Karnataka High Court Issues Notice on PIL Challenging Appointment of Anekal MLA B. Shivanna as KSPCB Chairman
Petition questions statutory eligibility, selection procedure and three-year tenure; State Government and MLA asked to file objections
BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday issued notice to the State Government and Anekal MLA B. Shivanna on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging his appointment as Chairman of the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB). The petition questions whether the appointment followed the statutory eligibility requirements and prescribed selection procedure under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
The PIL, W.P. No. 32911/2026 (GM-RES-PIL), was filed by Advocate Sudha Katwa and heard by a Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K.S. Bharat Kumar. Advocate Umapathi S. appeared for the petitioner.
The petition challenges the State Government’s notification dated September 25, 2026, which appointed Shivanna as KSPCB Chairman for three years or until further orders. It seeks a writ of quo warranto questioning his legal authority to hold the office and a writ of certiorari to quash the appointment notification.
Eligibility and selection process questioned
The petitioner has argued that Section 4(2)(a) of the 1974 Act requires the KSPCB Chairman to have special knowledge or practical experience in environmental protection, or experience in administering institutions dealing with such matters. The PIL questions whether Shivanna’s eligibility under these provisions was established before his nomination.
It also alleges that the appointment procedure prescribed under the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Rules, 2024, has not been shown to have been followed. The rules provide for a Selection Committee, an open advertisement in at least three national newspapers, including one Kannada newspaper, and a panel of three suitable candidates for consideration.
Three-year tenure also challenged
The petition has raised a separate objection regarding Shivanna’s three-year tenure. It contends that if his appointment was made to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the previous Chairman, Section 5(6) of the Act limits the successor’s tenure to the unexpired portion of the predecessor’s term, rather than granting a fresh three-year term.
The petitioner has also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari (2018), which dealt with statutory standards for appointments to Pollution Control Boards and the scope of quo warranto proceedings.
Matter to be listed after service of notice
According to the proceedings reported by the petitioner’s counsel, the Division Bench directed the State Government and Shivanna to file their objections. The Registry was asked to list the matter immediately after service of notice.
The case remains pending. The High Court has not examined or ruled on the merits of the allegations at this stage.
Courtesy:
LEXGROUP
Ms. Sudha Katwa, Advocate and Petitioner
Sri Umapathi S., Advocate for the Petitioner
Sri Felix, Advocate
