A granite mining unit challenged an oral demand for Rs.22,77,092/- as balance consent-to-operate fee under two Government Orders revising CTE/CTO fees. Following a Division Bench decision holding those orders operate prospectively only, the court directed renewal of the CTO from 01.11.2022 on payment of fees per G.O.Ms.No.10.
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.
A
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^
TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMB TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 26327 OF 2024
Between:
Vasundhara Granites, Sy.No.820/1 (Old Sy.No.683). Agraharam(V), Bukkapatnam(M), Sri Sathya Sai District. Rep by its Proprietor, Smt.Y.Vani. W/o.Y.S.Anjaneyulu
...PETITIONER
AND
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed 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 declaring Lr.No.713-APPCB/ROATP/CTO/2024-Dt.25.09.2024 issued by Respondent No.3 calling upon the petitioner to pay Balance fee for CTO of Rs.22,77,092/-underG.O.Ms No.13 dt.26.02.2021 and G.O.Ms No.10 dt.14.02.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct * the Respondents to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.14.02.2023 only and pass such other order or ordersasaredeemed fit and proper.
[Main Prayer amended as per C.O.dt:26/11/2024 videI.A.2of2024 in W.P.26327 of 2024].
lA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC is filed praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the RespondentNo.3toissueCTOon payment of fee as per G.O.Ms. No. 10 dt. 14.02.2023 only pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s): M/S UTTARA LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FORESTS
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3; SRI Y SOMA RAJU,SCFOR APPCB
The Court made the following: ORDER
[3494]
r
/
APHC010500402024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE OOTWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM
WRIT PETITION NO: 26327/2024
Between:
Vasundhara Granites
...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Ap and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.UTTARA LEGAL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
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. Alsoheardthelearned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Pollution Control Board representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
- The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the Lr.No.713APPCB/RO-ATP/CTO/2024dated 25.09.2024 to the extent of balance amount of CTO of Rs.22,77,092/- under G.O.Ms No.13dated26.02.2021and G.O. Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023 as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential
/ Contd...
NJS,J6rJS,J W.P No.26327 of 2024
2
direction to the respondents to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.I) Department, dated 14.02.2023.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referringtotheaverments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia submits that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for ColourGraniteoveranextentof 9.3 Hectares in Survey No.820/1 (Old Sy.No.683), Agraharam Village, Bukkapatnam Mandal, Sri Sathya Sai District upto 12.04.2038andobtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 12.10.2017. He submits that the CTO wasvalidupto 31.10.2022, 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 Section54readwithSection 21(2) of the Air (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1981. He submits that the Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.06.2021 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 14.02.2023 by revising the fee for CTE and CTO. Be that as it may. The learnedcounselsubmitsthat the petitioner applied for renewal of CTO and paid a sum of Rs.146/- on 21.09.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, the 3'”'^ respondent without issuing any proceedings, demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.22,77,092/- towardsConsentfeeonthe basis of the G.Os referred to above.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 31.10.2022anddemandmuch less oral demand cannot be made. He contends that the oral demand is not tenable in as much as the 3'^^ respondent is seekingtocollectfeeforrenewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He also contends that when G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.02.2021 is superseded by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated
Contd...
NJS,J & JS,J W.P No.26327 of 2024
3
¥
14.02.2023, the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the Consent fee for the period from March 2021 to October 2022. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.10.2022, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee i.e., from 01.11.2022 as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.02.2023, but not prior to the said date.
- The learned counsel submits that the issue with regardtotheordersin G.O.Ms. No.13, dated 26.2.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated14.2.2023fellfor 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 petitionerthereinandissued 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 soughtfor.
(
- Mr.Y.Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 made submissions with reference to the written instructions dated 21.11.2024. However, he does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner withreferencetotheorders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 14057 of 2023.
- This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the materialonrecord.
- The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.10.2022 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.146/- was paid on 21.09.2024 (Ex.P.3). However, he has to pay ? the renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.02.2023 for the period subsequent to 31.10.2022. Be that as it may. Any allegedoraldemandmade by the 3''^ respondent, without issuing any proceedings and insisting the petitioner to pay Rs.22,77,092/towards balance fee on the basis of
Contd...
NJS,J & JS,J W.P No.26327 dr2024
4
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 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 paragraphNo.18 of the judgment observed as follows:
- The expression “from the date of issue of this notification” in G.O.Ms.No.13 and the expression “shaii come into force from the date of pubiication 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 GTE 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 01.11.2022 to 01.10.2025, within a period of two weeks, subject to the payment of renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.02.2023. 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.
//TRUE COPY//
Sd/- K. LAKSHMI PAVANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavalari
Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada-520 010.
- One CC to M/S
- Two CCs to GP
- One CC to Sri Y
- Three CD Copies A T
♦
HIGH COURT
DATED:26/11/2024
ORDER
WP.No.26327 of 2024
t 0 7 JAN 2025 S
^ . Current Section
^>4^SPATC«g;^
DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the demand of Rs.22,77,092/- as balance Consent to Operate fee under G.O.Ms.No.13 (26.02.2021) and G.O.Ms.No.10 (14.02.2023) is sustainable when the earlier CTO was valid up to 31.10.2022.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023Followed¶8
Vasundhara Granites, rep. by its Proprietor Smt. Y. Vani
The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Environment, Forest, Science and Technology
The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board
The Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Anantapur
Ninala Jayasurya
Sumathi Jagadam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
