Allowed

Benita Industries Ltd. v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC22 Dec 2024WP/29923/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the recovery of Rs.40 lakh as a retrospective Consent to Operate fee. Relying on a previous Division Bench decision, the Court held that new fee notifications operate prospectively only, directing renewal based on the later superseding order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was allowed; CTO renewed for period 01.12.2024 to 30.11.2025 on payment of fee under G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023.

Benita Industries Ltd. Vs the State of Ap — Environment and Pollution | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

‘i*.

¶2

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

¶3

MONDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 29923 OF 2024

¶9

Between:

¶10

Benita Industries Ltd, Rep., by its Director/Authorized Representative ■Tirupathaiah, S/o.Suraiah, Having its unit at Sy.No.82-1, Kambadur Village and Mandal, Ananthapura District.

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

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

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Ph ' Dr.Y.S.Paryavaran Bhavan, APIIC Colony Road, Gurunanak Colony, Vijayawada rep., by Its Chairman.

¶15

The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Kurnool Zone Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Zonal Office , Kurnool.

¶16

4, The Environmental Engineer, Ananihpur Region, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Regional Office Ananthapur.

¶17

...Respondents

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may

¶19

¶20

¶21

be pleased to pass an appropriate Writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the part of the Order in Lr.No.587APPC B/RO-ATP/CTO-2024-814 dated 02.12.2024 issued by the respondent No.4 herein demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.40,04,770/(Rupees Forty Lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy) towards Consent Fee for Establishment and Consent for Operation for the period between 26.02.2021 to 30.11.2024 as per G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment Forest Science and Technology Department, dated 26.02.2021 retrospectively, failing which the Consent to Operate would not be issued, eventhough the said Government Order was superseded and petitioner had already paid the applicable fee on 31.12.2019 for the period between 31.12.2019 to 30.11.2024 as arbitrary, illegal, colourable exercise of power and contrary to the G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment Forest Science and Technology Department, dated 14.02.2023 apart from being violative of the Fundamental and Constitutional Rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14, 19, 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents not to demand the revised fee for Consent Fee for Establishment and Consent for Operation as per G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment Forest Science and Technology Department dated 26.02.2021 for the period 26.02.2021 to 30.11.2024 from the petitioner by setting aside the part of the Order in Lr.No.587-APPCB/ROATP/CTO-2024-814, dated 02.12.2024 issued by respondent No.4. 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, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to insist the payment of Rs.40,04,770/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy) towards Consent Fee for Establishment and Consent for Operation for the period between 26.02.2021 to 30.11.2024 for renewal of the Consent for Establishment and Consent for Operation from the

¶22

¶23

¶24

petitioner for consideration of its application, dated^{28.11.2024andrenew} the same, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B.ABHAY SIDDHANTH MOOTHA

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FORESTS

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI Y SOMARAJU^SCFOR APPCB

¶28

The Court made the following order:

¶29

APHC010575462024

¶30

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

¶31

[3494]

¶32

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

¶33

PRESENT

¶34

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM

¶36

WRIT PETITION No.29923 of 2024

¶37

Between:

¶38

I.Benita Industries Ltd, rep., by its Director/Authorized Representative P.Tirupathaiah, S/o.Suraiah, Having its Unit at Sy.No.82-1, Kambadur Village and Mandal, Ananthapura District.

¶39

...Petitioner

¶40

AND

¶41

I.The State of AP, rep by its Principal Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat Buildings Velagapudi, Guntur District, and others.

¶42

...Respondents

¶43

Counsel for the Petitioner

¶44

Mr.B.Abhay Siddhanth

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

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. 2. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare^{theLr.No.587-} APPCB/RO-ATP/CTO-2024, dated 02.12.2024 to the extent^ofbalance demand of Consent to Operate (CTO) fee of Rs.40,04,770/under

¶48

WP 29923_2024 IP

¶49

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.2to4toissue} G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests CTO on payment of fee as per Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 14.2.2023

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of^{thewritpetition,inter} alia submits that the petitioner was granted a mining^{leaseforColour} Granite over an extent of 19.150 Hectares in Survey Nos.82-1, Kambadur Village and Mandal, Ananthapuram District^{upto22.12.2039} and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment^Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 21.4.2016. He submits^thattheCTO was valid up to 30.11.2024, which was granted by collecting^requisitefee as fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, as per Section^64readwith and Section 25(2) of the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 Section 54 read with Section 21(2) of the Air (Prevention^{ofPollution)Act,} 1981. He submits that the Government issued orders^{videG.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^{petitionerappliedfor} renewal of CTO and paid a sum of Rs.37,600/- on 28.11.2024^withaview However, to the petitioner’s utter to continue its mining operations. surprise, the 4 respondent issued the proceedings dated 02.12.2024 demanding the petitioner to pay Rs.40,04,770/- towards^{balanceConsent} fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above.

¶51

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that^{thepetitioner} had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 30.11.2024^andthe impugned demand is not tenable in as much as the 4“^^respondent is

¶52

3 r Si .'<1^ WP 29923 2024

¶53

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^becalledupon to pay the Consent fee under the said G.Os for the^period prior to 30.11.2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 30.11.2024, if at all, the respondents^{areentitledtolevy} fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from^01.12.2024.

¶54

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^of2023,andby an order dated 30.8.2023, a Division Bench of this Court^{wasinclinedto} allow the writ petition by setting aside the demand^{raisedagainstthe} petitioner therein and issued directions to grant CTO^{onpaymentoffee,} 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^{writpetitionerisentitled} for the relief sought for.

¶55

Mr.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing^the respondent Nos.2 and 3 made submissions with reference^tothewritten instructions dated 19.12.2024. 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.

¶56

This Court has considered the submissions made by the^learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material^onrecord. 8. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 30.11.2024^onpayment of fee at the time the application was initially made^{bythepetitionerisnot} in dispute. Hovyever, when the petitioner applied for^{renewaloftheCTO,} an amount of Rs.37,600/- was paid on 28.11.2024. Therefore,^hehasto

¶57

WP_29923_2024 ^

¶58

pay the renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated^{14.2.2023forthe} The demand made by the 4*^ period subsequent to 01.12.2024. respondent vide proceedings dated 02.12.2024 insisting^{thepetitionerto} amount of Rs.40,04,770/- towards balance fee on the^basisof pay an 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 30.11.2024 is not^sustainable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the decision^{oftheDivisionBenchin} Writ Petition No. 14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023, wherein it is that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 or / and categorically held G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 cannot be given retrospective^effectand that the same shall be applied only prospectively after^{theexpiryofthe} validity period of the CTO. The Division Bench at paragraph^{No. 18ofthe} judgment observed as follows:

¶59

Th6 expression “from the dete of issue of this^notificetion 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^{ortheapplicationsfor} renewal for CTO and CTE 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^{counselforthe} petitioner and in the light of the decision referred^{toabove,thewrit} The respondents are directed to process the petition is allowed, petitioner’s application and renew the CTO for the^{periodfrom01.12.2024} to 30.11.2025, within a period of two weeks, subject^{tothepaymentof} 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^{amountsaredue/} liable to be paid by the petitioner towards CTO, they^{areatlibertytoissue} an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and^{afteraffordingan} opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order, in accordance^withLaw.

¶60

¶61

WP 29923_2024

¶62

Before parting with this order, we are constrained^{toobservethat} despite the orders of the earlier Division Bench in^{WritPetitionNo. 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 effect and driving the parties to approach this Court, which cannot^{beappreciated.} 11. There shall be no order as to costs, Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

To,

¶65