Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
M Jagan Mohan Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 16 December, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010557492024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA [3494]
PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.29141 of 2024
Between:
1. M.Jagan Mohan Reddy,
Reddy S/o.Obul Reddy, Aged about 58 Years, Years
Occ. Business, R/oo.Tatimakuiapally Village, Taliapally Post
Post,
Vempally Mandal,, YSR Kadapa District.
...Petitioner
Petitioner
AND
1. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Represented By Its Spl Chief
Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science And Technology, (SECT)(
Dept, Velgapudi, Secretariat Building, Amaravati, Guntur District,
And Others.
...Respondents
Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VIJAY ASHRIT Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. YELISETTI SOMARAJU, SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL APPCB
2. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY The Court made the following ORDER: (per NJS,J):
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Pollution Control Board representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4.
2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not renewing the Consent to Operate (CTO) in 2 WP_29141_2024 favour of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.I) Department, dated 14.2.2023.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia submitted that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for Barytes over an extent of 11.983 Hectares in Survey No.214 C, D & E of Thallapalli Village, Vempally Mandal, YSR Kadapa District and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 22.6.2010. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 31.8.2023, which was granted by collecting requisite fee as fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, as per Section 64 read with Section 25(2) of the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 54 read with Section 21(2) of the Air (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1981. He submits that the Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.6.2021 revising the fees for Consent to Establish (CTE) and CTO, that in supersession of the said G.O., the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 by revising the fee for CTE and CTO. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for renewal of CTO and paid a sum of Rs.8,88,300/- on 13.8.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner's utter surprise, the respondent No.4 without issuing any proceedings, orally demanding the petitioner to pay further amounts towards Consent fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above. He submits that the matter is covered by a decision in Writ Petition No.19097 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.8.2023, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from 01.9.2023.
3WP_29141_2024
4. Mr.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4, while placing a copy of the written instructions dated 13.12.2024, does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the orders passed by the Division Bench referred to above.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record.
6. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.8.2023 on payment of fee at the time the application was initially made by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the CTO, an amount of Rs.8,88,300/- was paid on 13.8.2024. Therefore, he has to pay the renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 for the period subsequent to 01.9.2023. Any alleged oral demand made by the 4th respondent, without issuing any proceedings and insisting the petitioner to pay the amount mentioned in the instructions towards balance fee on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 or the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 for the period prior to 01.9.2023 is not sustainable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023, wherein it is categorically held that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 or / and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 cannot be given retrospective effect and that the same shall be applied only prospectively after the expiry of the validity period of the CTO. The Division Bench at paragraph No.18 of the judgment observed as follows:
18. The expression "from the date of issue of this notification" in G.O.Ms.No.13 and the expression "shall come into force from the date of publication of this notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette" in G.O.Ms.No.10 refers the applicability of the G.O.Ms.Nos.13 and 10 respectively, with respect to the fresh applications or the applications for renewal for CTO and CTE and in this way both the G.O.Ms.Nos.13 and 10 are made to operate prospectively.4
WP_29141_2024
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the decision referred to above, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner's application and renew the CTO for the period from 01.9.2023 to 31.8.2025, as it would appear that renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 was paid. In the event, the respondent authorities are of the view that certain amounts are due/ liable to be paid by the petitioner towards CTO, they are at liberty to issue an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with Law.
8. Further, this order shall not be construed as permission to carry on the mining operations in the absence of a valid mining lease granted by the Mines and Geology Department or without complying with Environmental Clearance Conditions stipulated by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) or the other conditions stipulated by the Pollution Control Board. It is also made clear that this order shall not preclude the concerned Departments from initiating appropriate action against the petitioner, in accordance with Law, in the event he is acting in violation of any of the relevant statutory provisions.
9. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J December 16, 2024 vasu