Karnataka HC Sets One-Week Target To Consider Sugar Mill’s Crushing Licence; No Operations Until Pollution Consent Is Granted

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the CPCB closure order required determination after that order had been revoked.

The court held

The petition was disposed of.

It also directed

The Court recorded KSPCB’s undertaking to process the CFO application within one week and directed the State Government to consider the crushing-licence renewal proposal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one week.

The petitioner was not to operate unless and until it obtained KSPCB consent.

01Facts

The petitioner, a cooperative sugar manufacturer, challenged a CPCB closure order dated 17 June 2026 and sought directions concerning its Consent for Operation (CFO), electricity supply, and renewal of its sugarcane-crushing licence for the 2026–27 season.

¶ 2–4 · p. 4

During the proceedings, the CPCB revoked the impugned closure order after the petitioner implemented the required measures.

¶ 5 · p. 5

The petitioner’s CFO had expired on 30 June 2026; its timely renewal application and fee had been received by KSPCB but the application remained unprocessed. KSPCB undertook to process it within one week.

¶ 6–8 · pp. 5–6

The Cane Commissioner’s proposal for renewal of the crushing licence had been forwarded to the State Government and was pending consideration.

¶ 9–11 · pp. 6–7

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the CPCB closure order required determination after that order had been revoked.

¶ 4–5 · p. 5

ii.2. Whether the Court should direct KSPCB to process the petitioner’s CFO application.

¶ 6–8 · pp. 5–6

iii.3. Whether the State Government should be directed to consider the petitioner’s proposal for renewal of its 2026–27 crushing licence.

¶ 9–13 · pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

p. 2

The Court stated no specific statutory test, legal doctrine, or precedent governing the relief sought; its directions rested on the changed status of the CPCB order and the respondents’ statements about processing the pending applications.

¶ 5, 8, 11, 13 · pp. 5–7

04Reasoning

The CPCB’s revocation of the closure order following the petitioner’s compliance left no surviving grievance in respect of that order.

¶ 5 · p. 5

As KSPCB undertook to process the timely CFO application within one week, the Court considered a further direction unnecessary, while recording that the Board was bound by its undertaking.

¶ 8 · p. 5

The crushing-licence proposal was pending with the State Government, so the Court directed its expeditious consideration. It also made clear that renewal of the licence would not authorise operations without KSPCB consent.

¶ 11–14 · pp. 6–7