The High Court dismissed a writ petition wherein residents alleged that authorities failed to take action against an illegally operated machine causing noise and dust. The court found that authorities had acted in response to notices and requests.
No order as to costs; writ petition and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed.
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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.11796 OF 2011
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)
The petitioners are residents of Padavadlapudi Village in Guntur District. In 2010, the first petitioner filed W.P.No.4483 of 2010 seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the official respondents in not taking steps to protect the lives of the members of the petitioner’s family by implementing the mandate of [1] the Supreme Court in Farhd.Wadia v. Union of Indi a , as illegal and arbitrary. This Court disposed of the Writ Petition on 26.02.2010. The order reads as under.
“The petitioner is aggrieved of the installation of electrical motors for operation of the machine manufacturing wooden articles on the ground of noise pollution, dusting etc., which is said to have been represented against before the authorities concerned but of no avail to the petitioner. Without expression of opinion in respect of the merits of the contention, it is provided that in case any application is filed before the competent authority, it shall be addressed to strictly on the touch stone of the statute.”
Four months thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 29.06.2010 to the official respondents including the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat requesting to take appropriate action against the eighth respondent. Alleging that in spite of Court orders, no action is taken against the eighth respondent, who is running ‘Chitrika Machine’ illegally, the present Writ Petition is filed.
This Court issued notice to the respondents. After receiving the notice, the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat ( 4 th respondent) filed counter affidavit. For ready reference, we extract here below the relevant portion from it.
In the said legal notice it was also mentioned about the
order of this Hon’ble Court passed in 1 st Writ Petition No.4483/2010. The said legal notice was received by this respondent on 03.07.2010 and this respondent visited the spot for physical verification. This respondent found that the 8 th respondent has been manufacturing wooden articles which can be used in the kitchen. The machine being used by the th 8 respondent is with two motors of 1 HP each. In fact though there is some noise, it is not causing any harm to the neighbours. However, this respondent has informed the 8 th respondent with regard to the orders passed by this Hon’ble Court and asked the 8 th respondent for removal of the said motors. The 8 th respondent has not obtained any permission either to carry out his business or to run the motors. In those circumstances this respondent in his notice in Rc.No.345/09 dt.11.10.2010 directed the 8 th respondent to stop using of the Chitrika machine, failing which action will be taken against him under the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
I submit that in pursuance of the notice issued by this respondent the 8 th respondent has shifted the motors from his house bearing door No.1-502 to 1-502/1. Again this respondent came to know about the shifting of the motors and personally inspected the spot and warned the 8 th respondent for removal of the motors. Thereafter the 8 th respondent approached this respondent and requested to permit him to run the motors for his livelihood. But in view of the complaint given by the petitioners the request of the 8 th respondent was not considered and directed the 8 th respondent to remove the motors immediately and this respondent has also obtained an undertaking from the 8 th respondent that he will not run the chitrika machine in the said place and he also assured that if the authorities found if he used the chitrika machine, he will be held responsible for any action to be taken by the authorities.
The counter affidavit was served on 12.07.2011 and the petitioners have not chosen to file reply affidavit denying the counter allegations. Therefore, the allegation that the respondents did not take any action against the eighth respondent stands belied. As per the counter affidavit of the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat, the eighth respondent removed 1 HP motors (2 nos.) and subsequently, the fourth respondent issued order on 11.10.2010. Therefore, the Writ Petition, in our opinion, must be held to have been filed making false allegations.
The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.14402 of 2011 also stands dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
10th February 2012 RRB
[1] (2009) 2 SCC 442
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner made false allegations regarding the inaction of authorities in protecting their family's health from a machine.
Whether the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat took appropriate action against the operator running the machine illegally.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(2009) 2 SCC 442Referred¶4
Residents of Padavadlapudi Village
Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat
Operator of Chitrika Machine
V.V.S.RAO
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
