IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH WRIT PETITION No: 2179 of 2001 BETWEEN: 1 Aratla Srilakshmi, W/o Gnaneswara Rao, Siddantam, Gudlavalluru Mandal, Krishna Dist. 2 Peparti Koteswara Rao S/o Venkateswara Rao, R/o.32nd Ward, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 3 K. Lakshmi W/o. Sambasiva Rao, 32nd Ward, Gudivada, Krishna District. ... PETITIONERS AND 1 The Govt. of A.P. Rep. by Prl. Secretary, Municipal Administration, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Municipal Administration, B.R.K.R. Bldg., Tank Bund, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner Municipal Council, Gudivada. 4 The District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 5 Sri Kaza Chakradhara Babu S/o. Venkatakrishna Rao, Side D.No.17/324, K.T.R. College Road, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 6 Tekkam Ravi Kumar, Side D.No.16/388, Near Southern Side of Bhimavaram Rly. Gate, Near & Opposite to Saibaba Temple, Pamarru Road, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 7 Sagiraju Uday Bhaskar Raju, Side D.No.16/387, Near Southern Side of Bhimavaram Rly. Station Gate, Pamarru Road, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 8 Gude Rama Rao, Water Servicing Station, Corner of Pamarru & Machilipatnam Road, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 9 Lingam Prasad, Water Servicing Station, Machilipatnam Road, Near Industrial Estate, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 10 P. Gopala Rao, Water Servicing Station, Side of Jai Bharat Engineering Works, Machilipatnam Road, Gudivada, Krishna Dist. 11 A.P. State Pollution Control Board Rep. by its Member Secretary Mythrivanam Complex, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...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 issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order or direction declaring the inaction of the respondents 1 to 4 in not closing down the servicing stations of Respondents 5 to 10 as unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents 1 to 4 to close down R-5 to R-10's units, remove them and take penal action against R5 to R10 as per law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.B.DEVANAND Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN. & URBAN DEV. The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition has been filed to declare the action of the respondents in not closing the service stations of the respondents 5 to 10 as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the official respondents to close down the service stations. 2. Counter has been filed by the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Gudivada, Krishna District stating that all the activities of the service stations run by the respondents 5 to 10 are totally stopped. It is stated that on a vacate stay petition filed by the unofficial respondents this Court while modifying earlier interim order directing to close down the service stations to the effect that the third respondent may consider the representation of the unofficial respondents for grant of permission or licence to run the service stations in accordance with law and subject to the compliance of the conditions imposed by the Pollution Control Board, such as the provision of effluent treatment plant etc. It was also observed that it is the duty of the Commissioner to see that the unofficial respondents should not cause any pollution by letting out their effluents either into the irrigation canal or in any way causing health hazard to the neighbouring residents. 3. I am of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid interim order directing them to close down the service stations, in fact, the service stations were closed down as stated in the counter by the Commissioner and in view of the vacate stay petition being filed by the unofficial respondents, they were permitted to make an application with a direction to the Commissioner to consider the same in accordance with law, nothing survives in this writ petition. However, if there is any illegality committed either while granting permission to the unofficial respondents and if the unofficial respondents do not adhere to the relevant provisions relating to pollution by reason of letting out effluents, it is always open to the petitioner to make a representation and question the said illegal action in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH, J April 24, 2008 DSK