IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 9423 of 2008 Between: M/s. Sairam Sweets and Food Products, Door No. 3-6-4, Subbaraopeta, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District, Rep. by its Proprietor Bantupalli Ramu, S/o. Chukkalu. ..... PETITIONER AND The Tadepalligudem Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a direction, order or Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the notice in ROC No. 993/08/F1 dated 17-4-2008 directing closure of the petitioner business as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GOVIND REDDY/ MR. JUVM PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent.: MR.S.NAGESWARA REDDY, STANDING COUNSEL. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been ﬁled by M/S.Sairam Sweets and Food Products represented by its Proprietor Bantupalli Ramu assailing the notice in ROC No.993/08/F1, dated 17.04.2008 issued by the respondent Municipality to the petitioner under Sections 41 to 44 and 134 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health Act, 1939. 2. The petitioner is engaged in manufacture/preparation of Swagruha Foods and sweets. Some complaints came to be presented before the respondent against the petitioner alleging that the activities of the petitioner are causing air pollution and sound pollution. Thereupon, the respondent issued notice to the petitioner under Sections under Sections 41 to 44 and 134 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health Act, 1939. The petitioner submitted explanation to the said notice on 18.02.2008. Assailing the notice in ROC No.993/08/F1, dated 17.04.2008, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after ﬁling the writ petition, the petitioner complied with all the objections pointed out by the respondent in the notice dated 17.04.2008 and thereupon the officials of the respondent inspected the premises of the petitioner and noticed rectiﬁcation of the defects and in which case, the notice dated 17.04.2008 issued by the respondent is required to be quashed. 6. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent issued a reply notice to the petitioner, wherein it is indicated that further action will be taken if the municipality found any violation in the premises of the petitioner. 7. A fact remains that the petitioner made necessary arrangements to prevent the sound pollution and air pollution and this has been veriﬁed by the oﬃcials of the respondent Municipality. I deem it appropriate to refer para.4 of the reply notice issued by the respondent Municipality, which reads as hereunder: “4. In the mean time, the Municipality had suddenly inspected the premises of your client on 11.08.2008, and found that A) Floor Grinder, B) Generator were removed and also found that C) Doom was covered to the smoke of the out let. Your notice contains No Objection declarations and plan from the inhabitants of the locality. Further attached a notarized declaration of other nearby inhabitants stating that the acts of your client do not cause any nuisance etc. Moreover, the municipality also ﬁled a STC before the Hon’ble 2nd Class Magistrate Court, Tadepalligudem against your client and the same is pending. In the mean time municipality received a legal notice dt.15.09.2008 from the petitioners in WP 6611/2008, alleging that your client had not complied the objections. In view of the pendency of writ petition as well as summary case is pending before legal courts and the matter is sub-judice. My client will obey the orders of the Hon’ble High Court and will act accordingly.” It is explicit from the reply notice that the oﬃcials of the respondent Municipality inspected the premises of the petitioner and found the rectiﬁcation of defects pointed out by them in the notice dated 17.04.2008. 8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage setting aside the notice in ROC No.993/08/F1, dated 17.04.2008, issued by the respondent Municipality reserving liberty to the respondent Municipality to initiate further action in the event of the petitioner violating any of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Public Health Act, 1939. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:31st October, 2008. cs .....ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CCs 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}