Disposed

Mikkilinani Venkata Rama Rao S/o Venkata Nancharaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its

Telangana HC18 Nov 2015WP/18775/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding alleged pollution from poultry sheds near habitations. It directed the government respondent to prosecute action against the sheds but to first grant the departmental respondent an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent 1 to prosecute action against respondent 7's poultry sheds, but first grant respondent 7 an opportunity of being heard.

Mikkilinani Venkata Rama Rao S/o Venkata… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶3

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶4

AND

¶5

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶6

WRIT PETITION No. 18775 OF 2007

¶7

Date: 18.11.2015

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mikkilinani Venkata Rama Rao & others.

¶10

… Petitioners

¶11

And

¶12

The Govt., of A.P., rep., by its District Medical & Health Officer, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, & another.

¶13

… Respondents

¶14

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶15

AND

¶16

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT WRIT PETITION No. 18775 OF 2007

¶17

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

The petitioners, in the instant writ petition, make the following prayer:

¶20

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring inaction of respondents 1 to 6 on the activity of the 7^th respondent causing pollution by establishing poultry sheds near human habitations at Daliparru Village, Ghantasala Mandal, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently seeking the direction to the respondents 1 to 6 to take necessary steps to prevent the 7^th respondent from establishing poultry sheds near human habitations and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.1 has filed counter affidavit and stated that they have initiated action against the poultry sheds belonging to respondent No.7. However, he is not in a position to state as to what happened thereafter. He is also not in a position to state whether poultry sheds still exist.

¶22

Learned Government Pleader is also not in a position to state as to what action has been taken.

¶23

Keeping that in view and considering the averments made in paragraph Nos.3 and 4 of the counter affidavit, we are satisfied that this writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by the following order:

¶24

“Respondent No.1 through their authorized representative are at liberty to prosecute the action initiated by them against the poultry sheds of respondent No.7. It is needless to mention, before taking any action as such, they shall grant an opportunity of being heard to the 7^th respondent. This observation will operate if the action is so far not taken.”

¶25

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶28

S.V. BHATT, J

¶29

Date: 18.11.2015

¶30

Mikkilinani Venkata Rama Rao S/o Venkata Nancharaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mikkilinani Venkata Rama Rao S/o Venkata Nancharaiah v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh repby its

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

Keshava Smruthi Mandali, Vs Kurnool Municipal Corporation

K.Madhukar Reddy, Vs The Election Commission of India, represented by

Gullapudi Sita Rama Babu Vs the State of Ap., rep.by its Secretary,Home Department

Rama Srinivasa Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Principal Secretary

Manupati Leela Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

I Balamani Vs The Concerned Magistrate for Newspapers-presently