WP/21312/2007 of Boddeti Srinivas, Vs The Gram Panchayat, on 31 December 2013

ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article-226 of the Constitution of India, is filedseeking the following relief:

“to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of therespondents 1 and 2 in allowing the 4[th] respondent to set upRice Mill with in the residential area in Plot Nos. 12, 13 and 14,New State Bank Colony, situated in Sy.No.64/15 ofYelamanchili, Visakhapatnam District, without taking consent ofPublic in the locality and without considering petitionersobjections is highly arbitrary, illegal, unjust and violative ofprinciples of natural justice and contrary to Art. 14 and 21 of theConstitution of India and contrary to the provisions of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act and the rules made thereunder andconsequently direct the 1[st] respondent to take necessary actionagainst the 4[th] respondent from setting up a Rice Mill with in theresidential locality.”

The case of the petitioners, as per the pleadings in the affidavit filed insupport of the writ petition, is as follows:

Petitioners 1 and 2 are the owners of house plots bearing Nos. 1, 2 and3 in Survey No.64/15 of New State Bank Colony, near Manorama Lodge,Yelamanchili. Originally, the 3[rd] petitioner herein owned Ac.6.68 cents ofancestral property in old Survey No.426/3 (new 64/15). Petitioners 1 and 2purchased Ac.1.08 cents of land in Survey No.64/15 and after making it intoplots, they sold all the plots to the third parties including the 4[th] respondentherein, while retaining plots Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for themselves and constructed houses in the said plots. The 3[rd] petitioner is the owner of plot Nos. 17 and18 and the 4[th] respondent owns plot Nos. 12, 13 and 14. All the owners ofthe respective plots have also constructed residential houses after obtainingnecessary permissions, which resulted in formation of residential colonycalled ‘New State Bank Colony”.

In the year 2003-2004, the 4[th] respondent started making constructionof a rice mill in the plots bearing Nos. 12, 13 and 14. The petitioners alongwith other residents of colony made a representation on 03.05.2003 to theDistrict Panchayat Officer, Yelamanchili, raising objection for construction ofrice mill in the residential locality and they also got issued a notice dated29.06.2004 to the Grampanchayat, District Panchayat Officer, DivisionalPanchayat Officer and also to the 4[th] respondent saying that suchconstruction would cause injury to the health of the residents of the colony inview of the noise and husk which may emanate from the rice mill. The 4[th]respondent kept quiet for a period of three years. But, again startedconstruction of rice mill, as such the petitioners raised objection andsubmitted a representation dated 20.08.2007, requesting the Authorities tostop the said construction without permission from the Authorities.

Complaining inaction on the part of the Authorities and contending thatthe same being arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of theConstitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed.

A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 1[st] respondent-Grampanchayat stating that the 4[th] respondent herein with a proposal toconstruct a rice mill in his land bearing plot Nos. 12, 13 and 14 in SurveyNo.64/15 of Yelamanchili Grampanchayat made an application forpermission and after receiving the said application, the same was placedbefore the Grampanchayat and the Committee of the Grampanchayat on28.06.2003, passed an unanimous resolution No.7, granting approval of theplan for construction of the rice mill subject to obtaining permission from all

the concerned Authorities. The said counter further states that the 1[st]respondent-Grampanchayat did not receive any representation, raisingobjections for construction of rice mill by the 4[th] respondent. It is furtherstated in the said counter-affidavit that pursuant to the permission granted bythe 1[st] respondent-Grampanchayat, the 4[th] respondent obtained permissionfrom the Pollution Control Board, Industries Department and also obtainedservice connection from the Electricity Department. It is further stated thatafter receiving the instructions from the Superior Authorities, a notice wasissued to the 4[th] respondent to stop the construction of proposed rice mill inplot Nos. 12, 13 and 14 in Survey No.65/15 of New Bank Colony ofYelamanchili Grampanchayat.

A counter-affidavit is also filed by the 4[th] respondent contending inter-alia that he purchased an extent of 573 1/3 Sq.Yards in Survey No.64/15 ofYellamanchili Village, for the purpose of establishing a tiny rice mill and thesaid site is situated on the main road of Yellamanchili Town and the same isdeveloped as Industrial-cum-Commercial area, which is surrounded by apetrol bunk, cinema hall, motor spare parts shops, gas welding shops, hotels,lodges and other commercial establishments. The said counter-affidavitfurther states that he was granted Grampanchayat approval by virtue ofresolution No.7 dated 28.06.2003, which was communicated to him by virtueof proceedings in D.Dis.No.71/2003 dated 11.11.2003. It is further stated thathe obtained necessary permission from the Department of Industries, ChiefInspector of Factories, District Medical and Health Officer, in the year 2003. Itis also stated that the Regional Deputy Director, Town Planning,Visakhapatnam, also approved the plan and the District Industries Center,Visakhapatnam, by its proceedings dated 06.06.2007 issued clearancecertificate also for running the rice mill. The said counter further denies theallegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition whilecontending that he made considerable investment.

Pleading in the manner indicated supra, it is prayed by the learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent herein to dismiss the writ petition.

Heard Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners, SriG.Elisha, learned Standing Counsel for the 1[st] respondent-Grampanchayat,learned Government Pleader for Revenue for the 2[nd] respondent, SriV.Raghu, learned counsel for the 3[rd]respondent and SriM.S.R.Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the 4[th] respondent.

A perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties available on recordwould clearly show that the grievance of the writ petitioners herein preciselyis that the 4[th] respondent is setting up the rice mill without obtainingpermission, which is contrary to law. The material on record further disclosesthat the 4[th] respondent herein obtained permission from Grampanchayat andalso Clearance from the various Departments such as Industries Department,Department of Factories, Medical and Health Departments and TownPlanning Department. A copy of the representation dated 20.08.2007, whichbears no signature of the persons mentioned therein also says that the 4[th]respondent is establishing running rice mill against law. As per the counter-affidavit of the 1[st] respondent, no such representation is received by it. Infact, no reply is also filed by the petitioners herein contraverting the saidaverment. In fact to establish that such a representation was sent to theAuthorities mentioned therein, neither the postal receipts nor anyacknowledgments were filed before this Court. In these circumstances, thisCourt is neither inclined nor persuaded by the submissions of the petitionersto grant relief as prayed for.

For the aforesaid reasons and having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, the writ petition is dismissed. However, this orderwill not preclude the petitioners from submitting representations for redressalof their grievance before the appropriate Authorities. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

Date: 31.12.2013pab

_______________

A.V.SESHA SAI, J