Petitioners filed a PIL seeking a mandatory writ to close an illegal drums manufacturing unit. The court held that sufficient action had already been initiated by the respondent authority, thus dismissing the PIL.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PIL No. 311 OF 2015
18-01-2016
Between:
Goruputi Demudu and others
… Petitioners
And
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, A.P Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad and others
… Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
PIL No. 311 OF 2015
PC: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the instant PIL, the petitioners have made the following
prayer:
“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, the petitioners herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 5 in not taking any steps for removal/prevention of Drums Manufacturing unit run by the 6th Respondent in the premises of Sri Sivayoga Asram, Near Current Office, Ward No.56, Sriranganagar Colony, Lankelapalem, Parawada Mandal, Visakhapatnam District as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act and also offends Articles 14 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 5 to close the 6th Respondent Drums Manufacturing Unit forthwith and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
Sri G. Ramachandra Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4 submits that respondent No.4 has already initiated action against the industries by issuing show cause notices dated 1911-2015. He placed copies of show cause notices issued to all the industries on record. He submits that respondent No.4 shall take action initiated by them by issuing show cause notices against the
industries to its logical conclusion within a period of eight weeks from today. His statement is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, nothing further survives in this PIL. PIL is
disposed of. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, also stand disposed of.
_________________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
________________________ S.V. BHATT, J 18-01-2016 ks
Goruputi Demudu and others
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Municipal Administration Department
Dilip B. Bhosale
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
