HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G.S. SINGHVI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY Writ Petition No.5014 of 2006 Between: Dr. Ayyappa Gupta … Petitioner And Anakapalle Municipality, rep.by its Commissioner, Anakapalle, & others. … Respondents :: O R D E R :: Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.V. Rajaram Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Sri S.Nageswara Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2 : Sri S.V. Bhatt Counsel for Respondent No.3 : Government Pleader for Municipal Administration Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri P.Sri Raghuram 29th June, 2006 Per G.S.Singhvi, C.J. This is a petition for issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., Anakapalle Municipality through its Commissioner and Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board through its Secretary respectively to take appropriate action for eradication of sound pollution created by the operation of industry M/s Steel Almirah Manufacturing Industry (respondent No.4 herein) In his affidavit Dr.Ayyappa Gupta has averred that manufacturing activity carried on by respondent No.4 is creating various types of pollution including sound pollution, but the official respondents have not taken any steps to curb the same despite repeated representations. In the counter-affidavit, Sri Rajeshwar Tiwari, Member Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board it has been averred that as per G.O.Rt.No.227 dated 11-7-2000, the Commissioner of Police in the Municipal Corporation area and the Superintendent of Police in the Districts is the prescribed authority under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. In a separate affidavit filed by Sri K.Chalapathi Rao, Proprietor of respondent No.4, the averments contained in the affidavit of the petitioners have been denied and it has been averred that there is no valid ground or justification to stop the industrial activity being undertaken by the unit. Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned counsel for the petitioner says that in view of the averments contained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board, his client may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file an application before the competent authority to take action against the noise pollution caused by the industry of respondent No.4. Sri S.V. Bhatt, learned counsel for the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board and Sri P. Sri Raghuram, learned counsel for respondent No.4 say that they do not have any objection if the petitioner is allowed to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file application in terms of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. At the same time, learned counsel for respondent No.4 submitted that the Court may direct the authority concerned not to pass any orders adversely affecting his client’s interest without giving it an effective opportunity of hearing. In view of the statements made by the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate application under 2000 Rules. While disposing of the writ petition in the manner indicated above, we make it clear that no order adversely affecting the right or interest of respondent No.4 shall be passed by the competent authority without giving it action oriented notice and opportunity of hearing. G.S.SINGHVI, C.J. 29th June, 2006 G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J. ARS/GRR