Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 14741 (AP)

Nakkulla Jayalaxmi v. The state of Andhra Pradesh,

WP/15240/2025 · 2025-07-09

Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, Ravi Nath Tilhari

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

\ 1 Ir APHC010183772025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 15240 OF 2025 Between: Nakkulla Jayalaxmi, W/o Late Satyanarayana, Aged about 55 years, Occ: House wife/widow Srikakulam District. R/o Penturu Village, Nandigam Maridal, ...Petitioner AND 1. The state of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by Its, Principal Secretary, Pollution and Environment Dept, Guntur District. The Commissioner and Director, Mines and Geology Vijayawada Krishna District. The Commissioner and Director, Pollution Control Board at Vijayavyada Krishna District. The District Collector, Srikakulam Srikakulam District. The Environmental Engineer, AP Pollution Control Board Regonal Office, AtD.no. 16-13-25, 2nd cross Road Purushottam Nagar colony Gujaratipeta village Srikakulam Srikakulam District. Secretariat Velagapudi, Amaravati 2. 3. 4. 5. ff> 6. The regional Officer, Mines and Geology Tekkali Division, Srikakulam District. 7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Tekkali Division, Srikakulam District. 8. The Tahsildar, Nandigam Mandal, Srikakulam District. 9. The M/s Stone Plus, Rep by Its proprietor, Surya Devalajogendra Dev, Plot.no.54 ocean Drive Sagar Nagar, Visakahapatnam Town and District. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent no.2 to 8 to take legal action against the 9th respondent on the illegal mining activities of sound and air pollution on the petitioner Representation /legal noticed dt 25.11.2024 in accordance with law is highly illegal arbitrary violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violation of the principles of natural Justice consequently direct the respondents to take legal action against the respondent illegal mining activities of sound and pollution on the petitioner Representation /legal noticed dt 25.11.2024 accordance with law. air in lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to take legal action against the 9th respondent illegal mining activities of sound and air pollution on the petitioner Representation /legal noticed dt 26.11.2024 in accordance with law. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI TOTA TEJESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: GP FOR ENVIRONMENT \ ^ Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 6: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 5: SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL APPCB Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 4,7 and 8: GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondent No. 9: SRI SINGURU SAI KRISHNA The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO; 15240/2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) No representation for the petitioner even in the revised call. On 26.06.2025, there was also no representation for the 2. petitioner. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the 3. Constitution of India by the petitioner, seeking direction to the respondents to take legal action against the 9**^ respondent with respect to the alleged illegal mining activities of sound and air pollution on the petitioner’s representation/legal notice, dated 25.11.2024. Since there is no representation today and there was no 4. representation on the previous date also, which was the first date after filing of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the writ petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. No 5. order as to costs. \ 2 As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any 6. pending, shall also stand dosed. Sd/-U. SRJDEVI assistant REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SE To, 1. One CC to Sri. Tota Tejeswara Rao Advocate [OPUC] 2. One CC to Sri. Singuru Sai Krishna Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Yelisetti Somaraju Standing Counsel for APPCB [OPUC] 4. Two CCs to GP for Environment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 5. Two CCs to GP for Revenue High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 6. Two CCs to GP for Mines and Geology High, Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] 7. Three CD Copies GSC / HIGH COURT DATED: 10/07/2025 i 2 0 AUG 20213' ^ . Curreni aection >&oespATCweS-^ ORDER WP NO. 15240 OF 2025 m O C9. DISMISSING THE WP FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WITHOUT COSTS