SATTI SATYAVATHI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR E G DLST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The notice dated 16-10-2000 issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, the 3rd respondent herein directing the petitioner to stop the manufacture of bricks on the pain of action being initiated under Section 133 Cr.P.C. is impugned in this writ petition. The notice is self-explanatory. In the notice, it is alleged that the petitioner started a cement brick unit at Rangampeta Village causing sound and air pollution. The petitioner was already put on notice by the 3rd respondent on 10-10-2000 requiring her to stop the manufacture until further orders.

(2.) In this writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Venkatesh contends that the unit where the cement bricks are being manufactured by the petitioner is far away from the village. It is also submitted that it is not causing any sound and air pollution to the residents of the village. It is the case of the petitioner that even before the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. are initiated, the 3rd respondent could not have directed the petitioner to stop the manufacture of bricks.

(3.) In the counter-affidavit filed by the residents of the village, it is stated in categorical terms that this brick unit is situated in the midst of the village surrounded by the houses. The activity carried on by the petitioner is resulting in air pollution leading to health hazards.