IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.20040 of 2007 Between: 1. Jampana Ramesh, S/o. J. Seeta Rama Raju. 2. K.Subba Lakshmi, W/o. Seetha Rama Raju. Both are residents of Kompally Village, Near Horlicks Factory, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioners And 1. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, at Hyderabad. 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. Gram Panchayat, Kompally Village, Represented by its Sarpanch. 4. Village Secretary, Kompally Gram Panchayat, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. A.P. Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. ...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 Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction declaring the impugned action of the respondents of constructing he septic tank in the residential areas in Survey Nos.157/A and 156/A, Srinivasa Nagar, Kompally Gram Panchayat, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and consequentially direct the respondents to fill the ditch dug up for septic tank and undertake construction of septic tank in a suitable place without causing hardship to the residents of the village. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2: Government Pleader for Revenue Counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4: Sri G. Elisha Counsel for respondent No.5 : Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) 1) This is a public interest litigation wherein the petitioners had objected to construction of a septic tank by respondent No.3. 2) While filing the petition, the case of the petitioners was that the septic tank, which was to be constructed, was near to their residential house and there were chances that foundation of their house might be adversely affected because of the construction. Moreover, it was the case of the petitioners that the septic tank was to be constructed beneath an approach road and plying of heavy vehicles would adversely affect the septic tank. 3) In pursuance of notice issued by this Court, counter affidavits have been filed by respondent No.4 - Panchayat Secretary, as well as Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. 4) We have heard the learned Advocates and have also gone through the counter affidavits filed by the afore-stated two respondents. 5) It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of this petition, construction of the septic tank has been completed. By an interim order dated 25th October, 2007, this Court had directed an expert to visit the spot and to place on record specifications with regard to the tank. In pursuance of the said order, a counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.5 – Pollution Control Board along with design of the septic tank certified by a competent Engineer, which shows that the construction is strong enough to bear the normal weight and, therefore, the apprehension voiced in the petition by the petitioners is not well founded. 6) It is also pertinent to note that respondent No.4 – the Panchayat Secretary, has stated in the counter affidavit that the septic tank is, in fact, an outlet for free flow of drainage water and to see that the drainage water is flown out without any obstruction. The said tank is not likely to cause any pollution or release any effluents, and after considering several factors, the Gram Panchayat had come to a conclusion that the place where the tank has been constructed is most appropriate. 7) Looking to the fact that the construction of the septic tank is completed, and according to an expert Engineer, the construction is strong enough to bear the normal weight, in our opinion, no harm would be caused to the house of the petitioners or the society because construction of the afore-stated tank, which, in fact, is for the purpose of smooth flow of drainage water and is not in the nature of septic tank. 8) For the afore-stated reasons, we do not find any substance in the petition and, therefore, the petition is rejected. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 13th July, 2009 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. ……REGISTRAR To 1. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 2. Mandal Revenue Officer, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Kompally Village, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 4. The Village Secretary, Kompally Gram Panchayat, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. 5. The Member Secretary, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 6. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Revenue, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 7. Two C.D. copies. ARS