✦ Andhra Pradesh High Court · 08 Apr 2010

Jonnalagadda Guru Murthy v. District

RAMESH RANGANATHAN3 min read

Case at a glance

Decided
08 Apr 2010
Bench
RAMESH RANGANATHAN

Judgment

Cause title

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN

WRIT PETITION NO : 6844 of 2009 Between: Jonnalagadda Guru Murthy, S/o. Subbarayudu, ..... Petitioner

AND 1 Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, Rep. by its Commissioner, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 3 Rokkam Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Surya Rao, Proprietor, Kiran Traders, H.No. 23-20-27/4, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. .....Respondents

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction on the part of respondents 1 and 2 on Petitioner representations dated 21-08-2008 and 29-11-2008 submitted for removal of hazardous public nuisance being caused by the 3rd Respondent in Midst of residential locality in Lalitha Nagar of 1st Respondent's Municipal Limits as illegal, irregular, irrational and violative of provisions of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 and Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Public Health Act, 1939 and offends Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to prevent the 3rd respondent from carrying the iron scrap and glass bottles business in midst of residential locality in Lalitha Nagar of 1st Respondent's Municipal Limits; The petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRI M.VIJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of

Sri A.Vishnuvardhan Reddy, S.C. for the respondents 1 and 2 and of

Sri K.Venkatesh Advocate for the respondent No.3, the Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner, in paragraph 3 of his affidavit, would assert that the 3rd respondent was carrying on business in collection of iron scrap, used glass and glass bottles from across the Rajahmundry city and surrounding places; he was stocking and processing such materials in the premises bearing D.No. 23-20-32/11, Lalithanagar in the 1st respondent Municipal Limits; the 3rd respondent had engaged about 20 workers in moulding iron tins and scrap into crushed form of bundles for the convenience of transport; in that process the workmen of the 3rd respondent used to hit iron drums and scrap with heavy hammers from which noise emanated; that noise was spreading to the neighbourhood of about one furlong; the petitioner and his family and neighbours were not able to bear such noise pollution; the respondent was breaking glass bottles into pieces for being packed and transported to purchasers; in the said process broken glass pieces were being spilt every where on the public road and on the neighbouring sites including the petitioner’s site; dust was emanating and there was irritating smell and offensive odors when the chemical material left over in the used bottles was exposed to open air. -2- The petitioner would also state that the 3rd respondent was parking vehicles on the road for loading and unloading purpose; the noise emanating from vehicular movement and throwing of bundles and packages, while loading and unloading, was also causing serious public nuisance.

In view of these assertions, I consider it appropriate to call for a report from respondents 1 and 2 with regard the noise pollution levels arising from the business carried out by the 3rd respondent in the shop referred to hereinabove. Respondents 1 and 2 shall monitor the noise levels for a period of one week at different points of time and submit a report to this court on or before 23-04-2010. List the writ petition on 26-04-2010. Sri A. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 is present in Court and undertakes to inform respondents 1 and 2 of their obligation under this order. // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1 The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. 2 The Health Officer, Municipal Corporation, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. ( 1 & 2 BY SPEED POST/RPAD) 3 Rokkam Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Surya Rao, Proprietor, Kiran Traders, H.No. 23-20-27/4, Lalitha Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District. (BY RPAD)

4.

One C.C.to Sri M. Vijay Kumar Advocate. (OPUC)

5.

One C.C.to Sri A. Vishnuvardhan Reddy, Advocate. (OPUC)

6.

one C.C.to Sri K.Venkatesh Advocate. (OPUC)

7.

one spare copy. HIGH COURT RR.J DATED 8-04-2010 LIST THE W.P. ON 26-04-2010 ORDER W.P.NO. 6844 OF 2009 DIRECTION Bsr Dt. 9-4-2010 HIGH COURT RR.J DATED 8-04-2010 LIST THE W.P. ON 26-04-2010 ORDER W.P.NO. 6844 OF 2009 DIRECTION

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — arts. 14, 21, 226; Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act, 1955; Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Public Health Act, 1939.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 08 Apr 2010. The bench was RAMESH RANGANATHAN.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Andhra Pradesh High Court or eCourts case status. ← Search more judgments