IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 9312 of 2008 Between: P.V.Siva Prasad S/o. Srinivasulu R/o. Kothacheruvu, anantapur District. ... PETITIONER AND 1) The A.P., Pollution Control Board, Head Office at Hyderabad, Rep. by its Member Secreatary. 2) The A.P. Pollution Control Board, Zonal Officer, 1 st Floor, Shankar Shopping Complex, Krishna Nagar, Main Road, Kurnool, Rep. by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, ...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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the representation dated 04.03.2008 submitted by the petitioner for reopening of the decorticating unit viz., M/s. Sree Raghavendra Oil Mill & Decorticator, Rail way Station Road, Kothacheruvu Village and Mandal, Anantapur District as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to consider the representation dated 04.03.2008 forthwith and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.O.MANOHER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.S.MURTHY The Court made the following: Oral Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. The grievance which the petitioner has ventilated is with regard to not taking any action in pursuance of the application dated 04.3.2008 submitted by him to the respondent Board. 2. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though an application praying for necessary clearance has been submitted on 04.3.2008 to respondent No.1, no action has been taken so far on the said application. 3. Learned advocate Shri Y. Srinivas Murthy appearing for the respondent Board has fairly submitted that the Board shall do the needful in pursuance of the application filed by the petitioner and pass final order on the said application preferably within one month from today. 4. In view of the statement made by the learned advocate Shri Y.Srinivas Murthy, the respondent Board shall consider the application filed by the petitioner and pass final order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. 5. In view of the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ April 25, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J svs