RAJULAPATI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner assailing the validity and legality of the order of the learned single judge dated 16.11.1997 made in Writ Petition No. 1014 of 1999.

(2.) The petitioner is the Upa Sarpanch of the Ayyanki Gram Panchayat. The 4th respondent, Smt. Bandi Syamala made an application to the Gram Panchayat on 10.9.1997 for sanction of the plans for the construction of a poultry shed. The said application was considered and rejected by the Gram Panchayat vide its resolution dated 12.6.1998 opining that if the 4th respondent is permitted to establish the poultry farm, that would cause noise and air pollution and thereby it would affect the health of the residents of the village. It appears, the 4th respondent approached the District Collector, Krishna, the 1st respondent herein making a grievance against the above action of the Gram Panchayat. The District Collector, Krishna by his proceedings dated 25.9.1998 directed the Gram Panchayat to consider the application of the 4th respondent afresh. In other words, impliedly, the District Collector set aside the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 12.6.1998. As directed by the District Collector, the Gram Panchayat again considered the application of the 4th respondent and by its resolution dated 10.11.1998 rejected the application. This led to the 4th respondent again approaching the District Collector making grievance against the action of the Gram Panchayat. Acting on the representation of the 4th respondent, the District Collector by his order dated 26.11.1998, cancelled the resolution of the Gram Panchayat dated 10.11.1998 and appointed Sri Vasudeva Rao, Extension Officer(Pts), Movva Mandal, Movva as the Special Officer and directed him to grant the application made by the 4th respondent. The said Special Officer as directed by the District Collector passed a consequential order on 3.12.1998 granting application of the 4th respondent. The appellant herein filed writ petition praying for the following relief:

(3.) In the writ petition, the petitioner contended that the impugned orders passed by the District Collector and the Special Officer are ex-facie illegal and without authority of law. It was also contended that establishment of the poultry farm in the place now permitted by the District Collector and the Special Officer would not be in the health interest of the residents of the village.