Dismissed
P. Venkata Raju v. Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep by its Chief Secretary
Telangana HCWP/31305/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI…
What the court decided
AI extract
SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI…
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.31305 OF 2011
ORDER:
The petitioner is a small farmer engaged in agricultural and dairy farming in a small way. He owns land at Karavakulanka Village of I.Polavaram Mandal in East Godavari District. He filed the instant Writ Petition seeking declaration that the action of respondents 1 to 5 in not taking steps to close the industrial activity/unit of the sixth respondent as arbitrary and illegal and necessary consequential directions to initiate penal action under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act) and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1980.
In brief, the case of the petitioner is that the sixth respondent is carrying on the activity of building a huge barge and creating air and water pollution near Godavari bank. He alleges that the activity carried on by the sixth respondent is not permissible under law. His complaint to the authorities proved futile. He obtained necessary information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and states that the sixth respondent did not obtain consent for establishment (CFE) or consent for operation (CFO) from the third respondent. The third respondent issued closure order under the Water Act. In spite of the same, the petitioner alleges that the sixth respondent is carrying on the activity of constructing barge with the connivance of the officials.
At the stage of admission itself, the sixth respondent filed counter affidavit denying the petition allegations and averments. It is further stated that against the closure order, the sixth respondent filed appeal before the appellate authority and also applied for grant of CFE/CFO. The sixth respondent denies the allegation that even after the closure order they are carrying on the barge construction activity.
The counsel for respondents 3 and 6 submit that subsequent to
filing of the Writ Petition, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal on 13.02.2012 remanding the matter to the third respondent with a direction to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before granting CFE and CFO. This is not denied by the counsel for the petitioner. As the third respondent has already availed alternative remedy and the appellate authority has already disposed of the appeal, it is not proper for this Court to express any opinion. However, be it noted that in case the sixth respondent carries on any activity without CFE and CFO, it is open to the petitioner to bring to the notice of the third respondent for necessary redressal.
The Writ Petition, with the above observations, stands dismissed. W.P.M.P.No.38844 of 2011 also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)
_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)
16th February 2012 RRB
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to have expressed an opinion on the pending appeal and interim activity pending appellate disposal.
Whether the Writ Petition seeking non-closure of industrial unit carries on despite closure order requires interference.
Petitioner
Respondents 1 to 5
Sixth Respondent
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