IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6611 of 2008 Between: 1 Smt.Kanthamani Surya Kumari W/o.Kanthamani Srinivasa Rao R/o.H.No.3-10-2/1 Subbarao Pet, Tadepalligudam, West Godavari District 2 Smt.G.Santha Kumari W/o.Sai baba Sowmya Beauty Clinic, Behind ZP High School Yerubandivari street, Tadepalligudem West Godavari District 3 Mr.Adapa Prasada Rao S/o.A.Veera Venkaiah Near Dr.karri Nageswara RAo Hospital D.No.3-10-1/1,Subbarao pet,Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District 4 Mr.Damerla Nagabhushanam S/o.D.Appa Rao R/o.D.No.3-38-2/1,Challavari street, Subbaraopet Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 The District Collector, West Godavari District Eluru, West Godavari District 2 The Regional Joint Director, Municipal Administration Prakash Nagar,Rajahmundry, West Godavari District 3 The Tadepalligudem Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District 4 M/s.Sai Ram Sweet5s & Food Products, rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Bantumilli Ramu,S/o.Not Known, Subbaraopet,Tadepalligudem West Godavari 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 may 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 in not taking appropriate action on our representation and reminder dated 4.2.2008 as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to law and violative of Article 14,16 21,23,24,& 47 of the constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the representation and reminder dated 4.2.2008 of the petitioners in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.J.U.M.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: MR.S.NAGESWARA RAO, Standing Counsel. The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are four in number, assailing the inaction of the Tadepalligudem Municipality rep. by its Commissioner-3rd respondent on the representation and reminder dated 04.02.2008 with regard to the manufacturing activity carried on by M/s.Sai Ram Sweets and Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent, in the residential locality. 2. Smt.Kanthamani Surya Kumari has sworn to the writ affidavit. It is stated in the writ affidavit that M/s.Sai Ram Sweets and Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent established grinding machines for manufacture of sweets and the said grinding machines cause much nuisance to the inhabitants of the locality. The petitioners made an application to the District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru, marking copies to the other official respondents in the month of January and February, 2008 complaining the nuisance caused by the manufacturing activity of M/s.Sai Ram Sweets & Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent to the inhabitants of the locality. There being no action on the representation, they choose to approach this Court by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. On 27.03.2008 while ordering notice before admission, the 3rd respondent has been directed to cause the premises of the 4th respondent inspected and file a detailed report with regard to the alleged nuisance that is being caused by M/s.Sai Ram Sweets & Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court, the 3rd respondent inspected the premises of M/s.Sai Ram Sweets & Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent and filed a report. Respondents 1 and 2 also filed counter-affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. 5. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that their representations complaining the nuisance caused by the manufacturing activity of M/s.Sai Ram Sweets & Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent to the inhabitants of the locality have not been attended to by the respondents. In the inspection report submitted by the Commissioner, Tadepalligudem Municipality-3rd respondent, it is stated that the necessary action was initiated and trade licence granted in favour of M/s.Sai Ram Sweets & Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent was cancelled and thereby manufacturing activity of M/s.Sai Ram Sweets & Food Products, Tadepalligudem-4th respondent was brought to stand still. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of the trade licnece being cancelled, the 4th respondent is still carrying on the manufacturing activity in the premises causing much nuisance to the inhabitants of the locality. If the 4th respondent carries on business without there being a trade licence, the 4th respondent would face the penal consequences. The 3rd respondent has to initiate necessary action against the 4th respondent in the event of the 4th respondent carrying on the manufacturing activity despite cancellation of the trade licence. 6. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:21st July, 2008. cs .....ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CCs 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS}