IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 12871 of 2009 Between: Budumuru Krishna Rao, S/o. Dhanunjaya Rao, M/s. Thirumala Stone Crushers Door No. 1-17/A Ambedkar Junction, Ponduru Village and Mandal, Srikakulam District, now residing at Flat No.1, Aiswarya Residency, A.S.R. Nagar, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam-13 ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Plot No.8, Simhadri Nagar, Vizinagaram, Rep. by Environmental Engineer. 2 The District Industries Center, Srikakulam, Rep. by its General Manager. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam. 4 The Village Revenue Officer, Ponduru, Srikakulam District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent in Order No. PCB/ROVZ/Tech/S- 404/2009-279 dated 18-6-2009 as illegal and arbitrary, whereby and whereunder the 1st respondent cancelled its CONSENT FOR ESTABLISHEMENT(CFE), at a time when the stone crushing unit of the petitioner, has been established and has fully become functional and operational, set up with bank loan pursuant to the permission of the 2nd respondent and it is further consequentially prayed for a declaration that the 1st respondent cannot take a unilateral decision of cancellation of the said stone crushing unit, an extreme measure, without interacting with the other official respondents herein to assess the damage if any to be caused to the public due to the industrial activity of the unit and without assessing whether the purpose of the 2nd respondent in granting permission to set up the unit would be defeated and it si further consequentially prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the said order passed by the 1st respondent impugned herein Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.R. Sanku & Kaviti Murli Krisna Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.2: Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce Counsel for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: Government Pleader for Revenue The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 2. Permission is granted. The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn so as to enable the petitioner to file an appeal. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 30 June, 2009 ks