IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 4620 of 2009 Between: K. Srinivasulu, s/o. Ramanaiah, R/o. 12th Ward, Narayanareddypet, Nellore Rural Mandal, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 2 A.P. Pollution Control Boad, Rep by its Environmental Engineer, Near APSFC Office, A.K. Nagar, Dargamitta, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3 The Panchayat Secretary, Narayanareddypet Panchayat, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 4 Sri Lakshmi Venkata Ramana Rice Mill, Rep. by its Managing Partner, R. Ramana Rao, S/o. Penchalaiah, Aged about 35 yeas, Narayanareddypet, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 5 PVR Rice Mills, Rep. by P. Venkata Ramanaiah, Narayanareddypet, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore 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, more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 3 in taking action against the respondents 4 and 5 rice mills which are creating Air, Water, sound pollution which are situated at Narayanareddypet Village, Nellore rural mandal, Nellore district as the same is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1973 and the Air (Prevention & Control of pollution) Act 1981 and the rules and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the respondents No. 4 and 5. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. NARAYANA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: G.P. FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No.2: STANDING COUNSEL FOR A.P. POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Counsel for the Respondent No.3: G.P. FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ Counsel for the Respondent No.4: N.A. Counsel for the Respondent No.5: N.A. The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This petition has been filed in public interest. 2. The grievance, which has been ventilated in the petition is with regard to construction of rice mills by respondent Nos.4 and 5. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 is trying to expand its rice mill without proper permission. 4. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, ‘the Board’) has submitted that so far as respondent No.4 is concerned, it has been given consent for operation (CFO) vide order dt.31.3.2009. The said CFO was given after necessary inspection and on certain conditions. One of the conditions incorporated in the CFO is that respondent No.4 would not expand its industry without obtaining necessary permission from the Board. 5. In view of the above fact, we believe that respondent No.4 cannot expand its mill without taking necessary permission from the Board. If it is found by the petitioner that respondent No.4 is expanding its mill, the petitioner should immediately approach the Board and in that event, the Board would send his representative to find out whether respondent No.4 is violating any of the conditions on which CFO has been granted. 6. So far as respondent No.5 is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board that no CFO has been granted to respondent No.5 and, therefore, respondent No.5 cannot operate its mill. 7. If respondent No.5 is operating its mill without CFO, we are sure that upon getting intimation from the petitioner, the respondent Board shall take appropriate action against respondent No.5. 8. In view of the above order, we are sure that the grievance of the petitioner would be redressed and therefore the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 15-04-2009 bnr