IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 25776 of 2008 Between: N. Nageswara Rao S/o. Veeraiah R/o. Teachers Colony, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, A-3, Industrial Estate, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, rep. by its Member Secretary. 2 The Environmental Engineer (FAC), Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Plot No.41, Sri Kanakadurga Officer's Colony, Gurunanak Road, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 3 M/s. Rajiv Gandhi Fly Ash Products Teachers' colony, 23rd Ward, beside NH-9, Jaggaiahpet Village & Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue a writ or order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not initiating the steps preventing the 3rd respondent industry from running Fly Ash Brick Industry in he residential locality even in spite of completion of specified period permitted by the 1st respondent as arbitrary and illegal and consequently direct the respondents No.1 and 2 to initiate proceedings forthwith preventing the 3rd respondent from running the Fly Ash Brick Industry in the Teachers' Colony, 23rd ward, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (Per Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) This is a public interest litigation, wherein it has been alleged that respondent No.3 is running a Fly Ash Brick Industry in a residential locality and in spite of a complaint being made to respondent No.1, no action has been taken by it for the closure of respondent No.3-industry. Learned Advocate Sri Y. Srinivasa Murthy has appeared for respondent No.1 and has submitted that the petitioner is having his residence in an industrial zone and for the said reason he should not have made a grievance against respondent No.3 which is an industry in an industrial zone. It has been however submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-Board that a closure notice had already been given to respondent No.3 because of certain irregularities committed by it. In view of the above fact, we do not find any substance in this public interest litigation and, therefore, the petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. ________________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ ________________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th December, 2008. GRR