Disposed

D. Tirupathi Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC20 Jan 2016WP/42774/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Acting C.J. Bhosale and J. S.V. Bhatt ordered Respondent No.4 to dispose of petitioners' representations concerning alleged illegal stone crushing and pollution within two months under Section 31-A of the Air Act, without expressing a view on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.4 to dispose of representations within two months under Section 31-A of Air Act, 1981.

D. Tirupathi Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2016)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE

¶2

AND

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT

¶4

W.P.No.42774 OF 2015

¶5

PC: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice S.V.Bhatt)

¶6

Heard Mr.D.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Forests, Mr.G.Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for respondents 2, 3 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for Industries for respondents 5 and 6.

¶7

The petitioners complain against inaction of the respondents

¶8

in disposing of their representations dated 27.03.2012 and

¶9

03.07.2012 made against 7^th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

¶10

Through representation dated 27.03.2012, the petitioners have brought to the notice of 2^nd respondent

¶11

unauthroised and illegal activities of 7^th respondent in running a stone crushing unit in Sy.No.330 of Madanapuram Village, Kothur Mandal, Sirkakulam District. According to the petitioner, the non-consideration of

¶12

representations is resulting in unabated air pollution to the neighbourhood and the establishment of 7^th respondent is contrary to law and guidelines stipulated by the board from time to time. Learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 2, 3 and 4 submits that representations were filed in the year 2012 and it is very unlikely that the representations remained unattended till date. Alternatively, he submits that if the representations are not already disposed of, respondents 2, 3 and 4 will take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶13

Having regard to the above submission, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent No.4 to dispose of the representations in accordance with Section 31-A of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already disposed of.

¶14

The petitioners are given liberty to enclose copy of the representations dated 27.03.2012 and 03.07.2012 and communicate afresh along with a copy of this order within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶15

It is needless to observe that we are not expressing any view on the merits of the matter and if respondents 2 to 4 decide to proceed against 7^th respondent for alleged pollution, further action in this behalf shall be taken after affording reasonable opportunity to him.

¶16

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

¶17

_____________________ DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ

¶18

S.V.BHATT, J

¶19

Date:20.01.2016 Lrkm

D. Tirupathi Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D. Tirupathi Rao 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

Miss K. Sahasra Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Sankza Satyanarayana Vs Commissioner of Survey and Settlements

Shaik Ashiraph Ali Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

J. Ram Mohan Chowdhary, Vs The Union of India

M/S.Parveen Travels. Vs Licencing Officer R.T.A. Chittoor.

Army Welfare Co-operatiive Housing Society Ltd. Vs Coloner Satyanarayana Prasad Putchala (Retd)