THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3494 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is a manufacturer of sweets. It is carrying on its activity in premises bearing No.1-8-536, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad. The residents of the locality, who, in turn, are said to have constituted a Committee, the 3rd respondent herein, raised objections for the activity undertaken by the petitioner. According to them, the residents are suffering from sound and air pollution on account of the activity of the petitioner. The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation issued a show cause notice dated 04-03-2008, stating that the petitioner did not hold any trade licence, there is no parking area for the premises, and that an activity, which is not otherwise permitted under the relevant bye- laws; is being carried out. The conditions of the premises were also alleged to be unhygienic. With these allegations, the petitioner was required to explain as to why suitable action be not taken, as per the statutory provisions. The petitioner submitted its explanation on 19-04- 2008, denying the allegations. The Corporation issued proceedings dated 09-07-2008, directing the petitioner to close the establishment. The petitioner filed W.P.No.17319 of 2008, challenging the order dated 09-07-2008. One of the grounds urged was, that the reasons, mentioned in the order dated 09-07-2008, directing the closure of the unit, are different from those, mentioned in the show cause notice. This Court took note of the same and allowed the writ petition through order dated 11-08-2010. It was directed that the Corporation shall cause a spot inspection of the premises in question, in the presence of the petitioner and the 3rd respondent herein, and take necessary steps, thereafter. The Corporation conducted spot inspection on 31-01-2011 in the presence of the petitioner, local residents, and the members of the 3rd respondent. The contentions advanced on behalf of both the parties are taken into account. Through order dated 03-02-2011, the Corporation cancelled the licence issued to the petitioner, and required it to close the unit, within two weeks. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that though an inspection was conducted on 31-01-2011, no show cause notice was issued to it, as directed by this Court in its order dated 11-08-2010, in W.P.No.17319 of 2008. The allegations made against it, in the impugned order, are denied. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-affidavit, stating that the petitioner is causing air and sound pollution, up to unbearable levels. It is stated that every effort made by them, to prevent the activity, is being thwarted by the petitioner, on one excuse or the other. According to them, the objections and contentions were raised by the parties, at the time of inspection itself, and there is no necessity to issue any fresh notice, as contemplated under law. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. Damodar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Municipal Corporation, and Sri Keshav Hulsurkar, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. The Corporation initiated action against the petitioner, way back in the year 2008, on receiving a complaint from the local residents. That entailed in an order dated 09-07-2008. This Court has set aside the same on finding that the reasons mentioned in the final order were different from those, mentioned in the show cause notice. A direction was issued by this Court to the Corporation, to cause spot inspection, in the presence of both the parties. The allegation against the petitioner is that, it is using diesel burners, causing pollution in the area. Other allegations are that, on account of improper handling of the milk products, pungent smell is emanating, and that due to indiscriminate handling of large utensils, throughout day and night, sound pollution, causing disturbance to the residents is emanating. It was into these allegations, that the Corporation caused spot inspection, as directed by this Court and passed the impugned order. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the petitioner is using diesel oil for operating burners, and thereby causing lot of air pollution. The noise pollution was also found to be excessive. It was also observed that the raw material, such as milk, ghee, oil are not properly handled, and they are creating unhygienic conditions in the surroundings. Mention was also made about the manufacture of sweets, with used and left over oil and ghee. It is no doubt true that this Court directed that a notice must be issued to the petitioner. That, however, is obviated on account of the fact that, apart from causing inspection, the Corporation has considered the objections raised by the parties, against each other, on the spot. The Corporation recorded findings, after hearing both the parties. Further, the law does not provide for issuance of another show cause notice. It is not as if the petitioner is taken by surprise. The proceedings are going-on, since 2008; and the impugned proceedings are issued not only in the interest of the local residents, but also for the users of the products. This Court cannot substitute its opinion for the one, formed by the Corporation, after inspection, as directed by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.28-02-2011. KO