Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Vijaya Lakshmi Granites vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 2024
Author: Ninala Jayasurya
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
APHC010446562024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3494]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION No.23150
No. of 2024
Between:
1. VIJAYA LAKSHMI GRANITES, SY.NO.360, S SARAVAKOTA
ARAVAKOTA
MANDAL, ALUDU VILLAGE, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. REP BY
ITS PROPRIETOR, VARUDU RAGHAVENDRA.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT, FOREST, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT
SECRETARIAT BUILDING, GUNTUR DISTRICT, DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
D.NO.33-26-14D/2,
14D/2, NEAR SUNRISE HOSPITAL, PUSHPA
HOTEL CENTRE,, CHALAMAVALARI STREET, KASTURIBAIPET,
VIJAYAWADA-520 520 010. REP.BYITSCHAIRMAN.
3. THE JOINT CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ANDHRA
PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE,
VISAKHAPATNAM.
4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, ANDHRA PRADESH
POLLUTION CONTROL REGIONAL OFFICE, SRIKAKULAM.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declarin declaring g the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not renewing the Consent Fee to Operation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct 2 wp_23150_2024 the Respondent No.2 AND 3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.14.02.2023 only and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.2&3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms. No.10 dt.14.02.2023 only pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondents:
1. GP FOR FORESTS
2. YELISETTI SOMARAJU, STANDING COUNSEL, APPCB 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 and 3 in not renewing the Consent to Operate (CTO) in favour of the petitioner firm as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 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, while referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia submits that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for Colour Granite over an extent of 05 Hectares in Survey No.360, Aludu Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District upto 11.12.2038 and obtained 3 wp_23150_2024 Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 15.11.2017. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 30.11.2023, 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.150/- on 27.9.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner's utter surprise, the 4th respondent without issuing any proceedings, demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.12,71,900/- towards Consent fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 30.11.2023 and demand much less oral demand cannot be made. He contends that the oral demand is not tenable in as much as the 4th respondent is seeking to collect fee for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He also contends that when G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 is superseded by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the Consent fee for the period from March 2021 to March 2023. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 30.11.2023, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee i.e., from 01.12.2023 as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, but not prior to the said date.
4wp_23150_2024
5. The learned counsel submits that the issue with regard to the orders in G.O.Ms. No.13, dated 26.2.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 fell for consideration in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023, and by an order dated 30.8.2023, a Division Bench of this Court was inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the demand raised against the petitioner therein and issued directions to grant CTO on payment of fee, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023. The learned counsel submits that in the light of the said decision, the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for.
6. Mr.Y.Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 made submissions with reference to the written instructions dated 15.10.2024. However, he does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023.
7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record.
8. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 30.11.2023 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.150/- was paid on 27.9.2024 (Ex.P.8). However, he has to pay the renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 for the period subsequent to 30.11.2023. Be that as it may. Any alleged oral demand made by the 4th respondent, without issuing any proceedings and insisting the petitioner to pay Rs.12,71,900/- 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 is not sustainable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition 5 wp_23150_2024 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.
9. 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 30.11.2023 to 29.11.2024, within a period of two weeks, subject to the payment of renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023. 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. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J ____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J October 22, 2024 Note:
Dispatch order copy in two (2) days.
(By Order) vasu