Dismissed

Veeramma, v. The A.P. Pollution Control Board

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022WP/1048/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged blasting and mining operations near their crops, alleging pollution and invoking Article 226. The Court examined a TSPCB report confirming the industry's environmental safeguards and dismissed the writ petition, noting that apprehensions were misconceived.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; miscellaneous applications closed.

Veeramma, Vs The A.P. Pollution Control Board — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^329s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT^FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

IVIONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTY TWO}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE^{CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN}

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICEC.V, BHASKARREDDY}

¶8

WRIT PETITION N O:^{1048 OF 2006}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Veeramma, Wo.^{Sri Nagabhushanam,Agriculture,R/o' SangamKalan} Village, Tandur Mandal,^{R.R.District.}

¶11

Chandrasekhar,^{S/o. Sri Nagabhushanam' Agriculture,R/oSangam Kalan} Village, Tandur Mandal,^R.R.District

¶12

3.susheelammaWidowofB.nagiReddy,HouseholddutiesandAgriculture' R/o. Sangam^{Kalan Village, Tandurl,4andalR R'Distttct}

¶13

Jaqanath, S/o. Late^{B. NagiReddy.Agriculture,R/o Sangam Kalan Village'} Ta-ndur Mandal.^{R. R. District.}

¶14

Ramreddy, S/o.^{Late B. Nagi Reddy,Agriculture,R/o Sangam Kalan Viliage'} Tandur Mandal, R.R.^District

¶15

Raiendra Reddy,^{S/o. Lateb. Nagi Reddy, Agriculture,R/o SangamKalan} Vrllage, Tandur^{tvlandal, R R.District.}

¶16

...PETITIONERS

¶17

AND

¶18

1 The A.P. Pollution Control^{Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, 2nd Floor'} Huda Complex,^{t\ilaitri Vanam,Ameerpet'Hyderabad.}

¶19

2 The Commissioner^{and Directorof Agriculture,A.P., Hyderabad'}

¶20

3 The Joint Director^{of Agriculture, R.R. District at Khairatabad, Hyderabad'}

¶21

4 The District Cotlector,^{R.R. District,at Khairatabad, Hyderabad}

¶22

5 The lr/landal Revenue Officer,^{Tandur,R. R. District.}

¶23

6 M/s. India Cements^{Ltd., rep. by its lVlanager, Ivlalkapur,Tandur Mandal'} R. R. District.

¶24

T.TheDirectoroft/ines&Geology,B.R.KRBuildings,Tankbund,Hyderabad

¶25

¶26

B. trrl/s VCIL. llalkapur. Tandur^{l,4andal. R.R.District}

¶27

(RB is impleaded as per court order^{dated 6.03.2006)}

¶28

...RESPONDENTS

¶29

A) Petition under ,\rticle 226^{of the Constitutionof lndia praying thatin the} circumstances staterj in the affidavit^{filed therewith, the High Courtrnaybe} pleased to issue a vr'rit, order or directions^{in the nature of writ of lvlandamus} directing the respondent No.1^{and 3 restrain respondent No.6 from blasting} mines within the rad us of one^{kilo meter from the locationof industrial area of} blasting by respondelt No.6^{in the interestofjusticeand equity}

¶30

B) This Hcn'ble Court may^{graclouslybe pleasedto declarethat inaclion of} respondent No.1 to.1 in not taking^{any steps to preventthe pollutionnuisance} cause by 6th respondent as^{failureto discharge theirlegal obligationsand} blasting continued fo'the^post5 to^{6 years i.e., in the year1999, and therebythe} la nded property.

¶31

i) Sy.No.172 admea!ruring¹⁴ acres^{36 guntas,(Standing Crop Red gram).}

¶32

ii) Sy.No 17'll1 admeasuring 9^{acres16g untas, (Standing Crop Jowar),}

¶33

iii) Sy.No.155 adnreasuring I acres^{27 guntas}

¶34

(Standing Crop Jo\var) situated at Sangam Kalan Village,^{Tandurl\4andal,} R.R District. belong to the^{petitioners situatedwithinthe radiusof 270mtrs.,} (Two hundred seveniy only) adjacent from the^{place of blastingandthereby the} crops are rotten an(l water is choked^{and thus the petitionersfor the past4-5} years sustaining hear'y loss due to blasting^{and dust coming out of the kilnof M/s} lndia Cement Factory and causing^{damage to their agricultural operations and} crops and endangering the lives of^{the petitionersand thus inactionof the} respondent No.1-2 and 6, violated section^{2 and 31A of WaterPrevention and} Control of Pollution Act. 1974 and^{underSec 19, 22' 31(a)37 and 54 of AIR} Prevention and Control Act, 1981 and section^{3 of EnvironmentProtection Act,} 1986 and also violaied article 14, 21^{and 3004 of the lndianConstitutionand} therefore this Hon'ble Court may^{graciously be pleased to pass appropirate} order/orders. in the nature of writ of mandamus^{for awardof compensation of Rs.} 2,00,000/- i Two Lakhs only)^per annum^{with effect from1999 till today in lieu of} loss of crops in favotrr of the^petitioners.

¶35

C) The Petitioner further^pray that this^{Hon'bleCourt may graciously be pleased} to direct respondent:; Nos. 1 to^{4 by stipulating a period to the respondent No.6} totally^preventing fron^{carryang out blasting of the minesfor the protection of the} crops of the^petitioners and lives of^{the otherpeople, pending disposalof the} above W. P.

.:" ii

.,' J

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2008(WPMP.^{NO : 6927OF 2008)}

¶40

Petitron under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in} the circu mstances^{state d} ln the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition'the High} Court may be pleased^to srpedite the hearing of the above^{writ petition.}

¶41

LA. NO: 2 OF 2OO7(WPMP. NO: 24205OF^2007</sup>

¶42

Petitjon under Section 151 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} expedite the hearing of the above^{WritPetition.}

¶43

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WPMP. NO:^{16 160 0F 2009)}

¶44

Petition under Section 151^{CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to} hear the above Writ Petition No^{104812006 expeditiously in the interest of} J u stice.

¶45

l.A. NO: 3 OF 2006(WPMP.^{NO:'t246 0F 2006)}

¶46

Petitron under Section 15'1 CPC^{praying that in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the HighCourt maybe pleased} direct the 1st respondent to stop the^{blasting operatlons of the 6th respondent} forthwith and inspect the lands of the^{petitionerand assess the loss causedto} the petitioners by the 6th respondent^{and consequentlyto pay damagesand} further direct the 6th respondent^{to paythe compensationof Rs 2,00,000/-(} Rupees Two Lakhs only) forthwith,^{pending disposal of the above W P}

¶47

Counsel forthe Petitioners: SRl.^{BHASKARA RAO BANDARUPALLI} (NOT PRESENT)

¶48

Counsel for the Respondent^{No.1: SRl. B. SHIVA KUMAR}

¶49

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2&3:^{GP FOR AGRICULTURE}

¶50

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4&5:^{GP FOR REVENUE}

¶51

Counsel for the Respondents No.7:^{SRl. T.V. RAMANARAO}

¶52

Counsel for the Respondents No.8:^{SRI N. RAVI}

¶53

Counsel for the Respondent^No 6^{: NoneAppeared}

¶54

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶55

THE HON'BL E THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶56

AND

¶57

THE HON^,BI,E SRI JUSTICE C.V,B HASKAR REDDY

¶58

\llRiT PEfITIQN No.1048 of 2006

¶59

ORDER: (Pcr tirc LI ,n'b[e tlu: Ctttef Justice LrjjcrL Bhuyan)

¶60

Nonr, lriLs itp]rean-ecl for the petitioners on call. Mr. B. Sh iva 1.. ir n ar. lcarnecl counsei has appearecl for re sponden t No. I . r. p. pollution Control Board, rvhereas Sri. T.V.Raman:r i.l::.r, learned counsel has appeared for re spondent No. r. We have also heard Mr. N.Ravi, iearnecl counscl lor t cslt,rn.li_:t'r1 No.g.

¶61

B1' 1:1ir q rl-ris petition uncler Articl e 226 of the Constitutio n of Ir clia. petitioners seek a direction to t1-re official respor-rdents to restrain respondent Nos.6 & B from blasting operation s on the ground that such blasting operations have causec,l pollution and had adversely affected ti're lives of the villagers of the neighboring villages.

¶62

¶63

|iu. / i.i Cr, il ii^,r ltir'.1o. -i 04,9 ol^)t)t)i)

¶64

Telangana^{State Pollutioll Conh ol Ro:rrci has lilecl} re port clated 16.O7^.2021 ,^{rvhicfr we ha;e} Perl-lsed^{lt is st;1tetL} thzrt the cement industrr',^{the operation ol lvhiclr ls sougi-tt to} bc stopped^b1' the^{petitiollers, is locatedat Sr"in'e-' No i I'} Nlalkapur^{(V),Tar-rc1ur (M) in VikalabadDrstrict lt is loc:rteci} at a clistance of^{1.4 kilon-retelsfrorn {all<apur Vrllage} -[ ]rt: industry has obtained^{ConsentFor Operation (CFO) from tlre} Tcl:rngana State^{Po11ul1on Conlrol Board forrn all ufac'Ll.ircof} clirrker and cement^{rvhich lr'as initia1l1'r'aliC upto 30 09'202I} vaLiditlr of u,hich^{has n olv been extended'it is statecllhat} L1-rough the^{cement inclustry is an air pollulion itldrtstrr''thi:} present indurstrl has^{tal<ensevera-1 steps 1o control i'ir-} pollurtion, the details^{of r'r'hichhave been mentioned ilillrc} rcport. In adclition,^{the industry has irrstalled 2 CAAQIVI} stations, one at^{the main gate of the cement industrl' and the} other at the mining^{office besidesonline anal-vzersin stacksLo} monitor sol-lrce emissions.^{That apart the industryhas taken} the follorving^{measures to minimize air poJlutiot-rirom tllc'} Ir mlnes:-

¶65

I1C,l 8; CVBRJ W.P.Nct.lO48 of 2006

¶66

''1. \irr.i:r lrrt!at r)r s\sLcllr 1s Proyirled to the r1ri1ls to cot-ttr-o1 clLlst crnanilt^{rcl ,,r} Irrlc dr'i11ing operatior-r.

¶67

Aitcr chaillr: ,;1 tlrt blast holcs :rnd stemmit-tg,^{the are a is} thoroughh cir,:rtpctrcd bl rL:rkitrg water^{stagnzltionon the} sltrf:.cc of lrr, rLastcci l'lrca.

¶68

Splinklir-r11^()l '.iltel on h:rul roads using tankers^{to control} dus,t gcne:.it )(i.

¶69

+. Spr ir-rk1iril r l,atr'r- orL llasted material, afler^{blasting to} avoid dusi t-r:rissiors .rn cl to control cluring loading operalion.

¶70

T1'rr' ir-rclrrs'-r has cltrelopcd green belt all nlong tl-re^haul ro:rd s. "

¶71

It is lr-rrther stated that a stLldy \'as carried out^by

¶72

the Acharl'a N. -i.R:rnga Agricultural Universit-v to^{lind out} \,hether the mrr ing actir,itv has affected the crop^{yield of the} neighbouring vjilagc. The studl' discloses that t'ro^such reflectiolr is clis re rniblc. That alrart, on the^{salne cause of} action, a grorlp of persons have moved the National^Green Tribunal, Chr-'t-rrai Bench in O.r.No.195 of 201B^{rvhich is} stated to be per-i,1rr-rg.

¶73

I )

¶74

Considering the above arld the^report SO submitted, \ie a-e of the ,ie$, ti-rat^{apprehension expressed by} 'the petitior-rcrs^ar rc miscottceir,cd.

¶75

¶76

Hou,ever, rr e make it clear that the observations madc in this proceeding shal1 not corne in the u,aJ- of adj^{r-rdi6u11o,-,} of O.A.No. 195 of 2018 which is stated to be per-rding belore the National Green Tribunal, Chennai Bench

¶77