Dismissed

Urrikala Bethala Rao v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, rep.by its

Telangana HC1 Mar 2012WP/5949/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging AP Pollution Control Board's inaction regarding a rice mill's pollution, the court held the Board had discharged its duty by issuing notices and warning closure. The petition was dismissed as misconceived, with no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and W.P.M.P. are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Urrikala Bethala Rao Vs The Andhra Pradesh… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.5949 OF 2011

¶8

Between

¶9

Urrikala Bethala Rao, S/o. Bhushanam, Aged about 55 Years, Cultiovation, R/o.D.No.6-1-1/12, Kummarlaveedhi, Near Rama Krishna Rice Mill, 23^rd Ward, Ramachandrapuram, East Godavari District and three others. - - - Petitioners.

¶10

AND

¶11

The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Member Secretary, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad and four others. - - - Respondents.

¶12

This court made the following :

¶13

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND

¶14

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶15

WRIT PETITION No.5949 OF 2011

¶16

O R D E R: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S. Rao)

¶17

The petitioners are four in number. They filed the instant Writ Petition seeking a direction to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) to take action against the fifth respondent under Section 31 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereafter the Act) for running the rice mill.

¶18

The petitioners, who are residents of 23^rd Ward of Ramachandrapuram town in East Godavari District and others allege that the fourth respondent, a proprietary concern of the fifth respondent, is running the rice mill causing health hazards to the residents of the locality and the APPCB did not take any action against the fourth respondent.

¶19

A perusal of the record shows that one B. Satyanarayana, Municipal Counsellor of 23^rd ward, Ramachandrapuram gave complaint to the District Collector about the pollution caused by the fourth respondent. After having received the same through the District Collector, the officials of the APPCB inspected the rice mill and observed that it is surrounded by residential houses; husk stored without coverage; there is a dust pollution; and that there is no plantation towards residential houses to control the dust emission. Therefore, the Environmental Engineer - the third respondent

¶20

herein; issued notice dated 14.06.2009 to the fourth respondent calling upon them to increase the height of the compound wall up to 12 feet, to store the rice husk in closed shed and dispose of the same on a day-to-day basis and take all necessary measures to control dust pollution. The fourth respondent was also warned with closure of rice mill under Section 31(A) of the Act.

¶21

In the meanwhile, the Environmental Engineer received another complaint on 21.09.2009 about the pollution caused by the fourth respondent. Therefore, he issued another notice dated 30.09.2010, which reads as under :

¶22

“WHEREAS you are operating the rice mill in the name and style of M/s. Sri Vijaya Lakshmi Rice Mill located at Kummaraveedhi, Stiwelpeta, Kothuru Road, Ramachandrapuram (V&M), East Godavari District for manufacturing of raw rice.

¶23

WHEREAS this office has received complaint from B. Satyanarayana, resident of Ramachandrapuram (V&M) against your rice mill on Air Pollution Problems on 03.06.2009 and this office has issued certain directions to control Air Pollution on surroundings vide ref 1^st cited.

¶24

WHEREAS this office has again received complaint against your rice mill on Air Pollution problems by stating that you are not properly maintaining the systems provided to control Air Pollution.

¶25

Hence, you are hereby directed to provide adequate Air Pollution Control Systems on permanent basis for collecting rice husk, so that no dust pollution spreads on surroundings. Your Compliance on the above shall reach this office within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which action will be initiated under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Amendments thereof in the interest of Public Health and Environment.”

¶26

In view of the brief narration of the background as above, the APPCB or its Environmental Engineer cannot be said to have not discharged their duties. On the complaint given by the Municipal counsellor, immediate action was taken and the fourth respondent was put on notice with the closure of the unit under the Act. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioners is not to approach the first

¶27

respondent for necessary rederessal and the Writ Petition is misconceived.

¶28

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The W.P.M.P shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

________________

¶30

(V.V.S. RAO, J)

¶31

__________________________________ (G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶32

March 01, 2012 Dsh

¶33

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY

¶34

120

¶35

WRIT PETITION No.5949 of 2011

¶36

March, 01, 2012

¶37

DSH

Urrikala Bethala Rao v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urrikala Bethala Rao v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, rep.by its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sada Keshava Reddy Vs The Development Credit Bank Ltd.

M/s Jea Trading Company Private Ltd., Represented by its Vs Allahabad Bank

Saketh India Ltd., Vs Industrial Development Bank of India

Smt. T. Santha Kumari, Vs Indian Overseas Bank

M/s. Balaji Board Industries Vs The Ap. Pollution Control Appellate Authority

N. Kuntaiah , N. Kumar Vs A.P. Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Zonal Officer