Telangana High Court
WP/27448/2005 of K. Krishna Murthy S/o Lt. K. Somparthudu Vs The District Collector, Krishna District on 26 December 2005
JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No. 27448 of 2005 Between: K. Krishna Murthy and another … Petitioners And The District Collector, Krishna District and others … Respondents :: ORDER:: Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.S.
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI
AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
Writ Petition No. 27448 of 2005
Between:
K. Krishna Murthy and another
… Petitioners
And
The District Collector,
Krishna District and others
… Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
:: ORDER::
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana December 26, 2005
Per G.S. Singhvi, CJ.
In this petition, the petitioners have prayed for declaring the failure ofrespondents No.1 to 3 to take action against the unauthorized and illegal construction of a church in the land bearing D.No.33-15-2, Kadiyalavari street,Vijayawada as illegal and arbitrary and to direct them to take action againstrespondents No.4 to 6 for removal of illegal and unauthorized construction inthe residential area.
At the hearing, Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitionerssubmitted that his clients are not aggrieved by the construction of the building,but their grievance is against the use of building as church or for holding prayermeetings at which loud speakers and musical instruments are used.
In our opinion, this is not a fit case for exercise of the Court’s power underArticle 226 of the Constitution because, i. the petitioners have not placed on record any tangible material toshow that the construction undertaken by respondents No.4to 6 is contrary to the provisions of the relevant municipallaws or any other Act, rule or regulations.show that the construction undertaken by respondents No.4to 6 is contrary to the provisions of the relevant municipallaws or any other Act, rule or regulations.
ii. the petitioners have got effective alternative remedies by way offiling complaint before appropriate authority in regard to thealleged violation of the provisions contained in NoisePollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which hadbeen framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.They can also file complaint under the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 for initiation of action against respondents 4to 6 if the latter commit any act which amounts to an offence.filing complaint before appropriate authority in regard to thealleged violation of the provisions contained in NoisePollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, which hadbeen framed under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986read with Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986.They can also file complaint under the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 for initiation of action against respondents 4to 6 if the latter commit any act which amounts to an offence.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.
G.S. SINGHVI, CJ
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J
December 26, 2005.
MVB / svs