THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.26792 of 2007 Dated 29th June, 2011 Between: S.D.Patel …Petitioner And Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, Vijayawada, Krishna District, rep.by its Commissioner and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri P.Sridhar Reddy Counsel for respondent: Smt.G.Jhansi The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to set aside notice, dated 08.12.2007, of respondent No.2, whereby he has directed the petitioner to stop the timber depot. The petitioner also assailed the action of respondent No.2 in seizing the timber depot by putting lock and seals on 10.12.2007. This Court granted interim order, dated 24.12.2007, directing the respondents not to interfere with the timber business of the petitioner being carried on in the premises in question. Respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is inter alia stated that the petitioner’s premises, wherein he is running the sawmill is situated on the road leading to Eluru and that on receiving several complaints that the said sawmill is emitting sawdust and pollutants causing inconvenience to the outsiders and neighbouring residents, a notice, dated 26.07.2007, was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be taken to close down the timber depot in the larger interests of public health. As the petitioner failed to respond, the impugned order has been passed directing closer of the sawmill and report compliance, failing which, action will be taken as per law. At the hearing, Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the order of respondent No.2, styled as notice, is wholly without jurisdiction, because even if it is felt that running of sawmill is causing health hazards, it is only the Commissioner of respondent No.1-Corporation who is competent to pass such an order. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s sawmill is properly enclosed without any scope for dust escaping the premises and polluting the passers-by or the neighbours. The learned counsel filed a photograph in support of his submission. Smt.G.Jhansi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that under the delegated powers, the Commissioner has power to delegate any of his functions and powers in favour of his subordinates and therefore, the impugned order cannot be treated as one without jurisdiction. However, the learned Standing Counsel has not placed before the Court any proceedings by which the Commissioner has delegated the power of closing down of a sawmill to respondent No.2. Be that as it may, the only reason for which the order of closing down was passed is that the petitioner failed to prevent the sawdust from causing pollution in the area in which it is located. From the photograph filed by the petitioner, it prima facie looks that the sawmill is properly enclosed, except at one place where a gate with wholes is in existence. Obviously that may be the only escape route for the sawdust to enter the road and cause pollution. Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that his client will take adequate measures to see that even these gaps are filled. In the above circumstances, the impugned notice is set aside. The petitioner is given one-month time to take adequate measures to prevent pollution. The respondents shall be free to inspect the premises thereafter and if they are not satisfied with the arrangements made by the petitioner to prevent pollution, the competent authority shall be free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. As sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.34971 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 29th June, 2011 VGB