IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.18262 of 2008 Between: 1. T. Nandodu, S/o. late T. Asirappaiah, Chilkapalem Panchayat, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District. 2. T. Mahalakshmi, W/o. late T. Asirappaiah, Chilkapalem Panchayat, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. P. Sathyam, S/o. late Lachaiah, Chilkapalem Panchayat, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Petitioners And 1. The District Collector, Srikakulam District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Revenue Division, Srikakulam District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4. M/s. Sri Bhargavi Stone Crusher, represented by its Managing Partner, A.V. Appa Rao, D.No.10-2-94, Market Street, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District. ...Respondents 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, order or direction particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent dated 29-5-2008 in issuing the clearance as deemed to have been approved to the fourth respondent for doing stone crushing activity in Sy.Nos.19/16 and 1/2 situated at Narayanapuram Village, Chilkapalem Panchayat, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article 21 of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the impugned proceedings or else the petitioner herein will be put to irreparable loss and hard ship. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri V. Raghu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri B. Chandrasekhar The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) In this petition, the petitioners have made a grievance that respondent No.4 has set up an industry of stone crushing and the said industry is polluting the atmosphere and agricultural lands of the petitioners. In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.4 as well as respondent No.1. Upon perusal of the counter affidavits and upon hearing the learned Advocates, we are of the view that disputed questions of fact are involved in the petition and in the circumstances, in our opinion, the petitioners should challenge the validity of the consent order dated 23rd February, 2008 issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board before the appellate authority under Section 31 of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. In view of the fact that an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, we reject the petition without going into the merits of the case. The petition stands disposed of as rejected with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 21st January, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. To 1. The District Collector, Srikakulam District. 2. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Srikakulam Revenue Division, Srikakulam District. 3. The Mandal Revenue Officer, Etcharla Mandal, Srikakulam District. 4. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two CD copies. ARS