HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19828 of 2007 DATE: 23.06.2014 Between:
S.D.Patel ... Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police & Addl. District Magistrate Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, Vijayawada City, Krishna district & others … Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.19828 of 2007 ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents.
2. In respect of the same petitioner, when Vijayawada Municipal Corporation passed an order in the form of notice dated 26.07.2007 directing the petitioner to stop the timber depot and seized the timber depot by putting lock and seals on 10.12.2007, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner in WP No.26792 of 2007 and the same was disposed of on 29.06.2011. On identical facts, the present order was passed by the Commissioner of Police and Additional District Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, Vijayawada city under Section 133(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
3. The order reads as follows:
“Whereas, the Inspector of Police, Traffic I Circle, Vijayawada City laid information before me that you are running a Timber Depot in the name of M/s Patel & Company in D.No.33-21- 10, Seetharamapuram, Vemula Syamala Devi Road, Vijayawada-2 that you have been dumping teak wood logs on the road side causing much inconvenience to the road users and vehicular traffic and during the process of cutting the logs into pieces, the particles blown up are mixing in the air and felling in the eyes of road users, resulting in occurrence of accidents and damage to the eyes of road users. You are also spreading the cut wood on the road causing traffic congestion. The Vijayawada Traffic Police have warned you several times, but there is no desired effect. Due to your apathy and negligence, the general public are suffering.
Whereas, I am not satisfied with your written statement submitted before me as your averments are not tenable in terms of Law. I have personally inspected your premises along with traffic officers. This saw mill is an ugly eyesore to this City. Right in the middle of a busy, business area, the saw mill is putting huge logs of wood on the main road and causing severe traffic inconvenience. Then it is also spreading dust through out the day and inconveniencing residents and public on the road through this pollution. Sound pollution is also inconveniencing every one the owners claim that its here since 50 yrs is not acceptable. As it is expend such business will have to shift to the outskirts in larger public interest.
Hence, I, C.V.Anand, I.P.S., C.P. & Addl. District Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, Vijayawada City do hereby direct and require you within 7 days from the date of receipt of this orders, to stop carrying on business at the said place and once and for all, close the shop, where after the Police will take due necessary action to enforce the order.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after disposal of the case in WP No.26792 of 2007 on 29.06.2011, there was no complaint from any quarter. Even before passing the said order by this Court his client made all necessary arrangements so as not to leave any logs on the road causing either nuisance to the public or traffic. He also took necessary measures to prevent environmental pollution. The observations made by the Commissioner of Police and the Additional District Magistrate, Vijayawada Metropolitan Area, Vijayawada City in the above order is no longer applicable in view of the measures taken by the petitioner. This Court in WP No.26792 of 2007 had already set aside the notice issued by the Commissioner, Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, by giving one month time to take adequate measures to prevent pollution and liberty was given to the respondents to inspect the premises and if they are not satisfied with the arrangements made by the petitioner to prevent the pollution, they were given liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
5. In the present case also, in view of the measures taken by the petitioner, the impugned order is set aside and the 1st respondent is given liberty to inspect the premises and pass a fresh order, if he finds that the unit is still causing nuisance pollution, traffic problem and nuisance in the area.
6. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions in this writ petition, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No order as to costs.
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 23.06.2014 BSS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO 7 WRIT PETITION No.19828 of 2007 Date: 23.06.2014 BSS