IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1429 OF 2024 Between: 1. Telada Malyadri, S/o. late Mala Kondaiah, Aged about 56 years, Prop, of Sri Manasa Floor Mill, Sy.No.367, P.No.-38, Yanamalapalem, Navab Pet, Nellore SPSR Nellore District. 2. Ragipindi Srinivasulu, S/o.Subbareddy, Aged about 43 years. Prop. Venkateswara Padmavathi traders, D.No.1-5-215, Yanamalapalem, Navabpet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 3. Ragipindi Venkata Reddy, S/o. Adinarayana Reddy, Aged about 34 years. Prop. Venkatareddy Traders, 1/785, Yanamalapalem, Navabpet, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Municipal Administration Department, Secretariat buildings. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh 2. The Commissioner, Nellore Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore 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 of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the 2"*^ respondent in passing Orders in ROC.NO.467577/2022/GI, dt.23.12.2023 as illegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of provisions of APMC Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents not to take further steps pursuant passed 2'^'^ to the Orders by the respondent in ROC.No.467577/2022/G1, nd dt.23.12.2023 by setting aside the Orders of the 2 dt.23.12.2023. respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 suspend the Orders in ROC.No.467577/2022/GI, dt.23.12.2023 passed by the 2"^^ respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 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 grant leave to file the counter affidavit in the above writ petition and receive the same on the side of the respondent no-2 in the interests of justice. Otherwise the petitioners will be suffer loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI C SUBODH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV The Court made the following order: 1 APHC010025192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 1429/2024 Between: ...PETITIONER{S) Telada Malyadri and others AND ...RESPONDENT(S) The State of A.P. and another Counsel for the Petitloner(S): 1.CSUBODH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1 .GP FOR MUNCIPAL ADMN URBAN DEV 2.A S C BOSE (SC FOR MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief; to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction deciaring the action of the 2''"^ respondent in passing orders in ROC NO.467577/2022/G1, dated 23.12.2023 as iiiegal, arbitrary, violation of Principles of Natural Justice and violation of provisions of APMC Act, 1955 and consequently direct the respondents not to take further steps pursuant to the orders passed by the 2”"' respondent in ROC NO.467577/2022/G1 dated 23.12.2023 by setting aside the orders of the 2''^ respondent dated 23.12.2023 ” The case of the petitioners is that in pursuance of the complaint made by one Munaga Satish Kumar from Yanamalapalem Village before the Hon’ble 2. Lokayuktha at Kurnool alleging that the petitioners’ floor mill is causing respondent issued a notice in Roc.No.467577/2022/G1 on nd pollution, the 2 26.05.2023, directing the petitioners to immediately cease pollution with respect to sound, air, and water and further stated that if it is not possible, the units must be relocated from the residential area to an industrial area by 29.06.2023, failing which further action would be taken as per the GHMC Act, 1955. In response to the said notice, the petitioners submitted an explanation 3. on 30.05.2023 clarifying that they are operating small cottage industries for more than 30 years without causing any inconvenience or pollution, after obtaining necessary permissions and claimed that the complaints were made only to blackmail them. Again on 07.06.2023 and 12.06.2023, the petitioners 3 submitted their explanations by reiterating that they had taken all necessary precautions to prevent pollution including disposal of waste material and in order to come to a conclusion, the Pollution Control Board authorities may visit and inspect the units and as such requested to drop further proceedings. 4 The grievance of the petitioners is that A.P. Lokayuktha Act, 1983, empowers the Lokayuktha to investigate complaints against public officials and direct action against private individuals. In this case, the Lokayuktha directed the 2'"'^ respondent to submit a compliance report, without giving the petitioners an opportunity to present their contentions. While receiving the report from the Environmental Engineer, APPCB vide Letter No.GN- 6/APPCB/RO-NLR/2024-1239 dated 16.03.2023, enquiry was conducted behind their back without prior notice to the petitioners and basing on the said nd respondent issued notice in Roc No.467577/2022/G1, dated report, the 2 26.05.2023. 5. Challenging the said notice dated 26.05.2023, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 15128 of 2023, and on 26.06.2023, this Court directed the 2 respondent to inspect the units with all concerned department officials by providing due opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the enquiry. This Court also directed to take a final decision within three months. Despite the 23.12.2023, the 2'^'^ respondent issued a closure order for the units and directed their relocation to an industrial area within one month. nd same, on V 4 % 6. Challenging the said closure order dated 23.12.2023, the petitioners approached this Court alleging that the 2"^ respondent passed the impugned order without even conducting any inspection as directed by this Court in W.P.No.15128 of 2023. It is also the case of the petitioners that the staff of the 2'^^ respondent threatened the petitioners to vacate the premises or else they would be vacated by using police force. As such, the petitioners are constrained to make a representation on 02.01.2024 to the 2'^'^ respondent requesting to furnish a copy of the report submitted to the Hon’ble Lokayuktha. But, inspite of the same, as the respondents are trying to vacate the petitioners under the guise of the impugned notice dated 23.12.2023, the present writ petition is filed. The respondent No.2 filed counter, wherein it is stated that there is no 7. truth in the contention of the petitioner that inspection was done in a hurried manner, owing to the direction of the Hon’ble Lokayukta. On 26.06.2023 in W.P.No.15128 of 2023, this Court directed the Nellore Municipal Corporation to inspect the units with all the Department officials concerned, to pass appropriate orders for arresting the pollution. The explanations of the petitioners were examined at length and absolutely in public interest, they have ordered to seize their units for just and proper cause in terms of Section 523(3) of APMC Act 1955. It is further stated that the joint action of all connected departments, who have inspected the units on 02.11.2023, had unanimously observed that the gasses emanating from the units are obnoxious and hazardous to the public health and there is every need to 5 arrest the said pollution in the public interest. As such, requested this Court to dismiss the present writ petition. It is the specific case of the petitioners that challenging the earlier notice respondent the petitioners filed 8. nd dated 26.05.2023 issued by the 2 W.P.No.15128 of 2023 which was disposed of by this Court vide orders dated 26.06.2023, which read as under; of the above said facts and circumstances, the petitioners opportunity to submit their explanations individually to the of the 2"" respondent, dated 26.05.2023, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order along with the necessary documents, if any, in support of their claim. On receipt of the same the 2"'^ respondent shall cause necessary enquiry by making inspection of the said units with all the department officials concerned, giving due opportunity to the petitioners to participate in the same, as early as possible, and the final decision shall be taken after hearing all the parties concerned, including the petitioners and the effected parties, if any; and relying upon the records and the inspection of the said units, appropriate final decision shall be taken, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of three (03) months thereafter. During the pendency of the said enquiry, if any interim orders have to be passed to arrest any such pollutions, if they are j from out of the above said industrial units, it is open authorities concerned to pass appropriate orders, after ....In view are given a final said impugned notice otherwise in existence for the respondent l giving due opportunity to the petitioners to contest the same. If there is no such pollution in any aggravated form, the shifting of the industrial units be differed, subject to outcome of the stipulated in the impugned order may final orders. of the above orders passed by this Court, the petitioners 10.07.2023. Even without considering the without affording In pursuance submitted an explanation on 9. submitted by the petitioners and even the petitioners, the impugned closure order explanation opportunity of hearing to issued on 23.12.2023. was above order passed by this Court in W.P.No.15128 of understood that this Court has specifically directed the 2 10. On perusal of the nd 2023, it can be 6 respondent to cause necessary enquiry by making inspection of the said units with all departmental officials concerned and further directed to take a decision after hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioners and the affected parties, if any, and relying upon the records and the inspection of the said units as expeditiously as possible. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the 2^^ respondent has conducted an enquiry by making inspection of all the said units with all the 11. departmental officials, but they failed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by giving a notice to the petitioners duly enclosing the said impugned order. As the said action is against the principles of natural justice, this Court 12. feels it appropriate to set aside the impugned notice dated 23.12.2023 issued by the 2 respondent. However, the respondents are directed to follow the procedure as ordered by this Court in W.P.No.15128 of 2023 on 26.06.2023. Till such time, the respondents are further directed not to interfere with the petitioners’ small scale industries. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAJU assistant registrar / closed. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER District, Andhra Pradesh. 2. The Commissioner, Nellore District. To, Municipal Corporation, SPSR Nellore \ 3. One CC to Sri C Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri A.S.C. Bose, SC for Municipal JZh rnnr!° 9a Administration nigh Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 6. Two CD Copies Corporation [OPUC] & Urban Development, RAM L^IOll lOl. HIGH COURT DATED:31/01/2025 i \ 1 ORDER jdi' WP. No.1429 of 2024 19 MAR 2023 S Current Sectlo! ALLOWING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS