Prayers for declaration that industrial expansion without pollution control measures were illegal and for report from District Collector. Court found petition infuctuous as permissions granted via alternative remedy available at NGT.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; no directions issued pending alternative remedy before NGT.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH::AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM /
WRIT PETITION NO: 10189 OF 2024
Between:
...Petitioners
AND
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,theHighCourtmay direction more especially in the nature be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or of mandamus declaring the action of respondent authoritiesallowing 8th respondent (M/s. Coromandal Fertilizers Limited (CFL))goingaheadwith the expansion of units without initiating pollutioncontrolmeasuressuch i as developing green belt etc., despite objections raisedinthemeetingheldon 23.08.2023 by the petitioners and other public of surroundingvillagesof respondent industry as illegal, arbitrary and unjustifiedand call for report from District Collector (Kakinada District) on prevailing situation as to pollution preventing measures
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 5 not to allow8threspondent(M/s. Coromandal Fertilizers Limited (CFL)) to expand its unit pendingdisposalof WP
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P U BHASKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent No.1, 2: ADVOCATE GENERAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI Y SOMA RAJU (SCFORPCB)
Counsel for the Respondent No.4: MS. V KRANTHI REPRESENTEDFOR SRI A SRINIVASA SARMA
Counsel for the Respondents No.6 and 7: GP FOR REVENUE
Counsel for the Respondent No.9: MR. EID PARRY
Counsel for the Respondent No.8: SRI M RAHUL CHOWDARY
Counsel for the Respondent No.11: SRI Y V ANIL KUMAR
The Court made the following: Order
/
APHC010195832024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3494]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 10189/2024
Between:
Vasamsetti Ramakrishna Rao, S/o. Gangaraju, Aged 74 years, OcciSocial Activist, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada, East Gpdavari District and another.
...PETITIONER{S)
AND
Ap Pollution Control Board, Rep. by it’s Member Secretary, Paryavaran Bhavan, Hyderabad and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P U BHASKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
Contd...
NJS,J & JS,J W.PNo.10189 of 2024 2
The Court made the following ORDER: (per Hon’ble SriJusticeNinalaJayasurya)
The writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:
“...to issue a writ, order or direction more particulariyinthenatureofmandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities allowing respondent (M/s.Coromandal Fertilizers Limited (CFL)) going aheadwiththeexpansionof units without initiating pollution control measuressuchasdevelopinggreenbelt etc., despite objections raised in the meeting heldon23.08.2023bythepetitioners and other public of surrounding villages of respondentindustryasillegal,arbitrary and unjustified and call for report from District Collector(KakinadaDistrict)on prevailing situation as to pollution preventing measuresandpasssuchotheror further orders...” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Alsoheardthelearned Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos.1to3,Mr.EIDParry, learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. V.Kranthi, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the 4 th respondent, Mr.Y.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and Mr. Soma Raju, learned counsel for the Pollution Control Board. 3. This Court, on the earlier occasion, i.e., on 06.11.2024,recordedthe submissions made by the learned Advocate General appearingonbehalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to the effect that inviewoftheProceedings dated 25.04.2024 of the Central Government granting permission for expansion and the order of the State Pollution Boarddated09.07.2024, the writ petition has become infructuous. This Courthadalsogonethrough the counter-affidavits of the concerned respondents to which no replyis filed. Subsequently, on 08.11.2024, the matter wasadjourned at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners.Bethatasitmay. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners while makingsubmissions with reference to the proceedings dated 25.04.2024,issuedbytheMinistry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, disputes that the 8*^ respondent-industry had developed green belt inanareaof295acres of the total project area. He submits that the grievanceofthepetitionersis
Contd...
NJSJ & ,JS,J W.P No. 10189 of 2024
3
that without developing green belt area, no expansioncanbeallowedand if any such permission is granted, four villages wouldbeseverelyaffected.
- He also submits that the said proceedings were issuedonthebasis of a false representation made by the 8*^ respondent.Thelearnedcounsel further submits that as the issue involved is one inthenatureofPublic Interest, the present writ petition can as well betreated/converted into a Public Interest Litigation.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall also standdismissed.
Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
To
d SECTION OFFICER
gsg
HIGH COURT
V DATED: 19/11/2024 r
ORDER
WP.No.10189 of 2024
%
I 2 5 2024 m
DISMISSING THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition seeking to quash approval for industrial expansion becomes infructuous once administrative permissions are granted?
Whether the petitioners' grievance regarding lack of green belt can warrant conversion of the writ petition into a Public Interest Litigation?
Vasamsetti Ramakrishna Rao
Keta Srinivasa Rao
AP Pollution Control Board
M/s Coromandal Fertilizers Limited
Union of India
State of Andhra Pradesh
NINALA JAYASURYA
SUMATHI JAGADAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
