IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15559 of 2000 Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.UDAYA BHASKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.Y.SUDHAKAR The Court made the following: Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ } THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No.15559 of 2000 ORDER: Heard both the counsel. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent is running an oil mill and floor mill contrary to the conditions granted in letter dated 11.08.1999 wherein the 2nd respondent imposed conditions directing the 4th respondent not to install oil mill with more than 5 HPEM and he shall pay necessary fees to the Municipality before release of the permission, and that his representation dated 31.07.2000 to cancel the licence of the 4th respondent was not considered by respondent Nos.1 to 3. A counter has been filed by the 1st respondent-Commissioner, Amalapuram Municipality, Amalapuram stating that the 2nd respondent granted permission on 11.08.1999 for installation of 10 HPEM for running floor mill and oil mill in R.S.No.238/5 at D.No.1-1-16 of Amalapuram in favour of the 4th respondent, subject to the conditions that the 4th respondent shall not install the oil mill with more than 5 HPEM; and he shall pay necessary fee to the Municipality before release of the permission. It is stated that the representations of the petitioner dated 09.10.1999 and 20.03.2000 were already considered and the Department has also given a reply to the petitioner on 10.04.2000 and the said reply dated 10.04.2000 has not been questioned, and therefore, question of considering again the representation of the petitioner dated 31.07.2000 does not arise. The 4th respondent has also filed counter stating that in fact the 4th respondent shifted his mill in a RCC Building as per the sanctioned plan approved by the 1st respondent and therefore the question of dust and noise coming out when the mill is in operation does not arise, and the 4th respondent has not violated any terms and conditions. I view of the above, I am of the opinion that the disputed questions cannot be decided in the present writ petition, and hence the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 03.04.2008 Dsr .... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 2. 2CCs to 3. 2CD copies