IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 16993 of 2008 Between: 1 Byru Iyalaiah S/o. Veeraiah R/o. Kadivendi Village, Duvuruppula Mandal, Warangal District. 2 Nakka Lingaiah R/o. Kadivendi Village, Duvuruppula Mandal, Warangal District. 3 Bhukya Kalra s/o. Amru R/o. Chipparala Thanda, Kadivendi Village, Duvuruppula Mandal, Warangal District. 4 Dasarla Abbasailu S/o. Venkulu R/o. Chipparala Thanda, Kadivendi Village, Duvuruppula Mandal, Warangal District. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Govt. of A.P., rep. by its Assistant Director, Mines & Geology, Warangal. 2 The District Collector & Magistrate, Warangal. 3 The Director of Pollution Control Board, Govt. of A.P., Secretariat, hyderabad. 4 The District Panchayat Officer, Warangal District. 5 Inspector of Police, Jangaon, Warangal District. 6 Revenue Divisional Officer, Jangaon, Warangal District. 7 Tahsildar, Devaruppula Mandal, Warangal District. 8 M/s. Sandeep Granites, rep. by its Proprietor Smt. S.Sandeepa H.No. 11-22-459, Kasibuga, Warangal. .....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 to issue a writ of Mandamus or issue any other Writ, order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus, declaring that the procedings of the 1st respondent No. 1914/Q/2004 dated 25.03.2008 as illegal, arbitrary and set aside the same, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.PRABHAKAR CHIKKULU Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation wherein it has been alleged that respondent No.8 is operating a quarry and is polluting the atmosphere. Learned Advocate Sri Srinivasa Murthy appearing for respondent No.3-Board has submitted that a show-cause notice as to why respondent No.8 should not be restrained from operating the quarry had been given and the said notice has been challenged by respondent No.8 before the appellate authority under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It has been submitted that the said appeal is to be heard on 31-1-2009. He has, therefore, submitted that it is open to the petitioners to get themselves impleaded in the said appeal proceedings so that they can make their representation before the appellate authority. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners would like to file an implead application in the appeal proceedings and, therefore, he seeks time. Learned Advocate Sri Srinivasa Murthy has assured this Court that the appellate authority would adjourn the matter on 31-1-2009 to see that the present petitioners file an application for impleadment so that they can also be heard by the appellate authority. The petitioners shall file an implead application on or before 3-2- 2009 before the appellate authority if they want to be impleaded in the said proceedings and if the implead application is filed before 3-2- 2009, the appellate authority shall consider the application on its merit and take final decision after hearing the concerned parties. If no implead application is filed by the petitioners on or before 3-2-2009, it will be open to the appellate authority to decide the matter in accordance with law at any time after 3-2-2009. In view of the above development in the matter, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 29th January, 2009. GRR