THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P. No.9961 of 2007 25-08-2009 BETWEEN; Thopovan Welfare Association, rep. By its Correspondent A.Ailaiah ...Petitioner vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Special Secretary, Environment Forests, Science and Technology, Department and others. ...Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.9961 OF 2007 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) This is the writ petition filed in public interest alleging inaction by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 against respondent Nos.3 to 28, which are rice mills operating in Lingojiguda, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The petitioner, a welfare association, alleges that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to take action pursuant to the report dated 09-06-2006 of the Environmental Engineer of the A.P. Pollution Control Board. In his report dated 09-06-2006, the Environmental Engineer of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had remarked that rice mills in Karmanghat and Lingojiguda areas though have provided husk rooms to collect the husk generated from the process of the industry, nevertheless due to the quantum growth of urban agglomeration around these rice mills, the husk and dust generated by the process and movement of trucks posed a pollution hazardous and that the rice mills may have to be shifted to suitable alternate site in a phased manner. After filing of the writ petition, however, all the 26 rice mills being respondent Nos.3 to 28 have been closed is the conjoint refrain of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the official and non-official respondents. In the circumstances the substantive grievance in the writ petition does not subsist for adjudication. It is stated by Sri S.V.Bhatt, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 to 28 that against the orders of closure passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, the non-official respondents are in process of pursuing appellate remedy. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no appellate recourse is available to these respondents. Whether the appeals if any preferred or to be preferred by the respondent Nos.3 to 28 are well conceived or otherwise on merits or procedure are not maintainable as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner is a matter to be pursued before the appellate authority if any appeals are filed. This court is not called upon to pronounce upon this issue. Suffice to it notice that the grievance, which is generated this writ petition, does not subsist in view of the orders of closure passed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 25th AUGUST, 2009. TSNR