The Court held the writ petition infructuous because the second respondent had already passed a closure order on the parboiled rice mill on 21-1-2010 rendering the grievance non-existent.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN
Writ Petition No. 8737 of 2009
Dated: 10-2-2010
Between:
Mempally Mahender Goud and
…Petitioner
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Nizamabad and others
…Respondents.
Order: (Per GR, J)
The alleged inaction of the respondents 1 and 2 in directing closure of the 3rd respondent-industry, a parboiled rice mill, allegedly causing pollution in the locality, is the grievance in this writ petition filed in public interest.
This Court had been monitoring the matter after issuing notice to respondents 1 and 2 in April, 2009 and had passed an order on 23-12-2009 directing the 2nd respondent to depute a Senior Environmental Engineer or any other appropriate technical authority to the premises of the 3rd respondent to ascertain whether the activities of the 3rd respondent are generating pollution. By an another order dated 20-12010, the 2nd respondent was directed to ensure stoppage of all activities whatsoever by the 3rd respondent-industry until further orders of this Court. The 2nd respondent was also directed to expeditiously call for the reports of the Analyst on the effluents discharged by the 3rd respondent and the ambient air quality in and by the 3rd respondent-industry and to take a decision on the basis of the report received.
A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent which states that on the basis of the instructions of the 3rd respondent-industry, on 18-12010 after collection of samples and relevant data, a closure order dated 21-1-2010 was passed after consideration and analysis of the report received and the industry was ordered to stop all industrial activities with
immediate effect i.e., from 21-1-2010.
In the light of the orders dated 21-1-2010 passed by the 2nd respondent, the substantive grievance in this writ petition does not survive for adjudication.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
___________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J
_______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J
10th February, 2010. GRR
Mempally Mahender Goud
Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its District Collector, Nizamabad
GODA RAGHURAM
RAMESH RANGANATHAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
