Disposed

Potnuru Sudhakara Rao v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2022WP/27761/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this environmental pollution case, the High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the authorities' inaction regarding noise and air pollution from a peeling machine. The Court found the petition not maintainable but granted liberty to approach the competent police/municipal authorities for redressal within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to approach competent authority for redressal within two weeks; authority directed to pass reasoned order within four weeks.

Potnuru Sudhakara Rao Vs the State of Ap — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SYAMSUNDER W.P.No.27761 of 2022

¶3

ORDER: [per Hon’ble Sri Justice M. Ganga Rao]

¶4

This writ petition is filed assailing the inaction of the

¶5

respondent authorities in considering the petitioner’s representations dated 27.09.2017, 24.03.2018 and 08.11.2019 relating to the pollution (noise and air) being caused by the unofficial respondent by running peeling machine without any proper permission from the Government officials and against the norms of Pollution Control Board.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondents 1 to 3, Sri V. Surendra Reddy, learned standing counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, learned Government Pleader for Energy appearing for the 5^th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Medical & Health appearing for the 6^th respondent.

¶7

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is resident of 21.1.245, Gandhi Nagar-2, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. The impleaded

¶8

¶9

WP_27761_2022 MGR,J & BSS,J

¶10

7^th respondent company is being run in D.No.458/A, Udaipuram, Palasa, in the vicinity of residential area, without obtaining proper permission from the local municipal authorities. The same is brought to the notice of the authorities by the petitioner and other residents in the village by way of representations dated 27.09.2017, 24.03.2018 and 08.11.2019. Pursuant to one of the aforesaid representations, the Environmental Engineer, A.P Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Vizianagaram, issued a show-cause notice dated 16.04.2018 to the impleaded respondent asking to show cause as to why closure orders shall not be issued under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution), Act, 1987 in the interest of the public health and environment. However, no further action has been initiated. Hence, the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the activity being undertaken by the 7^th respondent company i.e., cashew processing industry cluster is releasing noise and dust to the atmosphere causing environment pollution.

¶12

¶13

WP_27761_2022 MGR,J & BSS,J

¶14

Learned standing counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent while

¶15

reiterating the averments made in the counter filed by the 4^th respondent submitted that for running peeling machines, the consent from the Pollution Control Board is not necessary and since it comes under the category of a cottage industry, the local authorities have to give permission and further as per G.O.Ms.No.172 dated 12.10.2010, for implementation of Noise Pollution( Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000, issued under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the powers for implementation of the said Rules were delegated to the police authorities. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant paragraph in G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 12.10.2010, wherein the authorities for, - zoning of areas, implementing the Noise Pollution (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000, and penalties to be levied on the defaulters, were prescribed and submitted that the Director of Town & Country Planning shall be the Authority to identify and notify the broad boundaries of Industrial areas, Commercial Areas and Residential Areas as applicable in human habitations of the State; and the Commissioner of Police in the Municipal Corporations area shall be the prescribed authority to implement ambient air quality standards

¶16

¶17

WP_27761_2022 MGR,J & BSS,J

¶18

and the Rules in the Municipal Corporation areas and the Superintendent of Police of Districts shall be the prescribed authorities to implement the standards and Rules within their jurisdiction. The petitioner without approaching the competent authorities for redressal of his grievance straight away approached this Court. The writ petition is not maintainable.

¶19

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the material record, particularly G.O.Ms.No.172, dated 12.10.2010, wherein it is specifically stated that – a person may, if the noise level exceeds the ambient noise standards by 10 dB(A) or more given in the corresponding columns against any area/zone, make a complaint to the Authority and the Authority shall act on the complaint and take action against the violator, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules and any other Law in force, this Court, in the interests of justice, felt it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority.

¶20

¶21

WP_27761_2022 MGR,J & BSS,J

¶22

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent authority of Palasa Mandal, as per the authorities prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.172 dated 12.10.2010, for redressal of his grievance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which event the authority concerned is directed to consider the same, as per law, and pass appropriate reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of four weeks thereafter. No order as to costs.

¶23

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

__________________ M.GANGA RAO, J

¶25

____________________ B. SYAMSUNDER, J

¶26

07.11.2022 Vjl

¶27

¶28

WP_27761_2022 MGR,J & BSS,J

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶30

AND

¶31

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SYAMSUNDER

¶32

W.P.No.27761 of 2022

¶33

[per MGR,J]

¶34

07.11.2022

¶35

Vjl

Potnuru Sudhakara Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potnuru Sudhakara Rao v. the State of Ap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Postmaster General, Vs J. Suseelamma

Temba Krishna Rao Vs Temba Mahalaxmi

G. Vijaya Bhaskar Vs G. Pushpa Leela