! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

^ Counsel for Respondents : P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, Sri G.Ananda Rao, learned counsel

< Gist:

> Head Note:

? Cases referred:

1. (2014) 9 SCC 105

2. (1980) 3 SCC 1

3. (2021) 2 SCC 551

4. (2016) 9 SCC 426

5. AIR 1963 SC 1633

6. [(2003) 3 SCC 541

7. [(2003) 5 SCC 413]

8. [(2003) 1 SCC 123]

9. (2004) 6 SCC 588

This Court made the following:

::ORDER ::

Heard Sri P.Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for the respondents 1 to 4, Sri Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Koteswara Rao, learned Standing counsel for the 5th respondent, and Sri G.Ananda Rao, learned counsel for the 6th respondent.

2. Assailing the notice vide R.C.No.60/2022 dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3), issued by the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary and a violation of Principles of Natural Justice, and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, the above writ petition was filed.

3. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Ponduru Village and Mandal, has been eking out his livelihood by preparing and selling sweets, filed the above writ petition.

4. The facts, in brief, as set out in the writ affidavit are as follows:-

The petitioner took a small portion from one Sri Dunna Surya Prakesh of Ponduru Village on rent to run a sweet shop. The said unit is located behind the hospital road, on the road leading from the Bus Stand to the MPDO Office, Ponduru. The petitioner got the required license from the 5th respondent to run the sweet shop. The petitioner has been using wood powder and corn waste to ignite the oven, as it is cost-effective. No smoke whatsoever would be emanated. The petitioner had taken all precautionary measures while preparing the sweets. The unit is not causing any inconvenience to the public. He also erected a stack in order to prevent the spreading of smoke in any way.

5. Be that as it may, the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued a notice vide R.C.No.60/2022 dated 31.01.2023 (Ex.P2), calling upon the petitioner to close the unit within forty-eight hours. Thereafter, the Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent issued a notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3). The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 22.02.2023 (Ex.P4). The Panchayat Secretary of the 5th respondent and other officials inspected the premises on 11.12.2022, based on the complaint made by the encroachers. In the notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3), the petitioner was directed to use LPG gas to prepare the sweets. However, the authorities of the Pollution Control Board advised using cleaner fuels to avoid smoke nuisance. Without considering the same, the notice was issued.

6. An interim order was granted on 03.05.2023 directing the authorities not to enforce the notice dated 09.02.2023 (Ex.P3).

7. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit vide W.P.USR.No.29808/2026 dated 07.03.2026, after the inspection by the officials of the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. In para-5 of the affidavit, it was pleaded that the petitioner has been running the unit by taking the premises on lease from one Smt. Malipeddi Parvathi. The petitioner reiterated the averments in the writ affidavit. The petitioner also filed a memo vide W.P.USR.No.11532/2026, by annexing the receipts issued by the Gram Panchayat to run the shop.

8. The 6th respondent, a resident of Ponduru Village, filed I.A.No.2 of 2023 to come on record. The said interlocutory application was ordered on 17.09.2024.

9. Thereafter, the 7th respondent, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, was impleaded suo-moto by an order dated 08.12.2025.

10. A counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the 5th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the 6th respondent and others ma