Nalam Hari Prasada Rao Vs the State of Ap

NALAM HARI PRASADA RAO, S/O BALAGURUNADHA RAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCC.BUSINESS R/O D NO 7-10-22 PADMANABHUNIVARI VEEDHI GANGANAMMAPETA TENALI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF AP, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDI AMARAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶13

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, GUNTUR

¶14

DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFOCER, GUNTUR

¶15

PEDDARAVURU GRAMAPANCHAYAT, REP BY ITS EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY-CUM-PANCHAYAT SECRETARY PEDDARAVURU VILLAGE TENALI MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be

¶18

2

¶19

pleased toto issue a Writ. order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the orders passed by the 3rcirespondent in Roc.No.2116/2018 G-6. dated 24-12-2018 thereby refused to grant permission for manufacturing of Poly Propylene Bags in the 4th respondent gramapanchayat, as illegal, irregular and without jurisdiction set aside 1 the same, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order dated 24-12-2018 passed by the 3rd respondent in Roc.No.2116/2018 G-6 and pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 3 and 4 to permit the petitioner to establish the manufacturing of Poly Propylene Bags unit in the 4th respondent gramapanchayat by suspending the order dated 24-12-2018 passed by the 3rd respondent in Roc.No.2116/2018 G-6, pending disposal of the main writ petition and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

1.VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT

¶26

2.GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP)

¶27

The Court made the following:

¶28

3

¶29

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶30

WRIT PETITION NO: 1787/2019

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

¶33

seeking the following relief:

¶34

“…..to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the orders passed by the 3^rd respondent in Roc.No.2116/2018, G-6 dated 24-12-2018 thereby refused to grant permission for manufacturing of Poly Propylene Bags in the 4^th respondent gramapanchayat, as illegal, irregular and without jurisdiction set aside the same, violative of provisions of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and rules framed there under and offends Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the order dated 24-12-2018 passed by the 3^rd respondent in Roc.No.2116/2018 G-6 and pass…..”

¶35

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner submitted an application before the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Guntur, seeking NOC from the Gram Panchayat for establishment of Harichandana Poly Products in D.No.12-24 in Assessment No.1824, Peddaravuru Gram Panchayat, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. Accordingly, 05.11.2016, petitioner was granted permission vide consent

¶37

4

¶38

order No.G-1789/PCB/RO-GNT/W&A/CFO/2016-1049. Later, the petitioner made another representation to the 4^th respondent dated 08.03.2017, seeking permission to manufacture and operate the said industry. Till date, the 4^th respondent neither considered the application nor conducted any enquiry. While so, on 08.10.2018, the Gram Panchayat, through Resolution No.5, rejected the application on the ground that some neighboring residents had raised objections to the petitioner’s proposal for establishment of the industry at the specified location, thereby refused to issue the No Objection Certificate (NOC). The said order of rejection by way of a resolution was assailed by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, pending Writ Petition.

¶39

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has furnished a copy of written instructions issued by the 3^rd respondent vide Rc.No.2116/2018-G1, dated 24.07.2025, wherein, the relevant portion is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶40

“It is to submit the application of the petitioner for the NoObjection-Certificate from the gram panchayat to establish Harichandana Poly Products has been rejected by the Gram Panchayat vide Resolution No. 5 dated 08-10-2018 o the grounds that the neighbours have objected.

¶41

Later on, the petitioner has applied again by relocating the said firm to the outside of the residential area and NOC has been issued by the Gram Panchayat vide resolution No. 157 dt.21-07-2023. The firm is established and the same is running as of now.”

¶42

5

¶43

The learned Government Pleader submits that, pending Writ Petition, the petitioner submitted a fresh application after relocating the proposed establishment at an alternate site. Upon due consideration, the 4^th Respondent Gram Panchayat, vide Resolution No.157 dated 21.07.2023, granted the No Objection Certificate (NOC) for the establishment of the said unit.

¶44

In view of the clear and categorical written instructions submitted by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents stating that the relief or the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed by issuing NOC as requested, hence, the challenge in the Writ Petition has become infructuous.

¶45