Partly allowed

Sri Krishna Mines and Minerals v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Nov 2024WP/24181/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging non-renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) due to fee dispute. Court held renewal fee leviable per G.O.Ms.No.10 (dated 14.2.2023) only prospectively, directing authorities to process application within two weeks upon payment.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to renew Consent to Operate (CTO) for the period 01.11.2024 to 31.10.2025 upon payment of renewal fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.2.2023, contrary to retrospective demand based o

Sri Krishna Mines and Minerals Vs the State… — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

[3494]

¶2

APHC010470342024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.24181 of 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s.Sri Krishna Mines & Minerals, Rachagumadam Village, Merkamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District, Rep. by its Proprietor, T.Naraharinath Reddy

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Environment, Forest, Science & Technology, Velagapudi, Secretariat Building, Guntur District, Rep. by its Principal Secretary and others

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner : UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondents : The G.P. for Forests Mr.Yelisetti Somaraju, Standing Counsel for APPCB.

¶14

The Court made the following ORDER: ( per NJS,J):

¶15

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.

¶16

¶17

WP_24181_2024

¶18

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.

¶19

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 Quartize over an extent of 4.990 Hectares in Survey No.50/1 of Rachagumadam Village, Merkamudidam Mandal, Vizianagaram District upto 15.4.2040 and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 17.9.2019. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 31.10.2024, 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.5,000/- on 11.10.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, the 4^th respondent without issuing any proceedings, demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.24,01,002/- towards Consent fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above.

¶20

¶21

WP_24181_2024

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 31.10.2024 and demand much less oral demand cannot be made. He contends that the oral demand is not tenable in as much as the 4^th respondent is seeking to collect fee for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He also contends that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 and the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the Consent fee under the said G.Os for the period prior to 31.10.2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.10.2024, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from 01.11.2024.

¶23

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.

¶24

Mr.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 made submissions with reference to the written instructions dated 28.10.2024. 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.

¶25

This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record.

¶26

¶27

WP_24181_2024

¶28

The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.10.2024 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.5,000/- was paid on 11.10.2024. 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 01.11.2024. Any alleged oral demand made by the 4^th 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 01.11.2024 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:

¶29

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.

¶30

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 01.11.2024 to 31.10.2025, 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/

¶31

¶32

WP_24181_2024

¶33

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.

¶34

____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J

¶35

____________________ SUMATHI JAGADAM,J

¶36

November 08, 2024 ASR

¶37

¶38

WP_24181_2024

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶40