What was the main issue in Stella Silks v. State of Karnataka?

Whether the Court should interfere with the Pollution Control Board’s closure order made under Section 33-A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.

What does Section 33-A of the Water Act allow?

It allows the Pollution Control Board to issue directions, including closure of an industry, to prevent and control water pollution.

What was the final decision of the Court?

The High Court upheld the closure order. The writ petition failed on merits and the Board was left free to enforce the law.

Why is this case important for environmental law students?

It shows that courts back strong action against persistent polluters and respect statutory powers under Section 33-A when due process is followed.

Stella Silks v. State of Karnataka

Q: Why did the Court refuse to interfere with the closure order?

Because the industry repeatedly violated the Act, ignored conditions and undertakings, and continued to discharge polluted water. Section 33-A empowers the Board to order closure in such situations.

AIR 2001 KANT 219 • Karnataka High Court • Environmental Law

Karnataka HC 2001 Single Bench AIR 2001 Kant 219 Water Act, 1974 ~5 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 33-A, Pollution Control Board, Closure Order SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Consent to Operate, Effluent Discharge, Writ Petition

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India PUBLISH_DATE: 31 Oct 2025 Slug: stella-silks-v-state-of-karnataka

Quick Summary

The Karnataka High Court upheld the State Pollution Control Board’s order under Section 33-A of the Water Act to close the petitioner’s dyeing unit. The industry had violated legal conditions, broken undertakings, and continued to discharge polluted water. The writ petition lacked merit, and the Board was free to enforce the law.

```

Issues

Should the Court interfere with the Board’s closure direction made under Section 33-A of the Water Act, 1974?

Rules

Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 — Section 33-A: The Board may issue directions, including closure, when an industry violates the Act, disobeys lawful conditions, or continues polluting despite notices and undertakings.

Where an industry is run without the required enabling orders and discharges contaminated water, courts ordinarily do not disturb a reasoned closure direction.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for the Stella Silks case

Manufacturing: Stella Silks ran a silk fabric unit with a dyeing process that used large volumes of water, producing contaminated effluents.

Regulatory steps: The unit sought consent but did not follow required guidelines and discharged pollutants beyond permitted limits.

Board action: The Pollution Control Board issued notices proposing stoppage and cancellation of licence for continued non-compliance.

Response: The petitioner claimed compliance and argued that modern machinery reduced manual effort and improved processes.

Closure direction: For persistent violations and polluted discharge, the Board ordered closure under Section 33-A. The petitioner filed a writ challenging the order.

Arguments

Appellant / Petitioner (Stella Silks)

We obtained consent and complied with requirements.
Upgraded machinery; operations are efficient and safe.
Closure is harsh; lesser measures could control discharge.

Respondent (State/Board)

Repeated violations of the Water Act and consent conditions.
Undertakings to Court were breached; polluted discharge continued.
Section 33-A authorizes closure; interference is unwarranted.

Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the closure order issued by the Pollution Control Board under Section 33-A.

Despite multiple notices, the unit continued polluting by discharging contaminated water.
The industry violated legal provisions, conditions, and its own undertakings.
The Board is free to take further lawful steps to enforce anti-pollution measures.

Ratio (Legal Principle)

When an industry persistently violates the Water Act and consent conditions, and continues to discharge polluted effluents despite notices and undertakings, the Pollution Control Board may order closure under Section 33-A. Courts ordinarily will not interfere with such a direction.

Why It Matters

Shows judicial support for strict pollution control where non-compliance is repeated.
Clarifies that Section 33-A is a practical enforcement tool—not a last resort only.
Warns that breaking undertakings to the Court weakens any plea for indulgence.

Key Takeaways

33-A power is real: Closure directions are valid when backed by evidence.
Undertakings matter: Breaking promises to Court hurts your case.
Consent ≠ blanket licence: You must meet conditions continuously.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SILKS CLOSES FOR SPILLS”

Spills: Polluted discharge continued.
Promises: Undertakings broken.
Power: Section 33-A enables closure.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the Court interfere with a Section 33-A closure order?

Rule: Water Act, 1974, Section 33-A allows closure to control pollution.

Application: The unit flouted the Act, conditions, and undertakings; polluted discharge continued despite notices.

Conclusion: Interference refused; closure upheld; Board free to enforce law.

Glossary

Section 33-A: Provision allowing the Board to issue binding directions, including closure, to curb pollution.
Consent to Operate: Regulatory permission that must be followed in substance and in conditions.
Effluent: Wastewater from industrial processes that may contaminate water bodies.
Undertaking: A formal promise to the Court; breaking it weakens credibility and relief chances.