IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 10698 of 2000 Between: Suryavamsa Arya Katika Sangham, Rep. by its Secretary T.Balaji, Mahaboobnagar. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Mahaboobnagar Municipality, Rep. by its Commissioner, Mahaboobnagar. 2 The District Collector, Mahaboobnagar. 3 The Revenue Divisional Officer, Mahaboobnagar. 4 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Mahaboobnagar. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.RADHAKRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in rejecting the petitioner’s application dated 03-11-1998 through it’s resolution No.248, dated 30-10-1999, as arbitrary and illegal, apart from being violative of principles of natural justice. The petitioner-Society sought for consequential direction to respondent No.1 to grant license to them to construct a slaughterhouse on their own land in Survey No.1023 of Mahaboobnagar Town. Heard Sri P.Radhakrishna, learned Counsel for the petitioner-Society and Sri Polisetty Radhakrishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The petitioner-society was carrying on a slaughterhouse at T.D.Gutta, Mahaboobnagar. Consequent on order dated 03-10-1996 passed by the Upalokayukta, they were evicted from the said place and their slaughterhouses were relocated in a new slaughterhouse constructed by the Mahaboobnagar Municipality on a hillock. The petitioner later made representation dated 03-11-1998 to respondent No.1-Municipality for permission to construct a slaughterhouse on their own land admeasuring 908 square yards in Survey No.1023. The petitioner claims that out of the total strength of 32 councilors in the Municipal council, 28 gave their written consent and expressed their willingness in favour of the petitioner’s request. As the first respondent vide impugned resolution rejected the petitioner’s request for relocating the slaughterhouse on the above-mentioned land belonging to them, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. On behalf of the respondents, the Commissioner of Mahaboobnagar Municipality filed a counter-affidavit. It is averred therein that the Municipality constructed a new slaughter house at Kosgi Road, which is 1.5 km away from the old slaughter house, which was closed on the complaints made by the residents of T.D.gutta and the order passed by Upa Lokayuktha on 03-10-1996; that the new slaughter house was relocated on two acres of land situated in Survey No.945 of Mahaboobnagar, which is not a residential area, and the same is surrounded by agricultural lands; that the application filed by the petitioner on 03-11-1998 was examined in detail by the Municipal Council and rejected keeping in view the orders passed by Upa Lokayukta and public health and safety, as the same was located in a residential area. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though majority councilors supported the request of the petitioner, the Municipal Council rejected the petitioner’s request and that therefore, the same is arbitrary. He also submitted that the Mandal Revenue Officer also recommended the petitioner’s representation. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterated the averments contained in the counter-affidavit that the place where the petitioner is proposing to relocate the slaughterhouse is situated in an area, which is earmarked for residential purpose, and therefore, the same is not in the interest of public health and safety. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties. The fact that Survey No.1023, on which the petitioner is seeking to establish a slaughterhouse, is located in an area earmarked for residential use in the master plan of Mahabubnagar is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, I do not see any reason whatsoever for nullifying the resolution passed by respondent No.1-council. The contents of the resolution indicate that the main reason, which impelled the Municipal Council to reject the request of the petitioner, is that it would lead to air pollution and consequently, affect public health. This Court, exercising the writ jurisdiction, cannot invalidate such an order passed by respondent No.1, which is intended to protect the public health. Further, permitting the petitioner to relocate a slaughterhouse in a residential area, undoubtedly, violates the provisions of the A.P.Urban Areas Development Act, 1975, and this Court will not pass any such order, which would lead to violation of statutory provisions. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the respondents for providing required amenities for running the slaughterhouse at the newly constructed place and if the latter do not respond to the petitioner’s request, they are at liberty to avail the remedies available under law. ____________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 27-02-2008 LUR