THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21181 OF 2008 5th November 2009 Between: P.V.Ramakrishna Chowdary …PETITIONER AND Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality, Bhimavaram, W.G.District, and three others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.21181 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is the resident of D.No.23-27/1, Head Post Office Road, Bhimavaram. The fourth respondent is said to be the owner of the neighbouring premises. It is stated that the fourth respondent is running a Travel Agency in his premises causing pollution and obstruction to traffic. On a complaint submitted by the petitioner, the Commissioner, Bhimavaram Municipality-the first respondent, issued a notice dated 05.03.2008 to the fourth respondent alleging that the latter is running business in the name of ‘Jai Sriram Travels’ in a residential locality and the same is causing obstruction and inconvenience to the local residents. The fourth respondent submitted a reply denying the allegations. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent dropped further action by accepting the explanation submitted by the fourth respondent, but still large number of vehicles are being parked, the repairs are being carried out and the same is resulting in pollution and inconvenience to the petitioner and other residents. The fourth respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations. It is stated that it is the petitioner, who encroached into the land of the fourth respondent and in that connection; O.S.No.829 of 2006 was filed in the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. According to the fourth respondent, this Writ Petition is filed as a counter-blast. Heard Sri Noushad Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Sri S.Surya Prakasa Rao, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is facing inconvenience and disturbance on account of running of a Travel Agency by the fourth respondent. The first respondent has already issued a notice to the fourth respondent and a reply was also submitted thereto. In clear terms, the fourth respondent has stated that he has established the office at a distant place and except that few vehicles are parked near his house, that too during odd hours, no obstruction is caused. This is factually denied by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the interests of both the parties can be protected by directing that they shall observe certain norms in establishing their activities. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing that (a) The fourth respondent shall not park more than three vehicles at a given time in and around his house; (b) He shall not cause repairs of the vehicles at that site; (c) The parking of those vehicles shall not block the passage; and (d) He shall not conduct any booking business or other activities of the Travel Agency at that place. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 5th November 2009 RRB