Disposed

Rayalaseema Textilies Employees Association, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC8 Sept 2015PIL/198/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court directed the Pollution Control Board to examine compliance, causes of a fire accident, and preventive measures for two industries. The petitioner is given two weeks to file a representation, while the Board must conclude its inquiry within two months under the Water and Air Acts.

What did the court decide?

Pollution Control Board directed to examine compliance and causes of fire, issue directions within two months; petitioner allowed two weeks to file representation.

Rayalaseema Textilies Employees Association, Vs… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE AND

¶2

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT

¶3

PIL No.198 OF 2015

¶4

PC: (Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶5

Heard Ms. M.Pavithra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleaders for Forests, Labour, Industries, Revenue, Mr. G.Ramachandra Rao, learned standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board and Mr. Y. Srinivas Murthy, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

¶6

Through the Instant Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner prays for Mandamus declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 5 in initiating immediate steps to close down the industries run by respondent Nos.6 and 7 on the ground that the industries are causing pollution problems and health hazards to the neighbouring villages, in spite of fire accident, as illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Environmental Laws.

¶7

On 03.09.2015, having heard the learned counsel appearing for parties and with a view to have first hand information and assistance from the statutory authority/APPCB, we directed the Board as follows:

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board. Mr.Y.Srinivasa Murthy offers to file Vakalat for respondents 6 and 7.

¶9

It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the 6^th respondent on account of lack of orders is not undertaking any processing as on date. Before commencing the process, the 6^th respondent will intimate respondent No.2. As regards, respondent No.7 is concerned, the 2^nd respondent is directed to depute tomorrow the Members of Task Force to inspect the industry of 7^th respondent/prepare the compliance status of the directions issued and the deficiencies which are required to be carried out by

¶10

the 6^th respondent, and file a report before this Court by 08.09.2015. The learned standing counsel representing the 2^nd respondent is directed to communicate in writing this order for due compliance by the 2^nd respondent.

¶11

Stand over to 08.09.2015.”

¶12

Today during the course of hearing, the learned standing counsel places on record the report dated 04.09.2015 of the Task Force which visited the industry of 7^th respondent. We have perused the report and taken note of the compliance or non-compliance of conditions by 7^th respondent and the technical issue is being considered by the Pollution Control Board. Having regard to this circumstance, we are of the view that the 2^nd respondent/Pollution Control Board, being the statutory authority is required to examine the totality of the circumstances of the case, verify compliance status or non-compliance of conditions by respondents 6 and 7, the causes or contributory causes leading to fire accident in the company of respondent No.7, what are the preventive and prohibitory measures required to be followed to avoid recurrence of such incidents etc. are thoroughly examined and appropriate decision is taken by respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr.Y.Srinivas Murthy learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 and 7 submits that the report substantially vindicates the stand of respondents 6 and 7 and if at all any omission is pointed out in the report, his clients are prepared to make good the deficiencies or place before the authorities the record of due compliance of conditions imposed by the Board. For doing so, the learned counsel requests two weeks from today.

¶14

We have perused the status report dated 04.09.2015 and the other material available on record. Admittedly, the issue is pending before the 2^nd respondent for consideration and passing appropriate

¶15

orders under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (for short ‘the Water Act’) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution ) Act,1981 (for short ‘the Air Act’). It is for the 2^nd respondent to objectively consider the totality of the circumstances of due compliance of all conditions by respondents 6 and 7 and if necessary keep the industries in watch list, periodically monitor and take short term and long term steps necessary for prevention and prohibition of pollution from these industries. The petitioner is given two weeks time from today to file representation against any of the inactions or noncompliance of conditions by respondents 6 and 7 before the 2^nd respondent. The representation is directed to be considered while examining the case of respondents 6 and 7 under Section 33(A) of the Water Act and under Section 31(A) of the Air Act. The 2^nd respondent is directed to undertake and complete the said exercise within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that we are not expressing any view on the merits of the complaint made by the petitioner or the justification offered by respondents 6 and 7. It is strictly for 2^nd respondent to examine and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶16

The public interest litigation is disposed of.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, also stand disposed of.

¶18

_____________________ DILIP B.BHOSALE, ACJ

¶19

S.V.BHATT, J

¶20

Date:08.09.2015

¶21

Stp

Rayalaseema Textilies Employees Association, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rayalaseema Textilies Employees Association, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

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

Abdul Karim alias Waseem Memon, Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary

M. Srinivas Yadav Vs The State of Telangana

B.C. Velama Samkshema Sangam Vs State of Telangana

S. Venkat Reddy, S/o. Bucha Reddy, age 43 years, Vs The state of Telangana rep. by

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs The State of A.P

Mr. Jeediginjala Venkatesh, Vs The State of Telangana

G.Srinivasa Reddy S/o Subba Reddy, Vs The Union of India, Ministry of Finance

The Cotton Ginning Vs The Union of India

Chevireddy Bhaskar Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Abdul Karim alias Waseem Memon, Vs State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary

Sri K. Krupanandam Vs The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Lower

Mukthineni Rangamma, W/o.Lakshmi Venkateswrarao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

The Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District Vs Sri M.A. Jaleel Saw Mill

The Fishermen Cooperative Society, Vs The Telangana Cooperative Tribunal