IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.7076 of 2005 Between: 1. Buddi Ramakrishna Prasad 2. Sangati Venkateswara Rao 3. Sangati Chennaiah ...Petitioners And 1. The District Collector, Krishna District at Machilipatnam. 2. Kanchikacherla Gram Panchayat, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District, represented by its Panchayat Secretary. 3. A.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Vijayawada, represented by its Environmental Engineer. 4. M/s. Sri Krishna Mini Modern Rice & Flour Mill, Kanchikacherla, Krishna 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, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 1 to 3 in taking steps to grant permission/licence to the 4th respondent for running rice mill in S.No.442/1 of Kanchikacherla Village, Krishna District as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction besides violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to restrain the 4th respondent from running rice mill in the residential area i.e. in S.No.442/1 of Kanchikacherla Village and Mandal, Krishna District. Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kurra Srinivas Counsel for respondent No.1 : None Counsel for respondent No.2 : None Counsel for respondent No.3 : Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy Counsel for respondent No.4 : None The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, C.J.) Though served, nobody has appeared for respondent No.4. When the matter was called out in the first session, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 was absent and, therefore, the matter was kept in the second session. Even now, the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.4 is not present. In the circumstances, the matter has been taken up for hearing. The petitioners have made a grievance in this petition that respondent No.4 is proposing to construct a rice mill in Sy.No.442/1 of Kanchikacharla Village, Krishna District. According to them, the place where the rice mill is proposed to be constructed is a residential area and, therefore, the rice mill should not be permitted to be constructed in the residential area. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court, learned Advocate, Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy, has appeared for respondent No.3 – A.P. Pollution Control Board. It has been submitted by him that normal policy is that in Gram Panchayats, small scale industrial units are not permitted to set up the unit in residential areas. It has been further submitted that External Advisory Committee of A.P. Pollution Control Board had convened its meeting on 26th February, 2004 and had examined case of respondent No.4 and ultimately had decided to reject the application of respondent No.4 for setting up a rice mill in R.S.No.442/1 of Kanchikacharla Village. In view of the above fact, it is clear that respondent No.4 has not been permitted to set up rice mill at the place referred to in the petition, which is in residential area. In view of the above fact, in our opinion, the grievance ventilated in the petition would not survive. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. A copy of letter dated 28th February, 2004 referring to the decision of the External Advisory Committee of A.P. Pollution Control Board is taken on record. ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. 19th January, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. To 1. The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2. The Panchayat Secretary, Kanchikacherla Gram Panchayat, Kanchikacherla, Krishna District. 3. The Environmental Engineer, A.P. Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Vijayawada. 4. Two copies to the Govt. Pleader for Panchayat Raj, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad (OUT). 5. Two CD copies. ARS