Reached Daily Limit?

Explore a new way of legal research!

Click Here
Indian Case Summary

Vijayanagar Educational Trust … vs The Karnataka State Pollution … on 4 January, 2002 – Case Summary

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

In the case of Vijayanagar Educational Trust vs The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board on 4th January 2002, the Karnataka High Court was called upon to adjudicate on the validity of an order passed by the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (the Board) and the Appellate Authority (Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment), Government of Karnataka. The case was presided over by Justice A.V. Srinivasa Reddy.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vijayanagar Educational Trust, is a registered Trust with the objective of imparting education by setting up schools, colleges, technical institutions, etc. The Trust sought to establish a medical college and hospital, named Infant Jesus Medical College and Hospital, in Lingenahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The Trust had obtained the necessary permissions and approvals from the State Government, purchased the required land, and had even begun construction of the hospital and college buildings.

However, a news item published in the Indian Express Newspaper on 28th May 2000 stated that the construction was likely to pollute the Kumudavathi river, which flows into the Thippagondanahalli Reservoir, a major source of drinking water for Bangalore City. This led to the filing of a public interest writ petition before the Karnataka High Court. Following this, the Board, which had been silent on the issue of environmental pollution, refused to grant permission to establish the medical college and hospital.

Issues and Court’s Observations

The main issues before the court were whether there was a ‘deemed consent’ as contended by the petitioner and whether the Board, even in the face of deemed consent, could still refuse the grant of permission under Section 25 of the Act.

The court observed that the Board had neither refused nor granted the required permission within the time prescribed under the statute, leading to a situation of ‘deemed consent’. However, the court also noted that the Board had not provided the petitioner with an opportunity to dispel any reasonable apprehension about the potential environmental impact of the proposed construction.


The court concluded that there was deemed consent in the present case. However, it also noted that the petitioner was never provided the opportunity to dispel any reasonable apprehension that the Board may have had about the potential danger that the industry would have caused. The court did not explicitly state the final outcome of the case in the provided content.

This case highlights the importance of environmental considerations in the establishment of institutions and the role of regulatory bodies in ensuring environmental protection. It also underscores the need for procedural fairness in decision-making processes.