Allowed

K.Nagaraju, v. Central Pollution Control Board

Telangana HC4 Nov 2016WP/32858/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner alleged noise and air pollution due to loom operations by his neighbors. The court directed respondents to prevent such pollution within two months and allowed the petitioner to forward the notice to the Superintendent of Police if jurisdiction is with them, without deciding the jurisdictional dispute.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to prevent air and noise pollution by the petitioners' neighbors within two months; petitioner to forward notice to Superintendent of Police if he is the designated authority. Misce

K.Nagaraju, Vs Central Pollution Control… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶4

Writ Petition No.32858 of 2016

¶5

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan)

¶6

Heard Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Revenue (AP), and Sri B.Jithender, learned Standing Counsel for the Central Pollution Control Board and, with their consent, the writ petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

¶7

The complaint in this Writ Petition is that respondents 4 and 5, who are the petitioner’s neighbours and are running handloom and power looms in their house, are causing both air and noise pollution within the locality disturbing even the sleep of the people staying in the locality, including the petitioner herein. While a representation appears to have been made to the District Pollution Officer by the petitioner, a legal notice was sent on his behalf to the District Collector later.

¶8

Sri Sitaram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to Rule 2(c) of the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 (for short “the Rules”) which defines “authority” to mean and include any authority or officer authorized by the Central Government, or as the case may be, the State Government in accordance with the laws in force and includes a District Magistrate, Police Commissioner, or any other officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of Police designated for the maintenance of the ambient air quality standards in respect of noise under any law for the time being in force. Learned counsel would submit that the District Collector is also an authority under Rule 2(c) of the Rules.

¶9

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, appearing on behalf of the District Collector, would however submit that the Superintendent of Police of the District is designated as the authority; and any

¶10

representation in this regard should be addressed to the Superintendent of Police and not to the District Collector.

¶11

The complaint in this writ petition is of noise pollution affecting residents of the locality where respondents 4 and 5 are said to be carrying on business. As the issue needs immediate attention, we see no reason to keep the writ petition pending on our file to examine the larger question whether Rule 2(c) of the Rules confers jurisdiction on the District Collector or the District Superintendent of Police or on both. If, as is contended before us by the learned Government Pleader for Revenue, it is the District Superintendent of Police who has jurisdiction, the District Collector shall forward the notice sent to him, on behalf of the petitioner, to the Superintendent of Police who shall forthwith take action in the matter.

¶12

We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to direct respondents 1 to 3 herein to ensure that necessary action is taken to prevent air and noise pollution in the area, if any, by respondents 4 and 5 at the earliest and, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to state that, before any action is taken by respondents 1 to 3, or by the District Superintendent of Police, respondents 4 and 5 shall be put on notice and be given an opportunity of being heard.

¶13

The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ)

¶15

_____________________________ (A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J)

¶16

04^th November 2016 JSU

¶17

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

¶18

AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶20

Writ Petition No.32858 of 2016

¶21

Date: 04.11.2016

¶22

JSU

K.Nagaraju, v. Central Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Nagaraju, v. Central Pollution Control Board

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

M/s.Sri Vinayaka Agencies, Kakinada, East Godavari Vs Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, a 15/2

M/s. Leela Sate Ram Steel Enterprises, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

The Etikoppaka Co-operative Agricultural and Industrial Vs Commercial Tax Officer, New Colony, Anakapalle

M/s. Bhagayya Lakshmi Agencies, Vijayawada, Vs Commercial Tax Officer, M.T.Street Circle

Naidu Prakash S/o. Late Sayanna Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mrs. Sobhana Lakshmi Ganti, Vs The State of A.P.