IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13161 of 2010 Between: Udaya Sree ..... Petitioner AND Govt., of A.P., rep., by its Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department, Hyderabad & others. .....Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondents 1-3: AGP for Panchayat Raj Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for respondent No.6: Sri K.V. Raghuveer Counsel for respondent No.7: Smt. K. Aruna The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.13161 of 2010 ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the inaction of the official respondents in stopping respondent Nos.5 and 6 from establishing the packaged drinking water plant and closing bore well in door No.582/3 of Satyanarayanapuram, Nallapadu area in Guntur District, as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner is a resident of Nallapadu, Guntur District. She is aggrieved by the proposed establishment of packaged drinking water plant by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in the area in which she is residing. The premises on which she filed the present Writ Petition are that Nallapadu is a residential zone in which the proposed activity is not permissible, that the building in which respondent Nos.5 and 6 are seeking to set up the unit is not constructed as per the sanctioned plan and therefore the same is liable to be removed by respondent No.4 and that the bore well from which respondent Nos.5 and 6 are seeking to draw water has been sunk in violation of the provisions of the A.P. Water, Land and Trees Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”). Respondent No.7 has been impleaded during the pendency of the Writ Petition. Detailed counter affidavits have been filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and respondent No.7. With regard to the first plea of the petitioner, namely; that the activity proposed to be commenced by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is not permissible in the residential area, respondent No.7 in its counter affidavit has inter alia stated that through G.O.Ms.No. 682, dated 29.12.2006, Zonal Development Plan of various zones have been notified, that Perecherla Zonal Development Plan, which is applicable to the present case, is notified as Annexure-II and that the said Annexure permits certain non-residential activities in residential use zone, which include water supply treatment plants etc. It is further stated that all those activities, referred to in residential use zone, using electricity up to 10 HPEM are permitted. Respondent No.7 further stated that operation of bore well by respondent Nos.5 and 6 may cause drying up of the surrounding bore wells and that they require to take permission from the competent authority under the Act. In the counter affidavits filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6, all the allegations of the petitioner have been denied. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 have stated that as per Annexure-II of G.O.Ms.No.682 pertaining to Perecherla Zonal Development Plan, water supply treatment plants in the residential use zone are permitted and that they have obtained all the permissions for establishment of the packaged drinking water unit in the premises in question. They have further stated that under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Single Window Clearance Act, 2002 (for short, “the 2002 Act”), the State Government has brought out industrial policy in the year 2002-05 in order to provide speedy processing of issuance of various licences, clearances and certificates etc., and that they have made applications for granting permissions for establishment of packaged drinking water unit under the said Act before the Nodal Agency of the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee constituted under the 2002 Act. Various details of the permissions and no objections obtained by respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been referred to in the counter affidavit, which need not be specifically adverted to. Though the parties have raised various pleas in support of their respective versions, the need for adjudication thereof by this Court at this stage is obviated for the reason that so far respondent Nos.5 and 6 have not been granted permission by the competent authority constituted under the provisions of the 2002 Act. It is not in dispute that the application of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is pending before the General Manager, District Industries Centre, Guntur District and the District Level Single Window Clearance Committee requires to examine the same with reference to various permissions and clearances obtained by respondent Nos.5 and 6 before taking a final decision on granting of permission in their favour. Viewed from this angle, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition is premature. The petitioner is entitled to approach the competent authority with a detailed representation raising objections. On such representation being received, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose of the same. As regards the alleged violation of sanctioned plan in construction of the building in which respondent Nos.5 and 6 are seeking to establish the plant, respondent No.4 shall examine the same and take appropriate action in accordance with law, after giving notice to respondent Nos.5 and 6. With respect to the alleged violation of the provisions of the Act in sinking bore well, the petitioner is entitled to make a representation to the competent authority under the Act in this regard. Subject to the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.16586 of 2010 and WVMP.No.3313 of 2010 are disposed of as infructuous. ____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 23.12.2010 ES