HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.8981 of 2006 ORDER: This writ petition s filed seeking a Mandamus to declare the action of 1st respondent in issuing proceedings Rc. No. 4480/C/2005, dated 5.4.2006 and the consequential proceedings of the 2nd respondent issued vide proceedings Rc. No.4480/C/2005, dated 17.4.2006 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. Under the impugned proceedings dated 5.4.2006 passed by the Collector and District Magistrate, Kurnool, the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner was ordered to stop flour mill operation of M/s. Shivaranga Flour Mill run by her at D. No. 2-381/A, Gosanipalli Village, Dhone Mandal, Kurnool District. According to the petitioner, she has established a flour mill after having got necessary permission granted by the Gram Panchayat on 31.1.2005. The 2nd respondent, after satisfying all the formalities granted licence to the petitioner on 20.11.2005. However, it appears, one M. Peddaramudu of Gosanipalle Village, filed a public interest litigation in Writ Petition No. 26439 of 2005 seeking a direction from this Court to the respondents to close down the flour mill and huller mill of the petitioner. The said writ petition was disposed of as under: “In this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to stop the operation of flour and huller mill being run by respondent No.4. Sri SV Bhatt, learned counsel for A.P. Pollution Control Board says that after receipt of notice of the petition, Assistant Environmental Engineer, Kurnool inspected the establishment of respondent No.4 on 16.1.2006 and submitted a report, which reveals that operation of a mill does not result in air pollution but there is some noise pollution and action in that regard can be taken only by the District Collector. Learned counsel says that the report of the Assistant Environmental Engineer will be forwarded to the District Collector for taking appropriate action in accordance with law. In view of the statement made by Sri Bhatt the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the report of the Assistant Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Control Board, be forwarded to District Collector, Kurnool within a period of two weeks from today. Thereafter, the concerned Officer shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. While disposing of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, we will make it clear that no order shall be passed and no action be taken by the concerned officer prejudicially affecting respondent No.4 without giving it a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It shall also be open to respondent No.4 to plead before the collector that another flour mill is being run in the vicinity and action should also be taken against the said mill also in accordance with law. In pursuance of the said order, the impugned orders seems to have been passed. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner nor she was heard, as directed by this Court in the above writ petition. From the impugned order dated 5.4.2006, it is not clear as to whether any notice has been issued to the petitioner after obtaining report from the Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Kurnool. Even the references made therein also do not indicate that such a course of action has been adopted by the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 3.4.2006. Under those circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled for a notice and hearing, as per the directions of this Court in the earlier writ petition, before passing the impugned orders. Neither the petitioner was issued any notice nor the report of the Pollution Control Board was supplied to her. As the impugned orders are passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, they are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, it is made clear that the respondents are at liberty to pass appropriate orders, as directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition, after issuing show cause notice to the petitioner along with other documents relied on for the purpose of cancellation of licence. Till such time, the respondents shall not interfere with the running of the flour mill by the petitioner. No costs. ________________ C.V. RAMULU,J DATE: 23rd November, 2010 pnb