Telangana High Court
WP/20246/2004 of K.Shyam Sunder Reddy, Vs The Member Secretary, on 27 December 2004
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 20246 of 2004 Between:
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI DEVINDER GUPTA,THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY
WRIT PETITION NO : 20246 of 2004
Between:
K.Shyam Sunder Reddy, S/o M.Rami Reddy, Kothur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, A-3: I.E., OPP;Sanathnagar Police Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.
2 The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Control Board, 4th Floor, Collectorate Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3 Rayalaseema Steel Re-Rolling Mills, rep., by its Managing Director, Reg.Office at 21-2-11, Pattarghatti, Hyderabad-2. Reg.Office at 21-2-11, Pattarghatti, Hyderabad-2.
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writof mandamus, by declaring the inaction of the 1[st] and 2[nd] respondents in notpreventing the pollution emanating by the 3[rd] respondent which causing harm to thepeople who are living around the 3[rd] respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against theprinciples of natural justice and unconstitutional consequently direct the 1[st] and 2[nd]respondents to close the 3[rd] respondent industry as it is causing harm to the publicin surroundings of the 3[rd] respondent industry.
Counsel for the Petitioner: NONE APPEARED
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: MR.S.V.BHATT
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: B. Chandrasen Reddy None for the petitioner.
In this petition filed as “Public Interest Litigation”, petitioner sought direction todeclare the inaction on the part of the respondents 1 and 2 in not preventing thepollution emanating by the 3[rd] respondent, which is causing harm to the peopleliving around the 3[rd] respondent industry as illegal and arbitrary and also sought forconsequential directions for closure of the said industry.
There was a closure order issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board and the Boardissued extension of temporary revocation of closure orders on 31.8.2004 for a periodupto 10.9.2004. Thereafter, opportunity was afforded to the 3[rd] respondent for legalhearing by the Board and on 14.12.2004 fresh order was passed by the Board afterconsidering all the material details, extending the revocation of closure orders for aperiod of three months upto 13.3.2005 with the conditions contained in the saidorder. A.P. Transco was also instructed to restore power supply temporarily to 3[rd]respondent-industry for a period of three months upto 13.3.2005 with clearstipulation that revocation orders shall not be misused.
Admittedly, through orders dated 14.12.2004, extension was granted for alimited period subject to strict compliance of the conditions mentioned in the saidorder by 3[rd] respondent. In case, pursuant to the orders dated 14.12.2004 of thePollution Control Board, the 3[rd] respondent has been operating the industry withoutcomplying with the conditions mentioned in the said order, the Pollution ControlBoard shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, which is essentialunder the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act,1987.
The writ petition is, therefore, closed with a direction that Pollution Control Board shall continue to monitor the 3[rd] respondent-industry and in case any violationis found, it will take appropriate action against it in accordance with law.
______________________
DEVINDER GUPTA, CJ
Date: 27[th] December, 2004
pnb
___________________________B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J
To
Conclusion
1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, A-3: I.E., OPP;Sanathnagar Police Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. Paryavaran Bhavan, A-3: I.E., OPP;Sanathnagar Police Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.
2 The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Control Board, 4th Floor, Collectorate Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. 4th Floor, Collectorate Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Two CD copies