Krishna Parchetan Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

Krishna Parchetan Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 directed to follow the guidelines framed with respect to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 200 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Noise Pollution (V), In re; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are failing to enforce the guidelines issued with respect to noise pollution, warranting a writ of mandamus. +1 more

Court's answer

This Court disposed of the Writ Petition, directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to follow the guidelines framed with respect to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 200 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Noise Pollution (V), In re.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Article 226) — Krishna Parchetan v. The State of AP and others — Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus declaring that the 3rd Respondent had taken no action on his representation dated 06.03.2026, and directing the respondents to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Noise Pollution (V), In re, (2005) 5 SCC 733, and the guidelines framed with respect to the Noise Pollution Regulation and Control Rules 200 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (including, as printed in the prayer, G.O.Ms.No.l72 Dt 12.10.2010 noise-pollution guidelines). Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 (Superintendent of Police, District Collector and Anantapuramu Municipal Corporation, Anantapur) were not enforcing the noise-pollution guidelines; the learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that where rules exist they must be implemented and followed strictly. HELD: Considering the entire facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition was disposed of, directing Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to follow the guidelines framed with respect to the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 200 under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Noise Pollution (V), In re. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

[3521]

APHC010133352026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE Y. LAKSHMANA RAO

WRIT PETITION NO: 7045/2026

Between:

1.KRISHNA PARCHETAN, S/O.N.C.SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 10/357, SAROJINI ROAD, ANANTHAPUR, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

...PETITIONER

AND

1.THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (HOME) ANDHRA PRADESH SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI 522503

2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT-515001

3.THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR DISTRICT - 515001

4.ANANTAPURAMU MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, ANANTAPUR - 515001

...RESPONDENT(S):

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1.M BALANAGA SRINIVAS

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.GP FOR HOME

The Court made the following:

2

ORDER :

The Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“… to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the the 3rd Respondent in not taking any action on the representation Dt 06 03 2026 filed by the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to strictly follow the guidelines laid down by the court lain dovm in 20055 SCC Page 733 and implement inaction of supreme G O Ms No l72 Dt 12102010 guidelines framed with respect to the Noise Pollution Regulation and Control Rules 200 under Environment and to pass…”

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant

Government Pleader.

Sri M.Balanaga Srinivas, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Respondent Nos.2 to 4 are not enforcing the guidelines issued with respect to noise pollution.

Sri P.Ajay Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that when rules are there they have to be implemented or followed strictly.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to follow the guidelines framed with respect to Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 200 under Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and also the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Noise Pollution (V), In re¹ . There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_________________________ DR. Y. LAKSHMANA RAO, J

Date: 09.03.2026

1 (2005) 5 SCC 733

3

Note: Issue C.C. by 10.03.2026 B/o VTS