Disposed

M/s. Hill County Villas Owners Association and another v. State of Telangana and 6 Others

Telangana HC14 Feb 2022WP/7961/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the High Court under Art. 226 and S. 151 CPC complaining of pollution due to illegal garbage dumping. Without adjudicating merits, the Court disposed of the petition, directing respondents to look into the grievance and conclude action within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to look into grievance and conclude deciding representations and taking appropriate action within two months.

M/s. Hill County Villas Owners Association and… — Environment and Pollution | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA (Special Original J u risdiction)

¶2

IVONDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRES E NT

¶4

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 7961 OF 2022

¶6

Between:

¶7

lt4/s. Hill County Villas Owners Association a& tW Rep. By its President, Mr. Ch. Sunil Kumar, Nizampet, Qutbullapur lVandal, Rahga Reddy District.

¶8

Ms Hill County Apartments Owners Association, Rep. By its President, lvlr. T.H.K. Vijay Kumar, Nizampet, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

... PETITIONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 State of Telangana, Rep. by its Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, I!4unicipal Administration Department,640, AC Guards, I\4asab Tank, Opp. PTI Building, Hyderabad - 500 004, Telangana.

¶12

2 Telangana State Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its l,4ember Secretary, Regional Office situated at. A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar Road, Sanath Nagar lndustrial Estate, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 5000181

¶13

3 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Secretariat, Hyderabad, Telangana.

¶14

4 The Nizampet l\ilunicipality, Rep. by its l,4unicipal Commissioner, Telangana.

¶15

5 The Hyderabad lvletropolitan Development Authority, Rep. by its Commissioner, ,4edchal-I,4alkajgiri District.

¶16

6 The District Collector, N/edchal-l,4alkajgiri District.

¶17

7 The l,4andal Revenue Officer, Quthbullapur, Medchal [,,lalka]giri District.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an Order, Direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of lVlandamus declaring the inactions of the Respondents in not considering the representations of petitioners association d1.2611212021, dl.03lo1l2O22 & dt.2110112022 regarding pollution generated due lo the indiscriminate burning of illegal dumping including plastics and other bio hazardous material behind petitioners east side wall, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and in violation oi Fundamental Rights Guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently, direct the Respondents to forthwith act upon the representations of petitioners association, d1.2611212021, dt.0310112022 and d|.2110112022 thereby refraining the respondents from disposing, dumping and burning the garbage and other kind of waste solids near residential area of petitioners' association by following the statutory guidelines of Solid Waste

¶20

Management Rules, 2016 and^{amended guidelines as contemplatedby Central} Pollution Control Board, 2019^{on theprovisions of buffer zorie aroundwasle} processing and disposal facilitles

¶21

lA NO:^'l OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,theHigh Court may be pleasedto direct the} respondents to immediately^{stop burningof garbagedump by removingThe garbage} dump, waste solids from the residential^{area of petitioner's associationpending} disposal of above writ^{petitlon andpass}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl.^{C VIKRAM CHANDRA}

¶24

Counsel for the Respondents^{No 1: GP FORMUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND} URBAN DEVELOPMENT

¶25

counsel for the Respondents^{No 2: SRI P SHIVA KUMAR,SCFOR PCB}

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent^{No 3: GP FORMEDICAL HEALTHAND FAMILY}

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent^{No 4: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, SCFORNIZAMPET} MUNCIPALITY

¶28

Counsel for the Respondent^{No 5: SRI V NARSIMHA GOUD , SC FORHMDA}

¶29

Counsel for the Respondents^{No 6 and7: GP FOR REVENUE}

¶30

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶31

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CIIANDRA SIIARMA AND

¶32

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND I{I'MAR SIIAVILI

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.7961 of 2022

¶34

ORDER, te"' u,. rr,,, ?re ,h.^{(;ru€lJusr,..} sii,r's h chan.lra sha.na)

¶35

The petitioners before this Court have liled this petition staling that respondent No.4 is dumping garbage and solid waste near their residential area. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they have submitted various representations from time to time to respondent Nos.2, 4, 6 and 7, the process of dumping garbage has not been stopped and the respondents are paying no heed to the representations.

¶36

tearned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has prayed that the writ petition be disposed of by directing the respondents to look into their grievance and to decide the representations in accordance with law.

¶37

Resultantly, \,ithout adverting to the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed ol u'ith a direction to the respondents to look into the grievance of the petitioners in respect of dumping of solid u,aste and other hazardous material and to take appropriate action in the matter. The exercise of deciding representations and taking appropriate action in the matter be concluded within a period of two months lrom the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶38

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶39

closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

SD/.V.SUDHA AS^{SISTANT REGISTRAR} //TRUE^COPY// SECT OFFICER

¶41

'o','ⁿ " co^{m mi s si o n er.an g} P{S351 ;:li: Aff i3H}:g:li"*;'?5""i^l"J;:Eil"

¶42

;il"..:,lfit#e&:ryH,jdtau"rrx*'''rffi*ix;' I The PrinciPal^Secretary': t w"itril,, -si,iretariat. Hvderabad Telangana'

¶43

-^{-conll *}

¶44

4 The Municipal Commissioner Nizampel [,4unrcipalrty, Tetanqana. f, tne uommtssroner. Hvderabad N/etropolitan Development Authority. [,4edchal_ l\4alkajgiri District.

¶45

1. The D.istrict C_oltector. N,4edcha l-,4a tkatg,n District / Ihe lvlandal Revenue Officer guthbuliaour. [,4edchat [,laikajgin District.

¶46

I 9nu 9Q^{to Sri C vrKRAr,,l CHANDnn} Ao"olrl"lohjCi^'-,, 9 Two CCs ro Gp for N,4uncrpal corporai,on no.ii,iirur",oi'"no urorn . ^^{DevetglmenlHigh courttortne sijtJoi} rei;il;;^{"tduil '} ru. r wo uus to Gp lor medical Health and family .-High aourt'for the State of Telangana. [OUTj

¶47

l? 1 1 . Two 9n" 9q CCs to Gp for Revenue^{to Sri p shiva xumai,} , High-Co_urt-for^{sd ror} Cdeicipijc) the State^'" of^{- ''} Telangana. [OUT] l9.9ru QQ^{to Sri N. praveen Xumar,-sCroi} Mlncifaiities (opuc1 l1 9nu 99^{to Sri Narsimha Goud, Sb for HMDA} adFLjCi'"'^" 1 5. Two CD Copies 16. One Spare Coy

¶48

rsn BS

HIGH COURT

OATEDi14102l2022

ORDER

WP"No.7961 of 2022

i r.? 5T4 rA,
i zatEB2022
+

¶55

IJISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION

¶56

WITHOUT COSTS

¶57

,t,
@ rrt'
n2
a1

¶58

M/s. Hill County Villas Owners Association and another v. State of Telangana and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Hill County Villas Owners Association and another v. State of Telangana and 6 Others

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

Akber Mohiuddin Ansari, Vs the Union of India, Rep. by Minority of Law and Justice, and 3

Tggda, Hyd. Vs Prl. Secy., Health and 3 Ors.

Pola Sridhar Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others

S. Venkatachary S/. Rajarajm Vs The Karimnagar -Addilabad Milk Producers Co-Operative-

Mohd. Ghani, Vs The Depot Manager

Toodi Bharat Ratna Vs Telangana State Human Rights Commission (Tshrc)