Allowed

M R Granites v. the State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC12 Dec 2024WP/28879/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A granite mining firm challenged a retrospective consent-to-operate fee demand by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. Following an earlier Division Bench decision holding the fee revision government orders prospective only, the court allowed the writ and directed renewal of the CTO prospectively.

What did the court decide?

CTO renewal ordered for 01.10.2024 to 30.9.2025 on payment of fee per G.O.Ms.No.10 dt. 14.2.2023 within two weeks; retrospective fee demand rejected; no costs.

M R Granites Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

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

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 28879 OF 2024

¶8

Between:

¶9

M/s. M. R. Granites. R.Sy.No.90, Goverdanapuram village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District, Rep. by its Proprietor,^{MaduVenkataMohan} Chand, S/o. Manikyala Rao, Aged about 45 years, R/o. near China Vantena center, Yanamalakuduru, Vijayawada.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

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

¶13

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.

¶14

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

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India^{prayingthatin} the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith,^{theHighCourtmay} be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially^{oneinthenature} of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.11199/APPCB/ZOVSP/SKLM/CTO/2024, Dt. 13.11.2024 in directing the^{petitionertopayan} amount of Rs.24,78,143/- as balance consent fees (including^backlogCTO

¶17

¶18

fee) as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dt. 14.02.2023 only for a period^{from30.09.2024} to 30.09.2025.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

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.3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dt. 14.02.2023 only for a period from 30.09.2024 to 30.09.2025 pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C. SUBODH

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3: SRI Y. SOMARAJU,^SCFOR

¶23

APPCB

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

APHC010551112024

¶26

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

¶27

[3494]

¶28

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

¶29

PRESENT

¶30

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND

¶31

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶32

WRIT PETITION No.28879 of 2024

¶33

Between:

¶34

M/s.M.R. Granites, Rep. by its Proprietor - Madu Venkata Mohan Chand

¶35

... Petitioner

¶36

AND

¶37

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

¶38

... Respondents

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

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 and 3.

¶42

The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare^{theLr.No.11199/} APPCB/ZO-VSP/SKLM/2024, dated 13.11.2024 to the extent of balance

WP 28879 2024

demand of Consent to Operate (CTO) fee of Rs.24,78,143/under G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 26.2.2021 from the petitioner firm^{asillegal,arbitrary} and for a consequential direction to the respondent^{Nos.2and3toissue} 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^{leaseforQuartize} over an extent of 10.00 Hectares in Survey No.90 of Govardhanapuram Village, Saravakota Mandal, Srikakulam District upto 11.8.2033 and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 22.1.2020. He submits^thattheCTO was valid up to 30.9.2024, which was granted by collecting requisite fee as fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, as per^{Section64readwith} 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^CTEandCTO.Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for renewal of CTO on 20.9.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise,^{theJointChief} Environmental Engineer (JCEE) issued the proceedings dated 13.11.2024 demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.24,78,143/towards Consent fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 30.9.2024^andthe

WP 28879 2024

1 f I

impugned demand is not tenable in as much as the JCEE is seeking to collect fee for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He^alsocontends that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 is superseded by G.O.Ms.Np.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^to30.9.2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 30.9.2024, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from 01.10.2024.

¶53

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.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing^the respondent Nos.2 and 3 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

The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 30.9.2024 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,

¶56

4 S } WP 28879 2024

¶57

it appears that an amount of Rs.2,600/was paid on 20.9.2024. 4. 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 01.10.2024. The demand made by the JCEE vide proceedings dated 13.11.2024 insisting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.24,78,143/- towards balance fee, without divulging any details is not sustainable in Law. The written^{instructionsareas} vague as the impugned proceedings. Raising of the demand for the period prior to 30.9.2024 on the basis of the said G.Os., is not tenable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the decision^{oftheDivisionBench} 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^effectand that the same shall be applied only prospectively after the expiry of the validity period of the CTO. The Division Bench at paragraph^{No. 18ofthe} judgment observed as follows:

¶58

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.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.I/ls.Nos.1^3and 10 are made to operate prospectively.

¶59

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel^forthe 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 01.10.2024 to 30.9.2025, 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/ 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.

¶60

5 WP_28879 2024

¶61

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 of the Coordinate 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.

¶62

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

¶63

Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT, REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SeCTTON OFFICER

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

¶68

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.

¶69