HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY W.P.No.1602 of 2011 Date : 31-1-2011 Between : Maddipati Narayana Rao and another .. Petitioners and The District Medical & Health Officer, West Godavari District at Eluru and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioners : Sri K.Jyothi Prasad Counsel for respondent No.1 : G.P. for Medical & Family Welfare Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr.G.Elisha, Standing Counsel Counsel for respondent Nos.3 & 4 : A.G.P. for Revenue The Court made the following : ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in resolving to permit respondent No.5 to construct Poultry farm in the residential area of Chandravaram village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. The petitioners claim to be the residents of Chandravaram village, Chagallu Mandal, West Godavari District. It is their pleaded case that respondent No.5 has obtained permission from respondent No.2 for establishment of poultry in a residential area which will cause health hazards to the petitioners and other residents. The petitioners further stated that respondent No.5 has deviated from the approved plan and has been constructing the sheds in violation of the plan. The petitioners further averred that some of the villagers have already filed a civil suit against respondent No.5. After carefully hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the issues raised in this Writ Petition fall in the realm of question of fact as to whether running of the poultry at the proposed place by respondent No.5 causes health hazards or not. Adjudication of these issues depends upon factors such as the distance between the proposed poultry and the residential houses etc. These issues therefore need to be adjudicated in a properly constituted civil suit by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. As noted above, some of the villagers have already approached the competent civil court by way of a civil suit. In my opinion, the petitioners can as well seek to espouse their cause by getting themselves impleaded in the pending suit or by filing a substantive suit. As regards the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent No.5 has been raising construction in deviation of the sanctioned plan, the petitioners are entitled to approach the competent authority for taking action against respondent No.5 if they feel aggrieved by the alleged deviation from the sanctioned plan by respondent No.5. Subject to the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP No.1953/2011 is disposed of as infructuous. ____________________ C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy.,J Date : 31-1-2011 AM