HON’BLE SHRI G.S.SINGHVI, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7344 OF 2007 Between: S.Jayachandra Reddy . . .Petitioner AND Union of India and others . . .Respondents :: ORDER :: Counsel for the petitioner : Shri K.S.Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Shri A.Rajashekar Reddy Assistant Solicitor General Counsel for respondent No.2 : Shri S.V.Bhatt 12th April, 2007 PER G.S.SINGHVI, CJ In this petition filed as a piece of public interest litigation, petitioner - S. Jayachandra Reddy has prayed for restraining respondent Nos. 1 and 2 from processing the application made by respondent No.3 i.e. Uranium Corporation of India Limited for uranium mining and processing in Vemula Mandal, Kadapa District. In the affidavit filed by him, the petitioner has averred that the so-called hearing given by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, ‘the Board’) to the members of public is farce. According to him, the presence of police in large number scared the people and they could not represent their cause before the concerned authority. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities of the Board and Ministry of Environment and Forests have not bothered to consider the objections of the public and they are going ahead with grant of permission to respondent No.3 to undertake uranium mining and processing. We have heard Shri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner. In our opinion, the writ petition does not deserve to be entertained at this stage because so far no concrete action has been taken for grant of permission to respondent No.3 to undertake mining and processing of uranium and till that happens, the petitioner and other similarly situated persons cannot have substantive grievance. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to seek intervention of the Court as and when such contingency arises. As a sequel to dismissal of the main petition, WPMP No.9385 of 2007 filed by petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J April 12, 2007 kvni