IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 22391 of 2008 Between: Bhavanam Konda Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The A.P. Pollution Control Board Rep. by Member Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, Opp. Police Station, Sanath Nagar, Hyderabad. 2 The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur. 3 V.S. Engineering Private Limited Rep. by its Director, Turakapalem, Guntur Mandal, Guntur 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 to issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring in-action of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in restraining Respondent No.3 from establishing a Stone Crusher in Sy.No. 475 of Turukapalem, Hamlet of Nallapadu , Guntur District, Guntur in the midst of Agricultural lands as illegal, violative of mandatory provision of the Air (P & CP) Act 1981 and the Board's Resolution, prohibiting establishment of stone crushers in the midst of residential locality and consequently direct the respondents herein not to cause environmental damage to the neighboring lands in Sy.No. 474 of Turukapalem, Hamlet of Nallapadu, Guntur District pass such other or further orders Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.V.BHATT Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.YELLAPRAGADA SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) In this public interest litigation, it has been alleged that respondent No.3 is trying to establish a Stone Crushing Industry in Sy.No. 475 of Turukapalem, Hamlet of Nallapadu, Guntur District without obtaining necessary permission from respondent No.1-Board. Sri Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-Board has submitted that till today no permission has been given to respondent No.3 for setting up Stone Crushing Unit at the place referred to hereinabove. It has been further submitted by the learned Advocate that CFE (committee for giving consent for establishment) has examined the case of respondent No.3 unit and the Committee is of the view that necessary permission should not be granted to respondent No.3 for setting up a Stone Crushing Unit. It has been however, submitted that still the matter has not been considered by respondent No.1-Board and respondent No.1- Board would take ﬁnal decision only after considering all the relevant factors. At this stage, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would like to make a representation on the subject matter of this petition before respondent No.1-Board within three weeks from today so that the Board can take appropriate decision after considering all the relevant factors including the representation which might be made by the petitioner. In view of the above development in the matter, the grievance ventilated in the petition does not survive at this stage and, therefore, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. _____________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ __________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 15th November, 2008 GRR