GUNTURI VARALAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed for writ of mandamus to declare the inaction on the part of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for not considering the representation dated 15.09.2013 and 04.10.2013 about the prevention of public nuisance alleged to have been caused by 5th respondent by throwing garbage, stocking cattle in front of the house of the petitioners in the midst of residential area on S.P.P. Road, Ponnur Town, Guntur District.

(2.) The brief facts of this petition as per the averments made in the affidavit filed by the 3rd petitioner are that the petitioners 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the house situated in door No.16-7-1/2 of SSP road, near Vysya Bank, Ponnur Town, Guntur District. The 5th respondent is resident of door No.16-7-3 in the same locality in front of the house of the petitioners which is at a distance of 30 meters from his house. 5th respondent is feeding her cattle in her house and throwing all the animal dung, broken glass pieces and rubbish on the road in front of the house of the petitioners. The 3rd petitioner had orally informed 5th respondent not to throw the rubbish in the main road as it is causing health problems to family members and neighbours. 5th respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur against the petitioners for permanent injunction.

(3.) The 3rd petitioner had submitted a representation dated 15.09.2013 to the 2nd respondent, Municipal Commissioner, Guntur District to take action against 5th respondent in causing public nuisance by dumping garbage in front of her house. The 2nd respondent issued notice to the 5th respondent and in spite of that 5th respondent is continuing to throw the garbage over the street in front of the house of the petitioners. The 3rd petitioner has also submitted a representation dated 04.10.2013 to the 3rd respondent with a request to prevent 5th respondent by throwing garbage in front of her house and the 3rd respondent stated that it is purely a civil matter and he has no authority to interfere. It is further stated that in spite of the two representations given to the Municipal authorities and the police, the concerned authorities did not take any action in preventing the public nuisance caused by 5th respondent and therefore, she filed the present writ petition to direct the concerned authorities to take appropriate action in the matter.