(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ for quash/set aside as per annexure-a passed by the R2 dated 22.10.2024 in case no.m.a.g(1)/02/2024 and etc.)

Cav Order:

1. Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

                  a) Issue a writ of certiorari, Quash the proceedings of crime No.518/2016 Parappana Agrahara Police station registered FIR on 14.11.2016 (Annesure-K) and Chargesheet dated 14.04.2017 (Annexure-L) in C.C No. 15611/2017 before the 9th ACMM registered at the instance of J.Ramaswami S/o Jayaramaiah to take political vengeance against the Petitioner and declare that the proceedings initiated are ultra vires the powers conferred under "The Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014" and "The Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Rules, 2015".

                  b) Quash the proceedings of the magistrate taking cognizance dated 07.06.2017 (Annexure-M) in C.C.No.15611/2017 in crime No.518/2016 as the same is vitiated and without jurisdiction.

                  c) Pass any other appropriate order/s or issue suitable direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The Petitioners claim to be office bearers of Shanthipura Resident Welfare Association, comprising residents of a layout known as “Naidu Layout”, situated at Shanthipura, Huskur Post, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560099

3. It is stated that the Welfare Association, on 26.12.2014, submitted an application to the concerned Gram Panchayat seeking permission to construct a drainage system, contending that sewage water was stagnating within the layout, not flowing out, and that residents were suffering from health issues and diseases as a consequence thereof. The Panchayat is stated to have indicated that such works could be undertaken at the cost of the Association.

4. It is further asserted that the Panchayat, under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, had earlier prepared and submitted a detailed estimate providing for drainage from Shekhar Building to the Rajakaluve, via Narayanswamy Circle and Chandrappa’s house at Shanthipura Village, and that permission in respect thereof had been granted by the Panchayat on 01.11.2009.

5. A complaint dated 07.01.2016 was thereafter submitted to the Tahsildar, who forwarded the same to the Parappana Agrahara Police Station. Based on the said complaint, the police registered NCR No.7/1800/2016 against Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 and forwarded the same to the learned IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in NCR No.15/2016, seeking permission on 16.01.2016.

6. Subsequent thereto, the police recorded the statements of the Petitioners under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, calling upon them to produce certain documents. The Sub-Inspector thereafter submitted a report to the learned Magistrate on 12.01.2016.

7. Another complaint was filed on 14.11.2016 before the Tahsildar, pursuant to which Crime No.518/2016 came to be registered for offences punishable under Sections 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid in C.C. No.15611/2017. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said offences on 07.06.2017, and the matter is presently pending trial.

8. Aggrieved by the initiation and continuation of the said proceedings, the Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the reliefs prayed for, including quashing of the criminal proceedings.

9. At the initial stage of these proceedings, when the Petitioners were represented by their earlier counsel, submissions were made before this Court to the effect that the Petitioners would rectify any alleged violations, establish a Sewage Treatment Plant (STP), and ensure that untreated sewage was not discharged into the Rajakaluve. On the basis of such submissions, several adjournments were granted by this Court.

10. Subsequently, the earlier counsel retired from the matter, and Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, learned counsel, entered appearance on behalf of the Petitioners.

11. Sri Ravi L. Vaidya, learned counsel for the Petitioners, submits that the actions complained of were undertaken strictly in furtherance of the permission granted by the Panchayat. It is contended that, in the absence of an underground drainage system, the Petitioners had constructed a drainage channel leading to the Rajakaluve, and that such construction was carried out in accordance with the sanction accorded by the Panchayat.

12. It is further contended that the complaints have been lodged for extraneous and political reasons by persons inimically disposed towards the Petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted on the facts of the case, and consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings amounts to an abuse of process of law. On these grounds, it is urged that the petition be allowed and the proceedings in C.C. No.15611/2017 be quashed.

13. Sri.B.N.Jagadish, Additional SPP, submits that,

                  13.1. The Gram Panchayat had no authority in law to grant any permission for the construction of a drainage channel carrying sanitary waste into a Rajakaluve. It is further submitted that the Petitioners themselves were members of the Panchayat at the relevant point of time and, in that capacity, procured and granted permission unto themselves, thereby acting in clear conflict of interest and without jurisdiction.

                  13.2. It is alleged that, pursuant thereto, the Petitioners caused the construction of a drain conveying untreated sewage from the layout directly into the Rajakaluve, which is connected to a government lake. As a result, untreated sewage was being discharged into a public water body, causing contamination and pollution. Such acts, it is submitted, squarely attract the offences punishable under Sections 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, relating to fouling of public water and making the atmosphere noxious to health.

                  13.3. It is further submitted that a Special Task Force has been constituted by the competent authorities to monitor, prevent, and take action against illegal discharge of sewage and pollutants into lakes, Rajakaluves, and other water bodies. Any act of dumping or permitting the discharge of untreated sewage into such water bodies is stated to fall within the purview of scrutiny and enforcement by the said Special Task Force, and necessary action is liable to be initiated in accordance with law.

14. Heard Sri.Ravi L.Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Addl. SPP for Sri.M.R.Patil, learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.M.S.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused papers.

15. The sole substantive ground urged by the Petitioners is that the construction of the drain was undertaken pursuant to permission granted by the Gram Panchayat, and therefore, no criminal action could be initiated against them except under the provisions of the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Act, 2014 and the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority Rules, 2015. It is contended that the Tahsildar is not the designated authority under the said Act and Rules and, consequently, lacked jurisdiction to forward the complaint to the jurisdictional police. According to the Petitioners, only the designated authority under the Act and Rules could have initiated action.

16. Beyond the above submission, no substantive defence has been placed on record. On the contrary, the Petitioners have unequivocally admitted that they constructed the drainage channel, albeit claiming Panchayat permission, and that the said drain was connected to a Rajakaluve. It is also not in dispute that the Rajakaluve in question ultimately empties into a government lake.

17. The further contention advanced by the Petitioners that several other private layouts are also discharging sewage into the Rajakaluve or directly into the lake is likewise not in dispute; however, the relevance of the said contention requires careful examination.

18. In my considered opinion, the admitted act of discharge of sewage into a Rajakaluve leading to a government lake is sufficient, at this stage, to attract criminal liability. The fact that other layouts or persons may also be indulging in similar illegal acts does not, in law, constitute a defence available to the Petitioners. Illegality committed by others cannot legitimise or neutralise the illegality admitted by the Petitioners.

19. If such a contention were to be accepted, it would amount to a dangerous proposition whereby widespread violation would itself become a justification. At best, such material may warrant parallel or subsequent action by the authorities against other violators, including members of the Panchayat who granted such permissions and office bearers of other resident welfare associations. However, the existence of other violations does not dilute or erase the criminality of the acts attributed to the Petitioners.

20. The lakes of Bengaluru are the ecological lifeline of the city. Apart from their environmental significance, they play a crucial role in groundwater recharge, public health, and ecological balance. The discharge of untreated sewage into lakes or water bodies is not merely a statutory violation but constitutes an affront to public health, environmental integrity, and intergenerational equity.

21. Dumping of sewage contaminates surface water and groundwater alike and has the potential to cause serious injury to life and health of residents in surrounding areas. Such acts are not only environmentally destructive but also fall squarely within the mischief sought to be prevented by Sections 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The conduct alleged against the Petitioners, therefore, cannot be trivialised, condoned, or immunised by reference to permissions granted without authority or by pointing to similar unlawful acts by others.

22. For the sake of clarity and ready reference, Sections 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code are reproduced hereunder.

                  Section 277: Fouling water of public spring or reservoir

                  Definition: Whoever voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring or reservoir, making it less fit for its usual purpose. Key Elements: The act must be voluntary and affect a public resource (spring/reservoir).

                  Penalty (IPC): Imprisonment up to 3 months, fine up to ₹500, or both.

                  Section 278: Making atmosphere noxious to health

                  Definition: Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it harmful to the health of people generally dwelling or passing through.

                  Key Elements: The act must be voluntary and create a noxious (harmful) atmosphere for the public.

                  Penalty (IPC): Fine up to ₹500.

23. A careful and plain reading of Section 277 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 leaves no manner of doubt that the provision is attracted whenever a person voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring, reservoir, or water body, thereby rendering such water less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used. The legislative intent underlying the provision is the protection of public water sources from contamination and degradation, recognising their essential role in public health, agriculture, ecology, and community life.

24. The expression “voluntarily” occurring in Section 277 does not require proof of an intention to cause harm in a narrow or technical sense. It is sufficient if the act is done with knowledge of its natural and probable consequences. Further, the offence does not mandate proof of actual consumption of the polluted water or demonstrable injury to any individual. The offence stands attracted the moment the water is fouled in a manner that diminishes its ordinary utility or renders it unsafe, unhygienic, or unfit for its customary use.

25. A Rajakaluve connected to a government lake, forming part of the public water drainage and storage system, is unquestionably a public water body within the meaning of Section 277. Discharge of untreated sewage into such a channel inevitably leads to contamination of the downstream lake, thereby impairing the quality of public water and attracting the mischief sought to be prevented by the provision.

26. In the case on hand, the Petitioners have unequivocally admitted that they constructed the drainage channel and connected the same to the Rajakaluve. Such admission goes to the very root of the matter and clearly establishes the voluntary nature of the act complained of. The defence sought to be projected rests not on denial of the act, but on justification thereof, which, for the reasons already discussed, is legally untenable.

27. It is also a matter of record that at an earlier stage of the proceedings, the Petitioners, through their then counsel, had expressly undertaken before this Court to rectify the violations, to ensure that untreated sewage was not discharged into the Rajakaluve or the lake, and to put in place appropriate remedial measures. Acting on such representations, this Court had shown indulgence and granted multiple opportunities to the Petitioners. Despite such latitude, the Petitioners have failed to comply with their own assurances and have not demonstrated any effective corrective action.

28. In these circumstances, the conduct of the Petitioners disentitles them to any discretionary relief. Their admissions, coupled with continued inaction, clearly warrant that they be proceeded against in accordance with law, and that the criminal process be allowed to take its course in respect of the offences alleged under Sections 277 and 278 of the Indian Penal Code.

29. At the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious to the broader allegations placed on record that several other individuals, layouts, or associations are also discharging untreated sewage into the Rajakaluve and the government lake. Environmental degradation of public water bodies is seldom the result of isolated acts, and selective enforcement would undermine both the rule of law and public confidence.

30. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the matter warrants further and comprehensive investigation by the respondent authorities. The investigating agency shall examine the allegations relating to other violators, identify the persons or entities responsible for similar acts of discharge, and, upon collection of material disclosing commission of cognizable offences, take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including arraying such persons as accused either in the pending proceedings, where legally permissible, or by initiating separate proceedings. Such investigation shall be carried out without prejudice to the ongoing prosecution against the Petitioners and in strict adherence to statutory procedure.

31. The protection of lakes, tanks, Rajakaluves, and public watercourses is not merely a matter of statutory compliance but forms an integral part of the constitutional and jurisprudential duty of the State and its citizens. Public water bodies constitute shared natural resources, held in trust for present and future generations, and their preservation is fundamental to the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Any act that results in contamination, degradation, or depletion of such water bodies directly impinges upon public health, environmental sustainability, and ecological balance.

32. Environmental degradation, particularly through the discharge of untreated sewage into public water bodies, is diffuse, cumulative, and often irreversible. Such harm extends beyond immediate users to groundwater aquifers, downstream ecosystems, and the larger urban environment. For this reason, the law does not countenance defences founded on convenience, administrative permissions granted without authority, or the plea that similar violations are widespread. Illegality does not gain legitimacy through repetition, nor does the existence of multiple violators dilute individual criminal responsibility.

33. The Indian Penal Code, through Sections 277 and 278, reflects a long-standing legislative recognition that pollution of public water and vitiation of the environment constitute criminal wrongs, warranting penal consequences. These provisions are intended to operate as deterrent safeguards protecting public health and environmental integrity. The presence of specialised environmental statutes or regulatory frameworks does not eclipse the applicability of general criminal law, unless expressly excluded. On the contrary, environmental statutes and penal provisions must be construed as complementary and concurrent, reinforcing each other in furtherance of environmental protection.

34. Equally, public authorities and elected representatives are fiduciaries of environmental resources. Any purported permission granted beyond statutory competence, or in circumstances tainted by conflict of interest, is void ab initio and incapable of conferring legal protection. Environmental governance demands adherence not only to statutory limits but also to the principles of public trust, accountability, and transparency.

35. Courts, while exercising inherent jurisdiction, must therefore be circumspect in quashing criminal proceedings relating to environmental offences at the threshold. Where admissions exist and the alleged acts have continuing or irreversible environmental consequences, judicial interference would undermine both environmental rule of law and public interest. The appropriate judicial response is enforcement, not indulgence.

36. Finally, environmental justice cannot be selective. Where material discloses systemic pollution involving multiple actors, the answer lies not in terminating proceedings against one offender, but in expanding the scope of investigation and accountability. The protection of the environment is a binding legal obligation owed to society at large, and enforcement must be comprehensive, uniform, and effective.

37. In view of the continuing environmental implications involved, the respondent–investigating authorities, in coordination with the jurisdictional revenue and environmental authorities, shall undertake a timebound compliance and enforcement exercise, as set out hereinbelow.

38. Within four (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the jurisdictional authorities shall:

                  38.1. Conduct a site inspection of the Rajakaluve and the connected government lake referred to in the proceedings;

                  38.2. Identify all points of discharge of untreated sewage into the said Rajakaluve and lake, including from private layouts, residential associations, or other establishments; and

                  38.3. Prepare a preliminary inspection and status report identifying the sources of pollution and the persons or entities responsible.

39. Within eight (12) weeks thereafter, the investigating agency shall:

                  39.1. Complete further investigation in respect of such additional violators;

                  39.2. Take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including arraying additional accused wherever material discloses commission of offences under the Indian Penal Code or other applicable laws; and

                  39.3. Initiate or recommend remedial and preventive measures to ensure cessation of discharge of untreated sewage into the Rajakaluve and the lake.

40. A compliance report, indicating the action taken pursuant to the above directions, shall be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate and a copy thereof shall be forwarded to the office of the Deputy Commissioner and the concerned environmental authority, for monitoring and follow-up.

41. It is clarified that these directions are issued in aid of enforcement of environmental law and public health, and shall not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the trial pending before the learned Magistrate.

42. Failure on the part of any authority to adhere to the timelines or to take appropriate action, despite identification of violations, shall be viewed seriously, and it will be open to the affected parties or authorities to seek further directions in accordance with law.

43. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

                  ORDER

                  i. The writ petition stands dismissed.

                  ii. Respondent No.2 is directed to carry out further investigation to ascertain the persons who were members of the panchayat, who had granted permission to construct a drain to empty the sewage into the Rajakaluve, as also to ascertain if any other layouts are dumping sewage into the Rajakaluve and or the lake and to array them as accused in the pending proceedings.

                  iii. Such investigation to be completed within a period of 90 days of the receipt of a copy of this order.

                  iv. Though the petition is disposed, relist on 2.06.2026 to report compliance.