APHC010025192024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333]

(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: 1429/2024 Between:

Telada Malyadri and others ...PETITIONER(S)

AND The State of A.P. and another ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. C SUBODH 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:

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 declaring the action of the 2^nd respondent in passing orders in ROC No.467577/2022/G1, dated 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 to the orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in ROC No.467577/2022/G1 dated 23.12.2023 by setting aside the orders of the 2^nd respondent dated 23.12.2023 …...”

2. 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 Lokayuktha at Kurnool alleging that the petitioners’ floor mill is causing pollution, the 2^nd respondent issued a notice in Roc.No.467577/2022/G1 on 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.

3. In response to the said notice, the petitioners submitted an explanation 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 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^nd 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 report, the 2^nd respondent issued notice in Roc No.467577/2022/G1, dated

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^nd 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 same, on 23.12.2023, the 2^nd respondent issued a closure order for the units and directed their relocation to an industrial area within one month.

6. Challenging the said closure order dated 23.12.2023, the petitioners approached this Court alleging that the 2^nd 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^nd respondent threatened the pe