IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 22866 of 2008 Between: 1) Smt.Kota Vijayalaxmi W/o.Poornachandra Rao, R/o.H.No.11-84, Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 2) Kota Ramaiah S/o.Lingaiah, R/o.H.No.11-129/4, Heekatigudem h/o. Kethepally, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 3) Kota Sreenu S/o.Lingaiah, R/o.H.No.11-129/5, Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 4) Kota Ramalingaiah S/o.Veeraiah, R/o.H.No.11-129/1, Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 5) Budde Bhadraiah S/o.Saidaiah, R/o.H.No.11-129/3, Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. 6) Kota Koteswar Rao S/o.Janakiramulu Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally, Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, A-3, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 018. 2) The District Industrial Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 3) The District Pollution Control Board, Ramagiri, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District. 4) The District Collector, Nalgonda District, Nalgonda. 5) The Revenue Divisional Officer, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District. 6) The Tahsildar, Kethepally Mandal, Nalgonda District. 7) M/s. Laxmi Gayatri Iron Steel Private Limited, Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, rep. by its Managing Director. 8) M/s. Gayatri Agro Industrial Power Limited (6.0 MV Bio- mass plant) Cheekatigudem h/o. Kethepally Village and Mandal, rep. by its Managing Director. ...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 an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondent authorities in not taking any steps to close down the Industrial units of Respondent No.7 and 8 which are emanating huge sound, dust, chemical moisture and causing severe health hazards to the villagers, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent authorities to close down to industrial units of Respondent No.7 and 8. Counsel for the Petitioners: MRS.R.N.PADMA Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 4 to 6: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3: MR. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent Nos.7 and 8: MR. S.V. BHATT The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice) 1. At the time of hearing of this petition, it has been submitted by learned advocate Shri Y. Srinivasa Murthy appearing for respondent No.1 – A.P. Pollution Control Board that show cause notices dated 22.6.2009 have already been issued to respondent Nos.7 and 8 in the subject matter of this petition and hearing has been fixed by the Member Secretary of respondent No.1 Board. 2. Looking to the above fact, in our opinion, it would be just and proper if the Board also hears one of the petitioners at the time of the said hearing so that the objections incorporated in the writ petition can also be considered by the Board. 3. It would be open to the petitioners to submit their comprehensive representation to the Board before 27.6.2009 so that the said representation can also be considered by the Board while taking final decision in pursuance of the afore-stated show cause notices. 4. After hearing respondent Nos.7 and 8 and one of the petitioners, if it is decided not to take any action in pursuance of the afore-stated show cause notices, the Board shall record the reasons thereof and a copy of the order, which might be passed, shall also be communicated to petitioner No.1 by registered post with acknowledgment due. 5. Smt.R.N. Padma, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioner, who would be appearing before the Board shall not pray for time and shall state the objections before the Board on the date of hearing. 6. In pursuance of the above directions, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ June 23, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue C.C. by 24.6.2009. (By order) svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR}