High Court · 2025

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' 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 action of Respondent Nos l to 3 in issuing the secondnoticeVideNoticeNo.,l5/51/MKJ/TGPCBiRo-MD}I2125-1184dated

13.03.2025 without c,)nsidering the repry dared 21 .11.2024 subntitted in Notice No. 15/51/lt/KJ/TGPCB/Ro-MDct2o24-61o dated 02.11.2024 as iilegal, arbitrary, unlaMul and vioration of principres of Naturar Justice. consequentry, it is prayed that this Hon'bre crourt may be preased to set aside thr: Notice No. 15/51/lvlKJ/TGPCB/Ro-tuDC/202s-1184 dated 13.03.2025 as per procedure established by law. I.A.NO:1 OF 2025 Petition Under siection r si cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in s,rpport of the petition, the High court may lre preased to suspend the Notico No. 15/51/r\rKJlTGpcB/R0- MDCt2o25-1184 dated 13.O3.2025, pendinci d sposal of the main writ petition. l.A.NO:2 oF 2025 Petition Under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstarrces stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may rre preased to direct the Respond(inr no. 1 to 3, not to interfere in operation ,cf petitioners business in respect of ,.No. 40-4312, situated at vasanth Vihar corony, Moura - Ali, Medchar Markajgiri District, pending disposar of the main writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner : SRI KAVADI NARESH counser for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : sRl ZEE.HAN ADNAN MAHMOOD (sc TS POLLUTTON CONTROL BOARD) Counsel for the Respondent Nos.4 & 5 : - The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER _;;- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KI'MAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA WRIT PETITION No.1O417 of 2o25 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice T. Vinod Kumar) " Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sri Zeesham Adnan Mohammed, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.l to 3, and with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the nature of lis involved and manner of disposal of the Writ Petition, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 are not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details the case of the petitioner in brief, is that though the respondent authorities have issued a show cause notice earlier on 02.11.2024 to which the petitioner had submitted its reply dated 21. 1 1.2024, the respondent authorities without considering the aforesaid reply have issued the impugned show cause notice dated 13.03.2025 and called upon the petitioner to submit its reply within seven days from the date of receipt of notice, which action of the respondents it 2 is contende d is highly illegal and pre-meditated , thereby warrantin g interference by this Court.

4. Per cctntra, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of responCents would submit that the impugned proceeding is only a shour cause notice by which the petitioner rvas called upon to submit its explanation and the petitioner without submitting explanation within the time gralted uLnder the notice, ha.s hled the present Writ petition assailing the show cause not:ce itself and, as such, the present Writ petition is not maintainabkr.

5. Learne,d Standing Counsel would further submir that the petitioner is carr5ring on its business of Flex prinl.ing in a residential b uilding, without obtaining any conversion of the said building and on account of carrying on the business activity by the petitioner in a residential building, the same is causing air pollution in the neighbours arrd as such the authoritics have initiated action by issuing the impugned notice.

6. We have taken notice of the respective contentions urged.

7. With,tu: delving into the merits of the matter, srince the impugned proceeding is onry a show cause notice by which the petitioner is c alled upon to submit its explanation within seven 3 days from the date of receipt of notice, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is to be directed to submit its explanation to the same. However, taking note of the fact that the seven days period granted under the impugned notice had already lapsed, this Court is of the view that the period of seven days gralted under the impugned notice can be extended by directing the pctitioncr to submit explanation to the same on or before

15.O4.2025.

8. Upon the petitioner submitting its explanation to the show cause notice, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

9. Subject to above observations and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S D/. T.JAYASREE EPUTY RE SECTION OFF]GER To ^ft*if,lailli##*it,:+ruxf #3'1idT,r3i"*'i"T;.::;. ' l[d]k] tnTlitft:U,'i i[!i"--:, 3. The Environmental Engi District, Telangana' o 5,iJ'i'c i" sni rnv19 r^19;;i, S. One CCto SRI ZEESHI " ;ii"lliRol -eonno) 6. Two CD CoPies ry/ t^1fiffi5%3?33'r. rou_rlo* '"'"U:::: Advocate toPucl Ma ka g r SA i ----=ir*E!:# It C.C. TODAY it\ r Sl-Ar€ o . J 0 g iPn 20m t- l:, , o .t' +, i \,\. rr\!.- J r:., HIGH COURT DATED:0810412025 ORDER WP.No.10417 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION WITHOUT COSTS. @ q Ifl I