Disposed¶29

Tulip Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. the State of Ap

Andhra Pradesh HC8 Apr 2025WP/6199/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tulip Granites Pvt Ltd v. State of A.P.; W.P. No. 6199/2025; AP High Court Amaravati; Article 226 writ of mandamus; Article 14 arbitrariness; renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO); CFO & CTE renewal pending; APPCB (respondents 2-4); G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023 fee; renewal order passed 08.04.2025 during pendency; writ petition closed as infructuous with liberty to challenge by appropriate proceedings; no costs; Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, APPCB Zonal Office Visakhapatnam appearance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed (not decided on merits); liberty granted to the petitioner to challenge the APPCB order dated 08.04.2025 by appropriate proceedings; no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. ¶29

Tulip Granites Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Ap — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondents 2 and 3 in not renewing the CFO & CTE is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether respondents 2 and 3 ought to be directed to issue the CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023.

¶24

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's renewal application has been considered and an order passed by APPCB on 08.04.2025, the writ petition is closed.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is granted to the petitioner, as requested, to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in case of any grievance against the said order dated 08.04.2025 or any part thereof.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Amaravati), Writ Petition No. 6199 of 2025, decided 09.04.2025 (order per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J., on the Bench of Tilhari and Kuncheam, JJ.) - Tulip Granites Pvt Ltd v. The State of A.P. and Others. The petitioner, whose application for renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) had remained pending after expiry of the validity period, moved this Court under Article 226 seeking a mandamus declaring the failure of respondents 2 and 3 (APPCB) to renew the CFO & CTE illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and directing issuance of the CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023. During pendency, upon directions of the Court, the Standing Counsel for APPCB informed that the renewal application had been considered and an order passed on 08.04.2025. The Court accordingly closed the writ petition without adjudicating the merits, granting the petitioner liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings against that order or any part thereof. No order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, also closed.

¶1

APHC010116082025

¶2

[3524]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNES D AY ,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 6199/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

Tulip Granites Pvt Ltd

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

The State Of Ap and Other s ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶14

1.UTTARA LEGAL

¶15

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶16

1.GP FOR FORESTS

¶17

2.YELISETTI SOMARA J U STANDING COUNSEL APPCB

¶18

The Court made the following:

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO: 6199/2025

¶21

ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J)

¶22

Heard Sri K.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Yellisetty Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPCB for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶23

This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief:

¶24

“………to issue a Writ Order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not renewing the CFO & CTE as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent Nos.2 & 3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023 only and pass..”

¶25

The grievance raised was that on expiry of the validity period, the petitioner applied for renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) but the application remain pending and it was not been considered.

¶26

Time was granted to obtain instructions and when the instructions could not be obtained, order for appearance of concerned authority was directed.

¶27

Dr.P.Prasada Rao, Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam is present.

¶28

Learned Standing Counsel for APPCB submits that the application of the petitioner for renewal has been considered and order has been passed on 08.04.2025.

¶29

Consequently, this Writ Petition is being closed. However, granting liberty to the petitioner as requested, in case of any grievance against the said order and part thereof, to take recourse by the appropriate proceedings.

¶30

No order as to costs.

¶31

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶32

____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J

¶33

______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J

¶34

Dated: 09.04.2025 AG

¶35

¶36