Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Ivax Paper Chemicals Private Limited vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 November, 2022
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M.Ganga Rao
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BNESDAY " TB
TYAS THEI i;
E Ni NTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
ND AND TWENTY TWO
. "PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.GANGA RAO
- AND
THE HONQURABLE SRI JUSTICE V SRINIVAS
iA Nos. 1& 2 OF 2022
iN
WP NO: 36298 OF 2022
Between: oo
7. WAX Paper Chamicais Private ii
iPad, Gumpam Vilage, Pusandti
Pradesh 535 204
é. Ani Rumer Parasrampuria, Gos: - Director. Pig a onerat ons, Gurnparn Villages,
Pusapatirega Mandal, Vizianaga: ran District A3b204.
Pethioners in both JAs
ted, Locafed af Sy. Nos. 17, 18 & 18
a Mandal, V: uanagaran District, Andhra
sane as
: "AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh. Ren. by ifs Pdncipal Secretary to Government,
Environment, Forest, Sclenos and Techn OY Qepartment, Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District-522238
2. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Gantra Board, D.No. 33-28-14, O/2. Near Sunrise
Hospital, Pushpa Hote! Centre, Chalamavari Street Keaiuribaioe!,
Viieayawada 520 O10, AP =
4. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climates Change, Government of India,
end A par, Agri Block, Indira Ra ryay aran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New delhi
Respondenis
iA Ne. 1 OF 2088
Pattion under Section 1S) of OPE x nray ing that in the circumstances Stated in
the affidavit fled ins support of he petihon, ihe Nigh Court may be pleased ta garni
fatitioner Not to manufacture of Hs: nroduct ASA In the Unit located in Gumpam,
Vizia anagaram until such ¢ tims the § Anal GFOICTO is granted by Reapo sadant No. 2:
pending dispasal of WR No. 36248 x of alae Gh the file af the H igh Dour.
i& No. 2 OF 2022 Bos
Petition under Section 157 GPC praying that in the circumetances Mated
the affidavit Med in support ¢ af the pekton, the High Court ray be pleased to in
alternate in prayer clause (a) above, fo grant stay and affect on the impugned Notice
dated August 27, 2022 and impugned Condition imposed al para 1aivjof the Terms
of Reference dated J August 18, 3682 and rastrain Respondent Nos.2, 3 and/or their
zonal authorities from taking any action pursuant to the impugned Notice dated
August 27, S082 and further issuing any adiverse orders againet the Fetitiqner far the
want of EC and/or CF O/CTO to manufacture any product in the Uni located tr
Surmpam, Vi wianagaram, pending disposal { of WE No. 36858 of 2022, on the file of
the High Cou :
At
The petitions coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petitions and the
afidgayis Mec in support thereol snd upon hearing ihe arguments of Sri CV Mohan
Raddy, lsamed Senor Gounsel appearing for Sn Venkat Challe, Advocate far the
Petitioners ( in both LA Patiions) and of GP for Enviranment far the Respondent
Nos.1 & 3 (in both IA Petitions) and Sr V.Surendra Reddy, Standing Counsel for
Respondent Nog (in both [A Petitions) the court made following.
ORDER:foo "Heard Sri CV. Mohan Reddy, leatned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Yenkat Challa, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri ¥. Surendra Reddy, igarned standing counsel appearing for the 2" respondent.
isarned Senior Counsel submits that the 2" respondent has given Consant for Establishment of the 1° petitioner vide proceedings dated 24.02.2014 and Consent for Qperation PCFO] of the products viz. AKG Wax Emulsion, Akeny! Succinic Anhydride (ASA), Starch Based products and Ragin Sased Products vide proceedings dated 26.02.2016, valid for a period anding with 31.07.2021. Before expiry of the said period, the 1 pethtioner submitted application to the 2" respondent for renewal of CFO. instead af granting renewal, the 2°" respondant by letter dated 22.72.2020, insofar as the manuiscture of ASA is concerned, asked the 1° petitioner to either obtain Enviranmenial Clearance [EC] or soak a clarification an nor-anglicablity af EC for the sald product fram the State. Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA} The 2°° petitioner, on behalf of the 1° petitioner, sought siarification fram SEWAA and Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC] of the 3° respondent - Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of india. Thereafier, sevens! deliberations took place between the petitioners, SEIAA and EAC. As per the Minutes of the EAC, dated 25.07.2032, the EAC prima facie was of the view that the manufacture of ASA by the (* petitioner may not require EC. The 3° respondent, by letter dated 16.08.2022. addressed to the 1" petifioner issued Tsrme of Reference wherein though it was infer alia observed that the EAC recommends that APPCE may issue CTO for the production of ASA for the sarlier granted capacity of 200 TPMO400 TRA Since the PP is in the process af obtaining ES and aise in view of the above observations of EAC with regard to the pollution load, environmental impacts and applicability of EC for the manufacture of ASA, cantrary to the said observation, al para T8iv) of the terms of reference, directed that the State BS Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. ; and further no consent to operate to be issued till the project is granted EC for the product which require EC. However, the 2"? respondent by notice dated 27.08.2022, directed the 1° petitioner not to manufacture ASA without valid CFO of the Board. Even in the Minutes of the EAC, dated 13.10.2022, also, the EAC recommended that even though the ASA is a synthetic organic Chemical, but not listed specifically like LABSA, considering its potential environmental impact, it should not attract the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended) and hence, may be exempted from the requirement of EC.
Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the 1° petitioner has been manufacturing ASA since 2016. In-view of the recommendations of the EAC, referred above, he requested to direct the authorities to permit the 1° petitioner to manufacture ASA pending final decision of the authorities with regard to the requirement of EC. | Learned standing counsel appearing for the 2" respondent submits that the 2"¢ respondent is the implementing authority only and that the SEIAA is the competent authority.
Having considered the facts _and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned Senior Counsel and on perusal of the material record, we are prima facie satisfi ed that the petitioners have shown sufficient cause for grant of interim order.
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to not to interfere with the manufacture of ASA by the 1° petitioner, for a period of eight (08) weeks."
Sd/- M. SURYANADHA REDDY a. DEPUTY REGISTRAR HTRUE COPY// pe . _ SECTION OFFICER To, oo
1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, State:of Andhra Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur Distriet-522238
2. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control:Board, D.No. 33-26-14, D/2, Near Sunrise. Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada 520 010, AP ON Oak . Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, 2nd Floor, Agni Block, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jorbagh Road, New Delhi 110 003.(1 to 3 By RPAD) a One CC to Sri. Venkat Challa, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri V.Surendra Reddy; Standing Counsel fOPUC] Two CCs to GP for Environment, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Two spare copies. oe HIGH COURT MGR & SV.) DATED OT ase ORDER POST IMMEDIATELY AFTER SANKRANTHI VACATION, 2023 i& Noa. & 2 of £082 VP No 36288 of 2028 INTERIM CXREC TION