APHC010431422023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22534 OF 2023 Between: 1. ALLA @ KUNDURTHI MEENAMMA, W/o. Late Ranga Rao, Hindu, Aged about 76 years, R/o. Current Office Road, Near Bharat Petrol Bunk, Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...Petitioner AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Pollution Control Board, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department Secretariat Bldgs, Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The A P Pollution Control Board, D No. 33-26.14D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Center, Chalamalavari Street, Kasturibai Pet, Vijayawada 520010. 3. The Environmental Engineer, A P Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, 1st Floor, A PS F C Building Andhra Kesari Nagar, Nellore - 524004. 4. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore Dist. Nellore. 5. The Dy Superintendent of Police, Nellore Rural, Mulapet Nellore Town, SPSR Nellore District. 6. The Thasildar, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 7. The Station House Officer, P S Podugupadu, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 8. Podugupadu Gram Panchayath, Rep by its Panchayat Secretary, Podugupadu, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 9. Meesala Prem Kumar, S/o. Gopala Swamy, R/o.Near Bharath Petrol Bunk Road, Current Office Road, Podugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, SPSR Neilore 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 topleased to issued a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 8 in preventing the noise pollution produced by the 9th respondent despite multiple complaints made by the petitioner Dt. 3.9.2022, 29.9.2021 amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 8 to take action on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 3.9.2022, 29.9.2021 forthwith in the interest of justice and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pleased to direct the respondents 2 to 8 to take action on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 3.9.2022, 29.9.2021 forthwith pending disposal of the above WP in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: T C KRISHNAN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ENVIRONMENT C ounsel for the Respondents:GP FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondents:VENKATA REDDY GAJJALA SC FOR ZPP, MPP, AND GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondents:GP FOR REVENUE Counsel for the Respondents:SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents:V SURENDRA REDDY (SC FOR PCB) THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 22534 OF 2023 The Court made the following order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the inaction on the part of the respondents 2 to 8 in preventing the noise pollution produced by the 9th respondent despite multiple complaints made by the petitioner Dt. 3.9.2022, 29.9.2021 amounts to erroneous, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 2 to 8 to take action on the complaints made by the petitioner dated 3.9.2022, 29.9.2021 forthwith in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard Mr. T.C.Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. V.Farooq, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home. 3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that police have visited the place and enquired into the matter and did not get clue regarding the alleged use of loud speakers and mikes causing noise pollution. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Pollution Control Board representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3, would submit that their enquiry would reveal that there are disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No.9 regarding the drainage issue, they also could not get information regarding the alleged noise pollution. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed the said submissions stating that let there be a direction to concerned police and respondent Nos.2 and 3 to visit the vicinity on Sunday Morning at 6’o Clock. 6. Recording the said submissions and considering the grievance of the petitioner, this Court finds that there is force in the contention of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent Nos.3 and 7 to examine the issue and take appropriate course of action on the complaint made by the petitioner in accordance with law. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE VENKATAJYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:04.12.2025 Ksj