IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No. 6240 of 2009 Between: 1. Karla Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Bala Kotaiah, Resident of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District. 2. Karla Rambabu, S/o. Satyanarayana, Resident of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District. 3. Karla Rama Krishna, S/o. Satyanarayana, Resident of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District. 4. Karla Srinivas, S/o. Bala Kotaiah, Resident of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District. 5. P. Satyanarayana, S/o. Subbarao, Resident of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District. 6. P.Ramajogi, S/o. Kotaiah, Resident of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District. ...Petitioners And 1. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Science and Technology, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. A.P. Pollution Control Board, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad, Represented by its Member Secretary. 3. The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 5. The Tahsildar, Kanchikacharla Mandal, Krishna District. 6. The Gram Panchayat, Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal, Krishna District, Represented by its Secretary. 7. Nimmagadda Siva Prasad, S/o. Appa Rao, R/o. Moolapadu, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in granting permission to the seventh respondent to set up a crushing unit for stone chips in Sy.Nos.247/3 and 247/4 of Paritala Village, Kanchkacharla Mandal in Krishna District and also in not taking action to stop the operations by the seventh respondent as the mandatory conditions issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board are not implemented by the seventh respondent, as illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondents to close down the unit set up by the seventh respondent in Sy.Nos.247/3 and 247/4 of Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal in Krishna District forthwith and cancel all the permissions given to it. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.S. Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : None Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 : Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, Standing Counsel for APPCB. Counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 : None Counsel for respondent No.6 : None Counsel for respondent No.7 : Sri S.V. Bhatt The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioners have alleged that respondent No.7 is polluting their agricultural lands by operating a stone-crushing unit. It has been also alleged that respondent Nos.1 to 6 have wrongly permitted respondent No.7 to set up the stone- crushing unit. Learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy has appeared for respondent Nos.2 and 3, and has submitted that the allegation made in the petition is factually incorrect for the reason that the stone-crushing unit is not operating. He has placed on record a report of the Environmental Engineer, Vijayawada respondent No.3 herein. According to the report submitted by respondent No.3, it is clear that respondent No.7 has not been permitted to operate the crusher. Moreover, certain conditions have been imposed upon respondent No.7 and till those conditions are complied with, respondent No.7 is not to operate the unit. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Sri K.S. Murthy appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in a clandestine manner, mostly at night, respondent No.7 is operating his stone-crushing unit. Looking to the said fact, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are directed to get the unit inspected and if it is found that respondent No.7 is operating his stone-crushing unit in violation of the conditions laid down in the Consent for Establishment dated 29.12.2007, appropriate action should be taken against respondent No.7. Before deputing an officer for inspection, respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall give an intimation to petitioner No.1, so that petitioner No.1 can also remain present at the time of inspection and draw attention of the inspecting officer to the alleged illegalities committed by respondent No.7. A copy of the inspection report shall be forwarded to petitioner No.1. In view of the above direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 27th April, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. To 1. The Principal Secretary, Environment, Science and Technology Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2. The Member Secretary, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. 3. The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 4. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 5. The Tahsildar, Kanchikacharla Mandal, Krishna District. 6. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Paritala Village, Kanchikacharla Mandal, Krishna District. 7. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Environment, Science & Technology, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 8. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 9. Two C.D. copies. ARS