Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Section 21 in THE AIR (PREVENTION AND CONTROL OF POLLUTION) ACT, 1981
Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949

User Queries

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Andhra High Court
Vasam Kotayya And Ors. vs S. Rayavaram Gram Panchayat, S. ... on 15 July, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 (5) ALD 98
Author: S Nayak
Bench: S Nayak, D Subrahmanyam

JUDGMENT S.R. Nayak, J.

1. The appellants are the unsuccessful petitioners in the writ petition. They filed this writ appeal questioning the correctness of the view taken by the learned single Judge in WP No. 2636 of 2000 dated 31-10-2000 holding that the petitioners have statutory appeal under Section 128(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, the Act). The appellants filed the above writ petition seeking for mandamus declaring the action of the S. Rayavaram Gram Panchayat, the 1st respondent herein, in granting permission bearing No. 51/99 dated 17-12-1999 to the 2nd respondent to construct a rice mill as arbitrary, contrary to Section 120 of the Act, Sections 89 and 92 of the A.P. Public Health Act, 1939, Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and violative of the petitioners' right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and for a consequential direction not to permit the 2nd respondent to construct any rice mill within the residential area of S. Rayavaram village. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, it was contended that the petitioners have got an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 128(1) of the Act. The learned single Judge, upholding that contention, refused to decide the case on merit and disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioners to avail statutory appeal remedy under Section 128(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the writ petitions have filed this writ appeal.

2. The Executive Officer, by his proceedings No. 51/99 dated 17-12-1999 has merely communicated the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat on 14-12-1999. The petitioners have produced a copy of the resolution passed by the 1st respondent-Gram Panchayat on 14-12-1999 along with the additional material papers. It reads as follows:-

"Minutes of S. Rayavaram Gram Panchayat, regarding the meeting held on 14-12-1999 at 10.00 a.m. Subject :--Application of Sri Pothu Satyanarayana s/o Ganeswara Rao seeking permission of Gram Panchayat for establishment of Rice Mill of 30 H.P. Electric Motor on the site in S. No. 211 of S. Rayavaram village.

Resolution :--The Gram Panchayat has unanimously resolved to permit Sri Potu Satyanarayana s/o Ganeswara Rao to establish Rice Mill of 30 H.P. Electric Motor in S. No. 211 of S. Rayavaram village and the Executive Officer of Gram Panchayat is hereby directed to obtain the necessary approval of the concerned authorities in that regard."

In the proceedings of the Executive Officer dated 17-12-1999, there is reference to the above resolution of the Gram Panchayat at reference No. 2. It is quite obvious that permission is accorded to the 2nd respondent only under Section 120 of the Act. Section 120 of the Act reads as follows :

"120. Applications to be made for construction, establishment, or installation of factory, workshop or work-place in which steam or other power is to be employed-

(1) Every person intending-

(a) xx

(b) to install in any premises any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by steam, water or other power as aforesaid, not being machinery or manufacturing plant exempted by rules made in this behalf, shall, before beginning such construction, establishment or installation, obtain the permission of the Gram Panchayat in the prescribed manner for undertaking the intended work.

(2) The application to be made under Sub-section (1) shall conform to such rules and shall be processed in such manner and in consultation and approval of such authorities and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed."

The power to grant permission is vested in the Gram Panchayat under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 120 of the Act. In exercise of that power, the Gram Panchayat passed the resolution on 14-12-1999 and the decision of the Gram Panchayat was communicated to the 2nd respondent by the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat vide proceedings No. 51/99 dated 17-12-1999. However, Sri M. Adinarayana Raju, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent contended that the proceedings dated 17-12-1999 of the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat is an order contemplated under Section 121 of the Act and, therefore, against the order of the Executive Officer, an appeal lies under Section 128(1) of the Act to the Gram Panchayat and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the holding of the learned single Judge. This submission of the learned Counsel is not acceptable to us for the simple reason that even under Section 121 of the Act, the donee of the statutory power is the Gram Panchayat and not the Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat. Under Section 128(1) of the Act, appeal lies to the Gram Panchayat from any order of the Executive Authority granting, refusing, suspending or revoking the licence or permission or any other order of the Executive Authority that may be made appealable by rules framed under Section 268 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 128 of the Act also provides for second appeal from the decision of the Gram Panchayat to such authority as may be prescribed. Since the substantive order is made by the Gram Panchayat under Section 120(1) of the Act, preferring an appeal to the Gram Panchayat itself would never arise. Since the Act does not provide for any legal remedies to the petitioners, the writ petition filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitution has to be decided on merits.

3. In conclusion, we hold that no appeal lies under Section 128(1) of the Act to the Gram Panchayat against the impugned order of the Executive Officer of the S. Rayavaram Gram Panchayat.

4. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the learned single Judge and Writ Petition No. 2636 of 2000 stands restored to the file. The Registry is directed to post the writ petition for hearing after three weeks before the appropriate Bench after obtaining orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice. The interim order granted in this writ appeal shall be in operation till the disposal of the writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs.