T.PURNACHANDRA CHARY Vs. GOVT. OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Ms. Ch.Mounika, learned counsel representing Mr. Boda Vinodhar, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.No.36517 of 2021, Mr. P.Sri Raghuram, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Arvind Geedipelli, learned counsel for respondent No.5 in W.P.No.36517 of 2021, Mr. Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Additional Advocate General appears for respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in SUO MOTU W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024, Mr. Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board appears for respondent No.11 in W.P.No.36517 of 2021 and respondent No.4 in SUO MOTU W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024 and Mr. K.Goutham Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Industries and Commerce, Mines and Geology Department appears for respondent Nos.9 and 12 in W.P.No.36517 of 2021.

(2.) Writ petition was preferred for declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent No.2 in not taking action on the representation of the petitioners dtd. 24/11/2021 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. Petitioners also prayed for stoppage of illegal activities conducted by respondent No.5 in the site situated at Survey No.403 of Padmalaya Ambedkarnagar Basti, where certain construction activities and blasting were being carried. A public interest litigation was also instituted suo motu by this Court at the instance of a letter addressed by one of the sitting Judges of this Court on a news article published in "Times of India" English Daily Newspaper dtd. 26/8/2024 with headline "24x7 blasting clears hillock, irks locals in Jubilee Hills community".

(3.) In the present proceedings, learned Additional Advocate General representing respondent Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in Suo Motu W.P(PIL).No.4 of 2024, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Pollution Control Board and learned Senior Counsel for the private respondent appeared and filed their counter affidavits.