THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.7056 OF 2010 Dated 29th March, 2010 Between: Gitam Institute of Technology & Management …Petitioner And A.P.Rajiv Swagruha Corporation Limited And two others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Dr P.B.Vijaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: None appears The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.3 in blasting and levelling the land forming part of a hill admeasuring Acs.57.73 cents situated in Sy.No.20/P and 16/3 at Yendada Village, Visakhapatnam Rural (M) for the purpose of construction of houses without taking preventive and precautionary measures as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, there is no representation for respondents 1 and 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is running an Engineering College. Adjacent to the said college, there is a hill, over which respondent No.1 has allegedly contemplated to construct houses under Andhra Pradesh Rajiv Swagruha Scheme. It is stated that in order to level the land, the work was entrusted to respondent No.3 by respondent No.1. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.3 has not been taking required precautionary measures while carrying on blasting operations to prevent the stones from flying and falling in the petitioner’s premises. It is averred that the rock splinters have hit the windowpanes of the petitioner building and damaged the same and that the petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No.2 on 26.06.2009, apart from approaching respondent No.1. The petitioner filed copy of letter dated 03.07.2009 addressed by the General Manager (Projects) of respondent No.1-Corporation to respondent No.2, wherein while referring to the above fact, he informed that during the controlled blasting undertaken on 20.06.2009, some dust has fallen from the hill portion to the foot of the hill and that he instructed respondent No.3 not to repeat such incidents and execute the work carefully duly following precautionary and safety measures. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the said communication by the General Manager of respondent No.1-Corporation, respondent No.3 has not been taking required precautions while carrying on the work of blasting and levelling the hill and that respondent No.2 has not been taking any action in this regard. The photographs produced by the petitioner at the hearing show that the petitioner’s college is located just at the foot of the hill on which the levelling works appear to have been carried on and unless proper precautions are undertaken, the said work is likely to affect the building and the safety of the students and others using the premises. In view of the same, respondent No.2 is directed to examine the issue personally and ensure that all precautionary measures are taken by respondent No.3 while carrying on the work in question. Subject to the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, WPMP No.9100 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 29th March, 2010 vrn