SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(AP) 208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
G.S. SINGHVI and C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J.
Sirikoti Narayana Rao and others - Petitioners.
Vs.
A.P. Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, Hyderabad and others - Respondents.
W.P.No.8410 of 2006
Decided on 22-2-2007.
Advocates Appeared
Mr. K.S. Murthy, Counsel for the Petitioners.
Mr. S.V. Bhatt, Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
Government Pleader for Revenue for Respondent No.2.
G.P. for Medical and Health for Respondent No.4.
Mr. O. Manohar Reddy, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 to 10.

Headnote:

Constitution of India – Stone Crushers – Smoke and Dust Emission – Control of – Sirikoti Narayana Rao who claims to be a member of the “Kalushya Nivarana Sub-Committee” constituted by A.P. Pollution Control Board along with two others who are residents of C. Rayavaram village of East Godavari District filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus for declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in controlling the dust emanating from stone crushers run by respondents 5 to 10 as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps including closure of the crushers and to see that the medical expenses incurred are reimbursed as compensation to the residents of the colonies which are affected by running of stone crushers by respondents 5 to 10 –Held, With regard to the maintenance of green belt, the Court Commissioners report shows that respondents 5 to 10 have grown long eucalyptus trees while respondents 9 and 10 have not grown any such trees – It is however stated in the report that each of respondents 5 to 10 planted eucalyptus saplings of approximately numbering 200 to 300 in their premises – It is the obligation of these respondents to protect the saplings and maintain proper green belt – Respondent No.2 in consultation with respondent No.4 shall constitute a team of adequate number of Doctors to visit the residential colonies, at least once in every quarter – Respondent No.2 shall ensure that a proper schedule is fixed for the visit of the team of Doctors and their camp venue is fixed in each of these aforementioned colonies with advance announcement of their visits in the locality – Writ Petition Disposed of

ORDER

(Per C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.)

Sirikoti Narayana Rao who claims to be a member of the “Kalushya Nivarana Sub-Committee” constituted by A.P. Pollution Control Board (for short ‘APPCB’) along with two others who are residents of C. Rayavaram village of East Godavari District filed this writ petition for writ of mandamus for declaring the inaction of respondents 1 to 4 in controlling the dust emanating from stone crushers run by respondents 5 to 10 as illegal and unconstitutional. The petitioners also sought for a consequential direction to respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary steps including closure of the crushers and to see that the medical expenses incurred are reimbursed as compensation to the residents of the colonies which are affected by running of stone crushers by respondents 5 to 10.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition it is averred that on account of construction of Eleshwaram reservoir number of families were displaced and they were rehabilitated in C. Rayavaram colony apart from various other localities of Chaitanyapuram colony, Shantinagar Colony, Quarypeta, Rajamundry colony and Gollalametta; that stone crushers in dispute are situated near the said colonies; that these crushers are functioning without following any norms for several years. The petitioners further averred that as the managements of these stone crushers are unable to control the fine dust while operating the stone crushers, it is spreading over the residential areas; in the year 1999 the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat addressed a letter to the officer concerned at Pollution Control Board, Rajamundry in which it was clearly stated that due to the functioning of these crushers at C. Rayavaram colony, Scheduled Caste people are suffering and copies of these letters were sent to the District Collector, Kakinada and Inspector of Factories, Kakinada. According to the petitioners, APPCB authorities had been making occasional visits and holding discussions and the petitioners learnt that the fine dust coming out of the crushers is causing Silicosis, affecting the whole respiratory system of the human body; the failing health of the people in the surrounding areas is making them to run to Doctors; A.M.G. Hospital conducted a free T.B. medical camp and prepared a list of T.B. patients after conducting a full fledged survey. In 1997 district level T.B. Control Officers, Civil Surgeon of the Community Health Centre, Eleshvaram conducted camps to identify the T.B. patients, X-rays were taken and reports finalized. The petitioners allege that the APPCB prescribed norms for the location of stone crushers and that the authorities of the APPCB and district administration have failed to stop the crushing units from functioning without following the fixed norms. They further allege that APPCB is not acting decisively in spite of making several representations and agitations for several years. It is also averred that even the letters sent by the APPCB to the stone crushers till 2004 show that the latter did not have the dust control equipment and that they are liable to pay for the health risks faced by the residents of the area. In spite of the same, the petitioners allege, there has been no change in the situation. The petitioners also allege that their right to life is directly affected warranting intervention of this Court.

3. On 29-6-2006 this Court directed the District Medical and Health Officer, Kakinada, East Godavari district (respondent No.4) to file an affidavit indicating therein the adverse impact on the health of the people due to the pollution, if any, caused by the operation of the ·stone crushers in the area. Respondent No.4 accordingly filed a counter affidavit wherein it was mentioned that respondents 6 to 10 were granted permission for establishment of stone crushers during the period 1975 to 1993 subject to the following conditions:

1. Bunkers should be constructed to deposit dust. Dust may be dispensed at regular















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top