Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Eluru Jute Mills Private Limited vs The State Government Of Ap on 5 March, 2025
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010053332025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3503]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA
IA 1 OF 2025
IN
WRIT PETITION NO: 2958 OF 2025
Between:
Eluru Jute Mills Private Limited ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Government Of AP and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Mr.T SREEDHAR
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, Advocate General
2. Mr.Yelisetti Somaraju, Standing Counsel for APPCB
3. Government Pleader for Municipal Admn. & Urban Development
2
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Heard Mr. T.Sridhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Dammalapati Srinivas, learned Advocate General, representing the respondents 5 and 6.
2. The brief factual aspects, as culled out from the material on record may be stated thus:
3. Andhra Jyothi, a vernacular newspaper published an item on 23.09.2024 about the constructions being carried out by M/s Green Grace Constructions. On 24.09.2024 the officials of A.P. Pollution Control Board (for short "the APPCB") conducted an inspection and issued a show cause notice dated 25.09.2024 stating that the project authorities failed to produce validities of the EC (Environmental Clearance) and not obtained CTE (Consent To Establish) from the APPCB, that no construction / developmental activity should be carried out without CTE as per the Notification dated 23.12.1996; 30.4.1999 and 01.05.2004 of the APPCB. 15 days time was granted to show cause as to why action shall not be initiated under the provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (for short "the Water Act") and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short "the Air Act"). The petitioner submitted a reply on 09.10.2024 stating that originally M/s Adithya Infratech Private Limited obtained Environmental Clearance dated 09.07.2015 from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for 3 short "the SEIAA") for construction of four residential towers, consisting of 15 floors with 600 units (flats) in an area admeasuring Ac.5-18 cents situated in T.S.No.1459, 1461 and 1462 corresponding to old D Nos.52A, 97/1A and 97/1C, Yard 18, Block No.17, Nallapadu Revenue Village and Gram Panchayat, Guntur, it did not proceed with the construction and handed over the said land and transferred the project to the land owner M/s Eluru Jute Mills Private Limited / Petitioner herein, that subsequently, the petitioner developed the land and launched Green Grace Project with M/s Bajrang Infra Private Limited as its project management company. Further that EC was sanctioned for construction of 600 flats in four towers, whereas they are constructing only 510 plots in three towers out of which 300 flats are purchased by the customers so far, by borrowing home loans from various banks / financial institutions and that the petitioner applied for Consent for Establishment by paying Rs.8,17,814.16 ps., and requested the APPCB to grant CTE at an early date.
4. Subsequently, acting on the complaint of the Hon'ble MLA, Ponnuru received on 16.10.2024, the officials of the APPCB conducted a joint inspection on 18.10.2024, called for certain clarifications on continuing constructions / developmental works in the project site without obtaining the CTE of the APPCB in spite of the show cause notice and clarification on modification of the towers / plinth area / total number of floors as against EC obtained without obtaining necessary amendments in the EC etc. The 4 petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 29.10.2024, followed by a letter dated 16.12.2024 requesting the APPCB to issue CTE by levying environmental compensation. Thereafter on 30.12.2024, the APPCB addressed a communication dated 30.12.2024 to the petitioner inter alia, stating that the issue was placed before the CTE Committee and after noting certain aspects the committee recommended to defer issue for want of certain information set out in the said communication and requested to furnish the same for further processing of the application. Subsequently, on 09.01.2025 the 5th respondent issued the Stop Construction Orders, aggrieved by which the present Writ Petition is filed.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submissions with reference to the material on record. His main contention is that as the Central Government i.e., Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change granted EC for the construction of project in question vide orders of the SEIAA dated 09.07.2015, the CTE or CTO is not required. Drawing the attention to the various Notifications issued by the Central Government, the learned counsel submits that the building and construction projects like in the present case falls under the Sl.No.8(a) of the Schedule to the Notification and it is discernible from Ex.P10 dated 10.02.2017, a decision was taken in the 175th Meeting of the Board of the Central Pollution Control Board, in which the APPCB is a permanent member, that there is no need to obtain CTE for building / construction projects, area development projects and township 5 projects, which are mentioned at Sl.No.8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule of projects in EIA Notification, 2006 and that for the said projects Environmental Clearance (EC) would suffice. He also referred to Ex.P11 dated 01.11.2018, wherein certain directions were issued by the Central Pollution Control Board in exercise of powers under Section 18(1)(b) of the Water Act and Section 18 (1)(b) of the Air Act, that for industries requiring EC, issuance of consent by SPCBs/PCCs shall be one step process and EC will be deemed as CTE in such cases and contends that the same are binding on the APPCB. Be that as it may.
6. Learned counsel while submitting that due to political reasons the present action is initiated against the petitioner, but to purchase peace, though there is no requirement to obtain CTE in terms of the directions / notifications issued by the Central Pollution Control Board, the petitioner paid the requisite fee for CTE and the same is not granted so far. He also submits that as stated in para No.7 of the writ affidavit the originally planned four (04) residential towers were reduced to three (03) and the 600 flats were decreased to 510 units and Building Permit Order dated 19.06.2024 was issued by the 3rd respondent Corporation. Further stating that presently the constructed built up area of the project was 86,000 sq.mtrs as against the permitted built up area of 1,28,499.44 sq.mtrs, he submits that in fact, in none of the notices issued to the petitioner was there any allegation of causing pollution by reason of the project in question or any report in that regard. He 6 submits that the reduction in the flats i.e., construction of the flats will reduce the environmental concerns / issues. Referring to the additional material papers with regard to the question and answers session in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the issue of environmental clearances, pollution etc., and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Gajubha Jadeja Jesar v Union of India and Ors.,1; Pahwa Plastics Pvt Ltd., and Another v Dastak NGO and Others2 and Electrosteel Steels Ltd., v Union of India and others3, as also the latest photographs depicting the present status of the Towers, learned counsel sought to impress upon the Court that pending consideration of the application the CTE / CTO, the activity of the industry may not be stopped by the authorities of the APPCB as it will have an adverse impact. He accordingly urges for granting the interim relief, else the petitioner as also the purchasers of the flats will be subjected to great hardship.
7. Learned Advocate General on the other hand made submissions, inter alia contending that the SEIAA which granted the environmental clearance dated 09.07.2015 has not been impleaded as party to the present Writ Petition and it is fatal. He submits that no modifications to the EC originally granted to the project by the SEIAA was sought and as the construction works are being carried out without such modification as also without CTE from the APPCB, the authorities have issued notices and thereafter passed the order impugned. He submits that to the best reasons known to the petitioner, instead of 1 (2023) 12 SCC 761 2 (2023) 12 SCC 774 3 (2023) 6 SCC 615 7 approaching the SEIAA, the present Writ Petition is filed, as if there is no requirement to obtain CTE. He submits that unless the earlier EC is modified by incorporating the details of reduction in the area of construction etc., and submitting the same along with other details sought for by the authorities of the APPCB, no works can be proceeded with. Referring to the contention that the directions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board are binding on the APPCB, the learned Advocate General contends that the same would not have any binding force and even otherwise, any such direction shall be subject to the provisions of the statute. He also submits that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable on facts, not applicable to the case on hand. While seeking short time for filing counter, the learned Advocate General opposed granting of any interim order.
8. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
9. At the outset, it may be appropriate to mention that the issue as to whether there is a requirement to obtain the CTE, once the EC was granted by the SEIAA and the binding nature or otherwise of the directions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board on the APPCB are matters which require detailed examination after filing of the counter affidavits. However, this Court is required to consider the prayer for interim relief, pending adjudication of the main issues.
10. It is not the case of the APPCB that no EC was obtained in respect of the subject matter project. Its objection as per contentions advanced is that 8 the construction activity is being carried on without obtaining modification to the Environmental Clearance dated 09.07.2015 issued by the SEIAA and that the CTE from the APPCB was not obtained. Whereas, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that once the EC was issued by the competent authority / SEIAA, there is no requirement to obtain either CTE or CTO.
11. Though from the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner it would prima facie appear that there is no requirement to obtain the CTE once the EC was granted by the SEIAA, condition No.(v) of EC dated 09.07.2015 contemplates that in case of any change(s) in the scope of the project, a fresh appraisal by the SEIAA is required and no further expansion or modifications in the project shall be carried out without the prior approval of the SEIAA. No material is placed before this Court and nothing is stated as to whether any application seeking modification with reference to the reduction in the area of construction / towers / flats was made to the SEIAA. While reduction in the area of construction etc., would naturally reduce the impact on the environment is a matter to be taken note of, the crucial aspect which weighs in favour of the petitioner, in the prima facie view of this Court, is that there is no allegation of making constructions in the area in excess than permitted in the Environmental Clearance order dated 09.07.2015. Even as per the APPCB, instead of constructing four residential towers in terms of the said order, only three towers are being constructed. Had it been a case of construction of 9 more towers in violation of the EC, perhaps there may be impact on the environment. In the absence of any such serious allegation of making extra constructions having impact on the environment, in the prima facie view of this Court, the direction to Stop Construction vide the impugned order is not justified. That apart, by virtue of the said order, the purchasers who invested substantial monies by obtaining loans from Banks and Financial institutions will be mulcted with additional costs of construction and will be subjected to serious prejudice and great hardship.
12. Further, the material referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner would go to show that the APPCB condoned the instances of not obtaining CTE by imposing penalty. Though the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner are with reference to establishment of manufacturing industries, the same would land support to the submissions that pending consideration of the applications for CTE / CTO, the activities / operations need not be interfered with.
13. Considering the matter, as to the interim relief prayed, this Court keeping the interest of the purchasers of the flats in view, is inclined to suspend the impugned order to the extent of prohibiting the constructions, however, subject to certain conditions:
i) The construction work in the subject matter project shall be carried on as per the Building Permit Order dated 19.06.2024; 10
ii) The construction so carried out shall be at the risk of the petitioner and no equities shall be claimed, in the event of any adverse orders with regard to violation of EC or other statutory provisions.
iii) The petitioner shall also be responsible to make good the loss caused to the purchasers of the flats, in case of statutory violations etc., if any.
14. Post on 17.03.2025, for counters.
_____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J ________________________ KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA, J Date:05.03.2025.
Ssv 11 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA IA 1 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 2958 OF 2025 Date:05.03.2025 ssv