IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 20630 of 2005 Between: Dulam Suryakanta Rao S/o Late Raja Rao R/o Savaravili Village, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Pollusion Control Board Regional Office, Vizianagaram 2 Savaravilli Gram Panchayat rep by Sarpanch Savaravilli Village Bhogapuram Mandal, Srikakulam District 3 The District Medical & health Officer, O?o D.M. & HO., Vizianagaram 4 Chintapalli, Surappadu, S/o Late Narayana R/o Polipalli Vilage, Bhogapuram Mandal, Vizianagaram Distri .....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 any Writ, order or direciton particularly a Writ in the natrue of Mandamus directing the officialrespondents to take action againstthe 4th respondent in installing and operationg the mills in the midst ofthe residential colony near vicinity of Primary health centre and primary school and pass suchother relief or relieves as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit just and necessary in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.M.PATRO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The allegation, which has been leveled in the petition, is that respondent No.4 is operating Rice and Flour Mill in a residential area and, therefore, a prayer has been made to the effect that respondent No.4 be restrained in running the Rice and Flour Mill. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, Savaravilli Gram Panchayat-respondent No.2 has filed a counter-affidavit stating that respondent No.4 has not been given any permission to set up or operate any Rice or Flour Mill in the residential area. In pursuance of the above fact, respondent No.4 is not operating any Rice and Flour Mill and, therefore, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn with no order as to costs. ____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 19th January, 2009. GRR