Disposed

Pavuluri Nageswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC27 Feb 2012WP/1905/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition alleging air and noise pollution caused by a respondent's rice mill and fertilizer sales, demanding action from government authorities. The Court noted that the Tahsildar had already considered the grievance and issued a notice, though some activities remain under different regulatory bodies. Consequently, the petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without further enquiry as a reasoned order had already been passed by the Tahsildar.

Pavuluri Nageswara Rao Vs Government of Andhra… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1905 OF 2012

¶2

Dated: 27.02.2012

¶3

Between : Mr.Pavuluri Nageswara Rao … Petitioner And Government of Andhra Pradesh and 7 others … Respondents

¶4

The Court made the following:-

¶5

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.1905 OF 2012

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

The petitioner claims to be a resident of Thimmapuram Village, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. It is stated that the respondent No.8 who has been running a rice mill in the name and style of Sri Sambasiva Rice Mill for the past 30 years got it renovated and expanded its operations without obtaining the approval of the 4^th respondent Gram Panchayat. The 8^th respondent has also been carrying on sales of fertilizers and insecticides in the said premises. Alleging that the dust and husk emanating from the rice mill has been causing lot of air and noise pollution resulting in health problems to the villagers, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 25.10.2011 requesting the respondents 2 to 7 to take necessary action. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 7 in considering the grievance of the petitioner, the present writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents 2 to 7 to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law to stop the activities of the respondent No.8.

¶8

This Court, by order dated 30.01.2012, directed the respondent No.4- Tahsildar, to consider the petitioner’s grievance in the light of the proceedings of respondent No.7 dated 02.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on or before 15.02.2012. In compliance with the same, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 13.02.2012 stating that having examined the petitioner’s complaint a notice was issued to respondent No.8 and in pursuance thereof, respondent No.8 had assured to shift the fertilizers business from the existing compound to some other place. So far as the running of the rice mill is concerned, it is stated that in view of the repeal of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958, the rice mill which is a small scale industry comes under control and monitoring by the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Guntur.

¶9

It is also brought to my notice that the Tahsildar, Edlapadu, has

¶10

passed an order to that effect and the same was communicated to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the fact that the said order dated 13.02.2012 is served on the petitioner. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s representation has already been considered and a reasoned order has been passed, no further enquiry is necessary in this writ petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to workout the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance, if any, with regard to the alleged pollution being caused by the rice milling activities of the respondent No.8. No costs.

¶11

___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.02.2012 Ivd

Pavuluri Nageswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavuluri Nageswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rahemunnisa Begum Vs The District Collector

Jetti Laxmaiah Vs The Joint Collector

Smt. Hanumanthamma Vs The Tahsildar

Godeke Laxmi Bai Vs The Tahsildar

Anjana Infrastructures Vs E. Meera Prasad and Another

Mudigonda Edamaiah Vs The District Collector,Mahaboobnagar District