IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 8646 of 2009 Between: Sri Devi Enterprises, D.No.10-160, Gandhinagar, Markandeyapuram, Gollaprolu Village & Mandal, East Godavari District, represented by its Proprietor B.S.S. Ganesh S/o. Suri Jagga Rao, Aged about 31 years. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 A.P. Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, A.3, Industrial Estate, Opp: Police Station, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, represented by its Member Secretary. 2 The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, 2-532, Shanti Nagar, Ramanayyapet, Kakinada, E.G. District. 3 The SuperintendingEngineer,A.P.E.P.D.C.Limited, Rajahmundry,E.G.District. 4 Madepalli Satyanananda Rao S/o.Venkat Rao D.No.10-128, Gadhinagar, Markandeyapuram, Gollaprolu Village & Mandal, East Godavari District. 5 Gajula Seshagiri Rao S/o.Somaraju Sri Veera Raghava Traders, Gadhinagar, Markandeyapuram, Gollaprolu , East Godavari District. 6 Gajula Somaraju Sri Veera Raghava Traders, Gadhinagar, Markandeyapuram, Gollaprolu , East Godavari District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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, order or direction, declaring the action on the part of the respondent No.2 in not disposing of the representation dated 24.12.2008 of the Petitioner, which was made pursuant to the orders of Appellate Authority under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and AIR (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act dated 29.11.2008 made in Appeal No.20/2008 as illegal, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of Constitution of India and for a consequential direction to the respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders on the representation made by the Petitioner dated 24.12.2008 keeping in view of the observations made by the Petitioner dated 24.12.2008 keeping in view of the observations made by the Appellate Authority in its order dated 29.11.2008. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAJI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Y.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) The grievance made in the petition is with regard to non-action on the part of respondent No. 2 on the representation made by the petitioner. 2. Looking to the facts of the case, we are of the view that the petitioner should have made the representation to respondent No. 1 – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, ‘the Board’) so that the contents of the representation can be looked into by the Board. 3. In view of the above facts, it is directed that respondent No. 1 shall look into the representation dated 24-12-2008 addressed by the petitioner to the Environmental Engineer of the Board. 4. Respondent No. 1 shall consider the representation within three weeks from today and shall given reply to the petitioner, within one week from the date of taking final decision on the representation, by registered post acknowledgement due. 5. In view of the above direction, the grievance ventilated in the petition would be redressed. The petition is therefore disposed of with no order as to costs. 6. Copy of the order be forwarded to respondent No.1 by the Registry of this Court. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 27th April, 2009 ks