IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH 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 : 5778 of 2009 Between: M/s Chennakeshava Stone Crusher, Rep by its Proprietor Merugu Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Sanjeeva Rao, aged about 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o. 12-273, Islampura, Manchirial, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Member Secretary, A.P.Pollution control board, Paryavaran bhavan, A-3, Industrial Estate, Opp Sanathnagar Police Station, A.P. Hyderabad - 500018 2 The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office at H.nO.25-35/11, Tulasi Reddy Complex, R.C.Puram, Medak District- 502 032 3 The Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Control Board, Nizamabad. .....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 to issue a writ in the nature of Manamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to issue consent order for establishment and operations of the petitioner unit by considering the representations dated 10.12.2008, submitted by the petitioner and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.GOPAL RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: Y.SRINIVASA MURTHY( SC FOR APSCOST) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO: 5778 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a petition wherein it has been prayed that a representation made by the petitioner to respondent no.1 for giving consent to start its business has not been examined. In pursuance of the direction given by respondent no.1, the petitioner unit was directed to be closed down and being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal. The appellate Board had given a direction that unless the petitioner gets consent from respondent no.1, the petitioner cannot start its business activity. In pursuance of the said development, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.1 on 10.12.2008. The said representation is still pending. Unless the representation is favourably decided, the petitioner cannot start its business and therefore it has been prayed that respondent no.1 be directed to consider the representation. The afore-stated fact could not be disputed by the learned standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1. In the circumstances, it is directed that respondent no.1 shall consider the representation made by the petitioner dated 10.12.2008 and shall take appropriate decision in accordance with law within four weeks from today. The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of taking the decision. In view of the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ___________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 31st March, 2009 Note : Issue C.C. in two days B/o asp