Disposed

yerukonda Ramu at Ramudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC3 Jan 2023WP/22923/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging orders directing closure of the petitioner's rice mill. The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for permission to run the mill in a residential area after conducting a local enquiry and considering objections, while staying the operation of the mill until such orders are passed.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the petitioner's application for mill permission after conducting a local enquiry and considering objections; petitioner restrained from opening and running the mill p

yerukonda Ramu at Ramudu Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 22923 of 2022

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the proceedings dated 18.6.2022 and the consequential notice dated 18.7.2022 issued by the 3^rd respondent directing to close the petitioner’s Atukula mill in Korukonda Village and Mandal, East Godavari District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents not to interfere/meddle with the operation of the Atukula Mill (flatted rice mill) by the petitioner in any respect.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a resident of Korukonda Village and started a small atukula mill (flatted rice mill) nearly 35 years back at his residence and there is no disturbance from the said mill and not omitting any smoke or dust causing injuries to the nearby villagers and there is no sound or air pollution. More so, the

¶7

¶8

height of the smoke evaluating pipe is about 20 feet facilitating to avoid air pollution.

¶9

While that being so, the 2^nd respondent without conducting any enquiry has issued notice on 07.02.2018 directing the petitioner to close the atukula mill. Questioning the same, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.13226 of 2018 on the file of this Court. Initially interim stay has been granted and finally the said writ petition was disposed of on 02.5.2022 directing the 2^nd petitioner to consider the objections filed by the petitioner to the said notice dated 07.02.2018 and pass orders within four weeks.

¶10

Pursuant to the said orders of this Court, the 2^nd respondent has issued notice on 26.5.2022 to the petitioner and reply to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted his objections on 30.5.2022 stating that the petitioner is running the said atukula mill since four (4) decades and no air pollution or sound pollution is caused by virtue of the same the provisions of Section 122(1) of Panchayat Raj Act would not attract to the said case. Consequently, the respondents without considering the objections submitted by the petitioner, further notice has been issued on 18.6.2022 to initiate action by removing the mill. Questioning the same, again the present writ petition is filed.

¶11

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have further initiated action only basing on the complaint made by the proposed respondent, though there is no noise or air pollution causing to the respondents, only at the instance of the proposed respondent, those who had purchased the land recently and constructed the houses. At their instance the present impugned orders have been passed. To substantiate his contentions, the petitioner has placed reliance on latest photographs. Learned counsel, on instructions, further submitted that the petitioner has submitted his application as per Rules for grant of permission on 30.5.2022 for running the mill and the same was also acknowledged by the gramapanchayat. But till date no orders have been passed on the said application.

¶13

2^nd and 3^rd respondents have filed their counter and narrated the sequence of events and also submitted that the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the competent authorities while establishing the said mill. Pursuant to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.13226 of 2018 dated 02.5.2022, the respondents have issued notice on 26.5.2022 and reply to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted objections on 30.5.2022.

¶14

¶15

But that does not speak any reasons. On enquiry it came to their notice that the mill is evaluating huge smoke resulting air and noise pollution and thereby causing nuisance to the neighbouring residents. Hence left with no option, the respondents have passed the impugned orders.

¶16

The unofficial respondent though filed a petition to implead him as proposed respondent, but not impleaded in the writ petition and he filed counter and photographs. According to the averments made in the counter filed by the unofficial respondent and proposed respondent and also considering the averments made in the writ petition, the fact remains that the petitioner has not obtained any permission from the competent authority at the stage of establishing the mill or during the present period. When there are complaints with regard to establishment of mills in a residential area, one should have to obtain permission from the competent authorities.

¶17

Considering the said submissions and on perusal of the record, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner as per Rules for running the mill in a residential area after conducting enquiry in the local area and by taking the objections also into consideration.

¶18

¶19

Till passing of the orders on the application filed by the petitioner

¶20

for running the mill, the petitioner is directed not to open and run the mill. It is further made clear that while passing orders on the application filed by the petitioner for running the mill in a residential area, the respondents shall consider the objections of all the residents of that area.

¶21

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. No costs.

¶22

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall

¶23

also stand closed.

¶24

________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶25

Date: 03.01.2023 RD

¶26

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH

¶28

WRIT PETITION No. 22923 of 2022

¶29

Dated 03.01.2023

¶30

yerukonda Ramu at Ramudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

yerukonda Ramu at Ramudu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Thupili Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Kommineni Hemanth Kumar, Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Bayye Chandra Kumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Lakshminarayana Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Lanka Ramasiva Reddy Vs Y.Sri Lakshmi,I.a.S

V.S.Rami Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh