IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.22971 of 2008 Between: 1 Sri Tata Sreenivasa Rao, S/o. Subba Rao, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 2 Sri Madala Chiranjeevi, S/o. Ramakrishnaiah, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 3 Sri Puriparthy Ankaraju, S/o. Ramulu, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 4 Sri Dasari China Anjaiah, S/o. Musalaiah, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 5 Sri Machabathina Venkataramana Rao, S/o. Venkata Sivaramaiah, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 6 Sri Amudalapalli Rambramham, S/o. Ankaiah, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 7 Smt. Marpula Ragamma, W/o. Balaiah, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 8 Sri Nuthakki Somasundara Rao, S/o. Pothuluraiah, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 9 Smt. Sk. Mastanbee, W/o. Babusaheb, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 10 Smt. Gangenapalli Drakshayini, W/o. Vijay, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 11 Sri Mekala Pulla Reddy, S/o. Krishna Reddy, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. 12 Sri Madala Sreeramurthy, S/o. Baburao, R/o. Chimakurthy, Prakasam District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Hyderabad. 2 The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, A.K. Nagar, Nellore-4. 3 The District Collector, Prakasam District. 4 The General Manager, District Industries Centre, Ongole, Prakasam District. 5 The Regional Deputy Director, Town and Country Planning, Chandramouli Nagar, Guntur. 6 The Mandal Revenue Officer, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. 7 M/s. Sri Saideva Stone Crushers, Chimakurthy Mandal, Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Kancherla Prasada Rao, S/o. Venkaiah, R/o. Vasavi Apartments, Pandaripuram, 1st Lane, Ongole, Prakasam 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 of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the consent order issued by the 2nd respondent herein in Order No. P/677/PCB/RO/NLR/2008-437, dated 12-5- 2008 for establishment of Road Metal Stone Crusher in favour of the 7th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents not to grant any permission for establishment of Stone Crushing units in Sy.No. 93/2A, 3A and 146/1B and 1A of Budawada Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. T. NAGARJUNA REDDY Counsel for Respondents Nos.1 and 2: Mr. Y. Sreenivasa Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.4: G.P. for Industries Counsel for Respondent Nos.3 and 6: G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following: Order: (Per HC, J) This petition has been ﬁled against an order dated 12-05-2008 passed by Respondent No.1 whereby Respondent No.7 has been given consent for establishing stone crushing unit. The petitioners have been aggrieved by the aforesaid order as, according to them, functioning of the said unit shall result into pollution of air and water and it will also create noise. It is not in dispute that as per the provisions of Section 28 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, an appeal can be ﬁled against the impugned order. In our opinion, certain disputed questions of fact are also involved in the petition, because the authorities will have to examine whether the stone crushing unit would result into any pollution and whether it is in or near residential area. In the circumstances, in our opinion, it would be just if the petitioners are directed to ﬁle an appeal if they are aggrieved by the impugned order. As the petitioners are having equally eﬃcacious alternative remedy against the impugned order and as certain disputed questions of fact will have to be examined, we do not entertain this petition. The petition is rejected. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioners to challenge the validity of the impugned order under the provisions of Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. October 21, 2008 MRR