Disposed¶34

M/s. Shalom Cartons, v. Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC10 Mar 2026WP/36052/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pollution Clearance Certificate; power supply disconnection notice; APSPDCL Guntur; A.P. Pollution Control Board consent management; cardboard box manufacture from paper; no manufacturing activity; no Board licence required; Environmental Engineer letter 07.03.2026; writ disposed no costs; WRIT PETITION NO: 36052 OF 2015.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with the observations that the impugned proceedings shall not be given effect to and no action shall be initiated against the petitioner; no costs; pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, stand closed. ¶34

M/s. Shalom Cartons, Vs Southern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Limited — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's business of making cardboard boxes using paper as raw material, involving no manufacturing activity, requires a licence/Pollution Clearance Certificate from the A.P. Pollution Control Board. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

The activity carried on by the petitioner does not require licence from the Pollution Control Board; consequently, no detailed adjudication is required.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Since the basis for the impugned letter is non-production of a Pollution Clearance Certificate, which is not required in terms of the instructions extracted, the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition shall not be given effect to.

¶33

Key takeaways

No action shall be initiated against the petitioner with reference to the impugned proceedings.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Andhra Pradesh High Court, Amaravati, Ninala Jayasurya, J., 11.03.2026) challenged a letter dated 26.10.2015 of the 3rd respondent (Assistant Divisional Engineer, APSPDCL, Town-I, Guntur) directing the petitioner, a cardboard-box maker using paper as raw material, to produce a Pollution Clearance Certificate within seven days failing which its power supply would be disconnected. Interim suspension orders dated 05.11.2015 and 10.12.2015 had stayed the letter. Based on a letter dated 07.03.2026 of the Environmental Engineer, placed on record by counsel for the 5th respondent (A.P. Pollution Control Board), stating that activities such as printing visiting cards, pamphlets, bill books, wedding cards and DTP designing do not fall under the Consent Management of the Board and that the petitioner's activity does not require a Board licence, the Court held that no detailed adjudication was required; since the basis of the impugned letter (non-production of a Pollution Clearance Certificate) was not required, the impugned proceedings shall not be given effect to and no action shall be initiated against the petitioner. Writ Petition disposed of with the above observations; no costs; miscellaneous applications, if any, closed.

¶1

[3209]

¶2

APHC010638372015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 36052 OF 2015

¶9

Between:

¶10

M/S. SHALOM CARTONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REP.BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER ADAPA JYOTHI RAJ, D.NO.6-6-53, 6/2, ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF A P LIMITED, REP. BY ITS VICE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TIRUPATHI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE DIVISIONAL ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL, GUNTUR.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, OPERATION, APSPDCL, TOWN-I, GUNTUR.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶18

1.V S R ANJANEYALU

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶20

1.VENKATESWARLU POTHAPRAGADA

¶21

2.V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL)

¶22

¶23

4.JAGARLAMUDI KOTESWARI DEVI

¶24

5.RAMA CHANDRA RAO GURRAM (SC FOR AP PCB)

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶27

The Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the letter dated 26.10.2015, issued by the 3^rd respondent. Through the said letter, the petitioner was called upon to produce the Pollution Clearance Certificate within seven days and informed that the Service Connection would be disconnected in the event the certificate is not produced.

¶28

In the Writ Petition it was, inter alia, contended that the petitioner’s firm is carrying on business of making cardboard boxes using the paper as raw material and no manufacturing activity is involved. It is also alleged that the impugned proceedings, threatening to disconnect the power supply, is nothing but a colourable exercise of power and further that as the respondents have not issued any notice, the whole action and the impugned letter is liable to be declared as illegal.

¶29

A learned Judge, while admitting the Writ Petition, vide order dated 05.11.2015, suspended the impugned letter. The said order was extended until further orders on 10.12.2015.

¶30

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel representing the 5^th respondent-A.P. Pollution Control Board, placed a copy of letter dated 07.03.2026, received from the Environmental Engineer for perusal of the Court, wherein it is inter alia stated as follows:

¶31

“14. Further, it is submitted that activities such as printing visiting cards, pamphlets, bill books, wedding cards, and DTP designing do not fall under the Consent Management of the Board. Hence, the present activity which is being carried out by Shalom Cartons does not require the licence from AP Pollution Control Board.”

¶32

¶33

In the light of the afore-stated position, more particularly that the activity carried on by the petitioner does not require licence from the Pollution Control Board, no detailed adjudication is required. As the basis for the impugned letter is non-production of Pollution Clearance Certificate, which is not required in terms of the above extracted instructions, the proceedings impugned in the Writ Petition shall not be given effect to and no action against the petitioner with reference to the same shall be initiated.

¶34