomplete. Because the unit was not operating during inspection, the committee could not conclusively verify the actual performance of pollution-control equipment and systems.

Whether the Court should quash or otherwise interfere with KSPCB’s closure directions in light of the petitioner’s claimed remedial measures and the committee’s inspection report.

Whether KSPCB should reconsider the closure directions and the petitioner’s consent applications after considering the committee’s findings.

The challenged directions were issued under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which were identified as the statutory bases for KSPCB’s closure orders.

The Court did not set out a separate test for reviewing such directions or rely on any precedent; it directed KSPCB to assess the committee’s report and consider the petitioner’s consent applications in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the petitioner had taken substantial steps to control pollution, but had not completed all required measures or obtained all necessary consents and authorisations, including hazardous-waste authorisation and the relevant consents for its existing or expanded unit.

Further, because the unit was not operating during inspection, the committee could not verify its pollution-control performance under operating conditions.

In these circumstances, the Court left the assessment of compliance and the appropriate response to KSPCB, directing it to consider the committee’s report and the petitioner’s submissions rather than itself determining whether the closure orders should be lifted.

The petitioner was permitted to respond to the committee’s report within three working days; KSPCB was requested to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week thereafter, and to consider the petitioner’s application for consent to operate and other consent applications in accordance with law.