THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI WRIT PETITION No.31639 of 2010 BETWEEN: Dr. S. Sasikala PETITIONER And 1. Municipal Corporation of Tirupati rep. by its Commissioner, Tirupati, Chittoor District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2: Sri P. Nageswara Rao Counsel for the respondent 3: Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy Counsel for the respondent 4: Sri V. Venugopala Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner, who is running a scan centre in the name and style of “Sri Sai Ganesh Scanning Centre” in the premises bearing No.10-3-206 (L) Kotakommala Layout, Tirupati Town, Chittoor District, has filed this writ petition challenging the notice issued by the 1st respondent Municipal Corporation under the provisions of Sections 521, 622 read with Section 596 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner, for the purpose of running a scanning centre, has installed a generator for power supply whenever required. The said generator is said to have been manufactured by Genisis Power India Pvt. Limited, Visakhapatnam. The 4th respondent, who is said to be a neighbour of the premises, submitted a complaint to the 2nd and 3rd respondents complaining that the petitioner is causing nuisance by installing the generator, which is producing loud noise and smoke, and sought for action for its removal from the premises. It appears that based on the said complaint, the Environmental Engineer of the 3rd respondent-Board conducted pollution test and made enquires with the neighbours. He submitted a report dated 29.12.2010 stating that the noise levels exceed the standards stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.172, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Env.) Department, dated 12.10.2010. Based on the said complaint of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent issued the impugned notice calling upon the petitioner to remove the generator, as it is causing nuisance affecting the public health. Heard Sri A. Chandraiah Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the generator has been manufactured by a reputed company and the installation is not causing any nuisance or affecting the public health as alleged by the 1st respondent-Corporation. He would submit that the 2nd respondent did not even put the petitioner on notice before directing him to remove the generator. He would further contend that pollution test was conducted in his absence and therefore the report submitted in that regard shall not be accepted as correct. It is submitted that the correctness of the pollution control report is under challenge before the 3rd respondent-Board and the 3rd respondent-Board has deferred hearing of the matter on account of the pendency of this writ petition. The learned counsel would also submit that no licence is required for installing a generator, and therefore, the impugned notice is not sustainable in law. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent-complainant would submit that there is a lot of nuisance not only on account of noise pollution but also due to smoke emanating from the generator, due to which the neighbours are put to grave health risk and other related problems. He would therefore submit that the impugned notice has rightly been issued. Section 521 of the Act provides that except and in conformity with the terms and conditions of the licence granted by the Commissioner, no person shall carry on the activities enumerated therein. Clause (e)(ii) of sub-section (1) thereof provides that no person shall carry on, allowed to be carry on, in or upon any premises any trade or operation, which in the opinion of the Commissioner, is dangerous to life, health or property, or likely to create a nuisance either from its nature or by reason of the manner in which, or the conditions under which, the same, is or as proposed to be carried on. In terms of the said provision, it is competent for the 1st respondent to take appropriate action if any trade or operation is causing nuisance either by its nature or manner in which the trade or operation is carried on. The specific ground on which the 1st respondent has issued the impugned notice is that the generator installed by the petitioner is found producing loud noise besides emanating black smoke causing nuisance in the locality. But in order to invoke the provisions of Section 521 (1)(e)(ii) the conditions therein should actually exist. No doubt an engineer of the 3rd respondent- Board has submitted a report but the same is under scrutiny at the instance of the petitioner before the Board. The Board has taken cognizance of the petition filed by the petitioner and has issued notice of hearing also. That being the position, I deem it appropriate that the 3rd respondent shall take a decision after affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Accordingly I deem it appropriate to pass the following order. 1. The 3rd respondent Board is directed to go ahead with the hearing of the matter in pursuance of its notice in Lr.No.Legal- 45/PCB/ZOK/CFO/2010-963, dated 13.02.2011 and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and the 4th respondent as well. 2. A decision as above shall be taken as early as possible preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. The 1st respondent-Corporation is directed to take appropriate action depending on the result of the decision of the 3rd respondent-Pollution Control Board. Until such decision is taken status quo obtaining as on today as to the running of generator shall be maintained. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 1st April, 2011 Js. Note: Issue C.C. in one week