Telangana High Court
WP/24737/2004 of Dr. K.V.S.S. Narasimhama Rao, Vs The District Collector, West Godavari District, on 30 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.24737 of 2004 Between: 1 Dr. K.V.S.S. Narasimhama Rao, S/o. Late Sri K.V. Surya Rao, R/o.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANAWRIT PETITION NO.24737 of 2004
Between:
1 Dr. K.V.S.S. Narasimhama Rao, S/o. Late Sri K.V. Surya Rao, R/o. Pathebad Road, R.R.Pet, Eluru, W.G.District.
2 Sri Bandaru Gangaraju, S/o. Subbaiah,
R/o. Pathebad Road, D.No. 25-1-34, R.R.Pet, Eluru, W.G.District.
..... PETITIONERS
AND
1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.
2 The Commissioner, Eluru Municipality, Eluru, West Godavari Dsitrict.
3 The Chairperson, Eluru Municipality, Eluru, West Godavari Dsitrict.
....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased todeclare the inaction of the respondents herein in not taking steps to remove theunauthorized business in R.R.Peta, Eluru, as illegal, arbitrary and unjust by issuingappropriate, writ order or direction one in the nature of writ of Mandamus and passsuch other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper.
Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.M.V.S.SURESH KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: Mrs.Nageswara Reddy, SC for Municipality The Court, at the admission stage, made the following:
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:
The main grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that they maderepresentations on 17.06.2004 and on 11.08.2004 to the respondents seeking toremove the unauthorized business in chips, cement and iron being carried out inresidential area of Pathebad Road, R.R. Pet, Eluru, West Godavari District causingair pollution and health hazards to the residents of that area. But, so far the same isnot being considered. Hence, they filed the present writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader forRevenue. Both counsel agreed to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage.
Since the representations of the petitioners dated 17.06.2004 and 11.08.2004 aresaid to be pending consideration before the respondents, without going into themerits of the matter, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with adirection to the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders inaccordance with law.
With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. Nocosts.
Date: 30.12.2004Nsr/Tvk
_________________(N.V. RAMANA, J).... REGISTRAR// TRUE COPY //SECTION OFFICER
To
1 The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.2 The Commissioner, Eluru Municipality, Eluru, West Godavari Dsitrict.
3 The Chairperson, Eluru Municipality, Eluru, West Godavari Dsitrict.
4 Two CCs to GP for Revenue, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (OUT)
5 Two CD copies.