THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12137 OF 2010 DATE: 27.07.2010 Between: Chippada Satyanarayana ..... PETITIONER AND Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Secretary, Municipal Administration Department, Hydeabad and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No. 12137 OF 2010 ORDER : The petitioner is carrying on gingily oil rotor in the premises bearing Door No.10-2-28, Veeraraghavapuram, Samalkot, East Godavari District. It is stated that the requisite permissions from all the concerned departments have been obtained and that the provisional registration from the Industries Department was also granted in the year 1997. While so, on 28.04.2010 the staff of the 3rd respondent had sealed and locked the door of the premises in question thereby compelling the petitioner to stop his business. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the 3rd respondent in locking the business premises without any notice, enquiry or opportunity as arbitrary and illegal. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 3rd respondent- Commissioner, Samalkot Municipality stating that the premises had been locked pursuant to the proceedings issued by the Pollution Control Board dated 26.02.2010, wherein the 3rd respondent was requested to take action against the petitioner’s unit as the same was creating noise pollution. It is also stated that several complaints were received in the Prajapadham conducted in the month of April, 2010 by the local M.L.A stating that the petitioner was running the business creating noise and air pollution. Pursuant thereto, the municipal authorities were directed to take steps for locking and sealing the premises in question. The learned standing counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent has also placed before this Court the proceedings of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Kakinada, dated 26.02.2010, which shows that the residents of Veeraraghavapuram made a complaint regarding noise pollution due to the operation of the petitioner’s unit. While observing that the unit is being operated during night time without obtaining any permission from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the 3rd respondent was directed to take necessary action against the petitioner’s unit. Though a copy of the same has been marked to the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that no such proceedings were served on the petitioner and he was not aware of the same. Be that as it may. As the controversy raised is based upon disputed questions of fact which cannot be enquired into and decided by this Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent-District Collector, East Godavari Distrct to cause an enquiry into the sealing of the petitioner’s unit situated in premises No.10-2-28 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing all the persons concerned. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that the petitioner made a detailed representation on 05.05.2010 requesting the 2nd respondent to see that the seal of his premises is removed since he is incurring recurring loss from 28.04.2010 onwards. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 2nd respondent to make the necessary enquiry as indicated above and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 27.07.2010 Note: Issue CC of order in three days (B/o)