( 1 ) THIS appeal has been filed against the interim order originally passed by the learned single Judge at admission stage, which later was made absolute by the orders of the Court dated 30. 3. 2998 passed in wvmp No. 1971 of 1997. Under the interim order dated 22. 11. 1996, order s of demolition issued by the Flag officer Commanding in Chief, first respondent (in the Writ Petition), contained in his letter No. AO/0177/noc/sdc, date 16. 8. 1996, in respect of the building of the petitioner, was suspended. It was, however, directed that the petitioner shall not commence commercial production or effect any further constructions to the Milk Powder Plant.

( 2 ) IT is this order which is challenged in Writ Appeal No. 964 of 1998. When this Writ Appeal came up for hearing, it was pointed out that a Commissioner was appointed by the learned single Judge who filed his report. Considering this, the Writ Petition itself was directed to be posted for hearing. In view of the fact that the Writ Petition is itself heard finally, there is no need to pass any orders in the Writ Appeal.

( 3 ) THE facts leading to filing of the Writ Petition as stated in the affidavit of the. petitioner may be briefly stated as follows: The petitioner is a Co-operative Milk Dairy, represented by its Chairman. The petitioner-Society is consisting of 460 Milk Producers Co-operative Societies in the four costal districts. These Society supply milk to the petitioner-Society. The petitioner- society has been engaged in promoting the milk products by various modes.

( 4 ) THE petitioner-Organisation proposed to construct a Milk Powder plant in its premises at Visakhapatnam. It submitted an application on 11. 2. 1993 to the second respondent (Aerodrome Officer) for obtaining permission for the said construction (presumably the said site is in the vicinity of Visakhapatnam aerodrome ). In compliance of objections raised and by furnishing Certain documents as pointed out by the Second respondent (Aerodrame Officer), the petitioner submitted an application on 11. 7. 1994 requesting the first respondent (Flag Officer Commandirig-in-Chief) to issue no Objection Certificate (NOG) for constructing the milk plant with a height of 27. 48 meters, equivalent to 43. 00 meters AMSL. The first respondent on the basis of documents furnished and in compliance of the objections by the petitioner, issued NOC on 24. 10. 1995, which is valid for a period of two years.

( 5 ) AFTER receiving the NOC, the petitioner constructed the building and erected the machinery in question, by spending a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs and when the building was nearing completion, respondents 2 and 3 asked the petitioner to stop the project. Later the petitioner, addressed a letter date 27. 7. 1996 to the first respondent requesting him to consider the case and permit them to continue the work. The first respondent in his letter dated 16. 8. 1996 informed the petitioner that NOC issued by him on 24. 10. 1995 stands cancelled and further directed the petitioner to demolish the building at the earliest.

( 6 ) IT is stated that the petitioner constructed the building and plant in accordance with NOC, which permits the construction upto a height of 42. 2 mts. AMSL. It is also stated that the distance of the building in question is more than three kms from Visakhapatnam Air Field. According to the averments in the petition, the petitioner constructed the building upto a height of 27. 40 mts. It is well within the norms fixed by the first respondent. The contention of the Naval authorities that the building is within the approach funnel of Air Field and that it constitutes hazardous obstacle to aeroplanes operating from the airfield according to the petitioner, is incorrect. It is also denied by the petitioner that the contour map of Visakhapatnam is incorrect. Thus it is pleaded that the letter of the first respondent dated 16. 8. 1996 issued to the petitioner informing about the cancellation of NOC an