K.Lakshma Reddy, v. The State Of Telangana,

HON'BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI THOTTATHI L B. RADHAKRI SHNAN AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRI T PETI TI ON No.23257 of 2018 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Pollution Control Board for respondent No.1, the learned Standing Counsel for Pollution Control Board for respondent No.2, the learned Standing Counsel for Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned Government Pleader for Home for respondent No.5.

Notice to respondent Nos.6 and 7 is dispensed with reserving their right to seek the re-hearing of the writ petition, if they are aggrieved by the directions contained herein. The complaint of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.6 and 7 are carrying out an activity in the neighbourhood of the petitioner in violation of the provisions of law, which govern pollution, in particular, sound pollution. He says that a complaint has been addressed to different officials including the second respondent. The second respondent is, therefore, required to take up any such complaint and take a decision on such representation. Once such decision is taken, it will be open to the other official respondents to issue consequential orders on the basis of the decision of the second respondent. All this shall be done only with due notice and hearing to respondent Nos.6 and 7 within four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of hearing.

Writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

___________________________________ THOTTATHI L B. RADHAKRI SHNAN, CJ ___________________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 09.07.2018 va/vv