Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Gcr Foods And Beverages Private Limited vs The State Of Ap on 13 June, 2024
1
APHC010246442024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [0]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
WRIT PETITION NO: 12271/2024
Between:
Gcr Foods And Beverages Private Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. V R REDDY KOVVURI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR FORESTS
The Court made the following:
ORDER:(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Kiranmayee Mandava) The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the constitution of India seeking the following relief:
" to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the post decisional Show-Cause, Notice in Lr.No.C-
2867/PCB/RO/TPT/A & W/2024-886, dated 10.06.2024, issued 2 by the respondent No.4 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation as to why the action shall not be initiated against it for closure of the Unit as is provided under Section 33(A) of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1988 and Section 31 (A) of Air(Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1987 without specifying any time whatsoever for submission of its explanation that too at the instance of some third parties as arbitrary, illegal, colorable exercise of power and contrary to the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1988 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1987 and also as well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and pass such other order or orders as are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case".
2. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Sravan Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests appearing for 1st respondent.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to establish an industrial unit to produce mango pulp, the petitioner obtained the license from the department of Factories. After obtaining consent to establish from the 3rd respondent, the petitioner started construction of the buildings for the establishment of the unit, and the effluent treatment plant is about to be completed. However, at that stage, the 4th respondent issued the impugned proceedings based on a telephonic complaint said to have been received by him. The authorities alleged to have conducted an inspection behind its back 3 without informing and thereafter issued the impugned show cause notice to submit an explanation by mail return. Prays for a grant of time to submit its explanation to the show cause notice.
4. As observed from the impugned proceedings, the 4th respondent has issued the show cause to the petitioner, stating as to why action should not be taken for operating the unit without Consent to Operate and without ETP. Vide the said notice, the petitioner was asked to submit its reply by return mail, failing which action would be initiated against it under the provisions of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1988 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1987.
5. Without going into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to file its objections to the show cause notice within one week from today. Upon submitting such submissions, the 4th respondent shall pass appropriate orders on the show cause notice in accordance with the law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA _______________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 13.06.2024 Note: Issue C.C by 14.06.2024 TM/BSP 4