Allowed

M/s. Smt. D. Jayasree, v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2024WP/28365/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a retrospective demand for Consent to Operate (CTO) fees under a superseded government order. The court quashed the illegal demand and directed the authorities to renew the CTO on payment of fees under the applicable prospective government order.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's application is remitted for renewal of CTO from 01.02.2024 to 31.01.2025 on payment of fees as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023.

M/s. Smt. D. Jayasree, Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

5rco(^
o
>
•I
•t

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28365 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

M/s. Smt. D. Jayasree, Sy.No.333 (Old 177), Tarlakota Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, Rep by its Proprietor, Smt. D. Jayasree.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, D.No.33-26-14D/2,^Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavalari^Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada-520 010. Rep. by its Chairman.

¶13

The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh^Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam.

¶14

The Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution^{ControlBoard,} Regional Office, Srikakulam. ‘

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.11594/APPCB/ZOVSKP/SKLM/CTO/2024 Dt. 11.11.2024 to the extent of demand of CTO fee of Rs.32,38,851/- under G.O.Ms No.13 dt.26.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary

¶17

^ and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India^{andconsequentlydirect} the Respondents to issue CTO on payment of fee as per^{G.O.Ms.No.10dt.} 14.02.2023 only.

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

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 Respondent No.3 to issue CTO^{onpaymentoffeeas} per G.O.Ms. No. 10 dt. 14.02.2023 only pending disposal^{oftheaboveWrit} Petition.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. UTTARA LEGAL

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FORESTS

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI Y. SOMA^RAJU,SCFOR

¶23

APPCB

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

41y

¶26

APHC010544452024

¶27

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

¶28

[3494]

¶29

FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶30

PRESENT

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶33

WRIT PETITION No.28365 of 2024

¶34

Between:

¶35

1.M/s.Smt.D.Jayasree, Sy.No.333 (Old 177), Tarlakota Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Proprietor, Smt.D.Jayasree.

¶36

...Petitioner

¶37

AND

¶38

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

¶39

...Respondents

¶40

Counsel for the Petitioner UTTARA LEGAL

¶41

Counsel for the Respondents ; The G.P. for Forests Mr.Yelisetti Somaraju, Standing Counsel for APPCB.

¶42

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

¶43

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.

¶44

¶45

WP_28365_2024 ^

¶46

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare^{theLr.No.11594/} APPCB/ZO-VSP/SKLM/2024, dated 11.11.2024 to the extent^ofdemand of Consent to Operate (CTO) fee of Rs.32,38,851/- under G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 26.2.2021 from the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondentNos.2 to 4 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 14.2.2023.

¶47

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 14.50 Hectares in Survey Nos.333^ofTarlakota Village, Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District for a period of twenty (20) years and obtained Environment Clearance from the State^Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 15.10.2018. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 31.1.2024, 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^{ConsenttoEstablish} (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^feeforCTEand CTO. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for renewal of CTO and paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-^on18.10.2024 (Ex.P.3) with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, the 3^^^ respondent issued the proceedings dated 11.11.2024 demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.32,38,851/towards Consent fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above.

¶48

¶49

WP 28365 2024

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 31.1.2024^andthe impugned demand is not tenable in as much as the 3'^'^ 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

¶51

31.1.2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.1.2024, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from 01.2.2024.

¶52

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 apd 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.

¶53

Mr.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing^the respondent Nos.2 to 4 made submissions with reference to the written instructions dated 11.12.2024. However, he does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner^{withreference} to the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ^{PetitionNo. 14057of} 2023.

¶54

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

¶55

4 “ WP 28365 2024

¶56

The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.1.2024 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^{renewaloftheCTO,} an amount of Rs.1,500/- was paid on 19.10.2024. He has to pay the renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 for the period subsequent to 01.2.2024. The demand made by the respondent^vide proceedings dated 11.11.2024 insisting the petition.^rjo^{payanamountof} Rs.32,38,851/- without divulging any details is not^sustainable in Law. The written instructions are as vague as the impugned proceedings. Raising of demand for the period prior to 31.1.2024^{onthebasisofthe} said G.O.s is not tenable. In this regard, it is appropriate^torefertothe 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.lO, dated 14.2.2023 cannot be given retrospective effect and that the same shall be applied^{onlyprospectively} after the expiry of the validity period of the CTO. The Division Bench at paragraph No. 18 of the judgment observed as follows:

¶57

The expression “from the date of issue of this^{notification"} in G.O.Ms.No.13 and the expression “shall come into force^fromthedate of publication of this notification in the Andhra Pradesh^Gazette" in G.O.Ms.No.lO 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.

¶58

Considering the submissions made by the learned^{counselforthe} petitioner and in the light of the decision referred to above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s application and renew the CTO for the period from 01.2.2024 to 31.1.2025, within a period of two weeks, subject to the payment of renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.lO, dated 14.2.2023. In the event, the respondent authorities are of the view that certain^{amountsaredue/} liable to be paid by the-pefitioner towards CTO, they are at liberty to issue

►

WP 28365 2024

an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order, in accordance^withLaw.

¶63

Before parting with this order, we are constrained to observe that despite the orders of the earlier Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023 and the subsequent orders^{oftheCoordinate} Benches of this Court, the Authorities concerned are either orally or through written proceedings raising demands with retrospective^effectand driving the parties to approach this Court, which cannot be appreciated.

¶64

There shall be no order as to costs. pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶65

Miscellaneous petitions

¶66

SDI- K. TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment,^{Forest,Science} and Technology, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi,^Secretariat Building, Guntur District.

¶71

The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,^D.No.33-26- 14D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre,^{Chalamavalari} Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada-520 010.

¶72