Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam v. To 1) 2 CD copies

Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. 2) Thasildar, Vijayawada rural Mandal, Krishna District. 3) Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Plot No.41, Sri Kanakadurga Officers Colony, Gurunanak Road, Vijayawada, Rep by Environmental Engineer. 4) Station House Officer, Patamata (L&O) Police Station, Autonagar, Vijayawada. 5) Gram Panchayat, Ramavarappadu, Vijayawada Rural Mandal, Krishna District, Rep by its The Panchayat Secretary. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring the notice issued by the 5th respondent in Roc. No.37/2008 dated 14-10-2008 is contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder and the consequential notice issued by the 3rd respondent in No.D-5/PCB/ROVJA/2008, dated 4-12-2008 is without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 and the Water (prevention and control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and consequently direct the respondents desist themselves from demanding the Petitioner to close his business without following the due process of law and to construct the slaughter house in the village to enable him and the similarly situated persons to conduct their activities without an hurdle as provided under Section 117 of A.P.Panchat Raj Act. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.MEDURIVARA PRASADA RAO Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. Counsel for Respondent No.3: MR. Y. SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent No.4: GP FOR HOME Counsel for Respondent No.5: MR. M. PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following: Oral Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice)

1. The petitioner has been aggrieved by an order dated

04.12.2008 passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been restrained from doing the slaughtering activity at the place of his business.

The main grievance, which the petitioner has made is that by virtue of the impugned order, he would not be in a position to carry on his business. He has also submitted that there are about 7 to 8 such slaughter houses in the vicinity, but no action has been taken against proprietors of those slaughter houses and, therefore, action should also be taken against other slaughter houses, which are also polluting the environment.

Learned Standing Counsel Shri Y. Srinivasa Murthy appearing for respondent No.3 has submitted that an appeal can be filed against the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been restrained from carrying on his slaughtering activities. It has been submitted by him that a complaint was filed by one Shri J. Ravi Babu with regard to pollution created by the petitioner and upon enquiry it was found that there was substance in that complaint and, therefore, the impugned order was passed. It has been further submitted by him that if details with regard to other persons carrying on slaughtering activity and creating pollution are furnished to respondent No.3 Board, officers of the Board would look into it and do the needful.

We have heard the learned advocates.

Looking to the fact that the impugned order can be challenged before an appellate authority by availing an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal, we do not entertain this petition.

If the petitioner gives list of other slaughter houses, which are polluting air or water, to respondent No.3, respondent No.3 shall look into the complaint and do the needful in accordance with law.

With the above observations, the petition is rejected with no order as to costs. February 10, 2009 To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} ANIL R. DAVE, CJ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J // TRUE COPY // ..... REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER