Dismissed

M/s. Modern Rice Mill and Boiling Mill, v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Telangana HC9 Feb 2012WP/3366/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition challenging a closure order issued under the Water and Air Acts. The court held that since the petitioner did not dispute the existence of an effective alternative remedy via appeal, it declined to examine the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with liberty to approach the appellate authority.

M/s. Modern Rice Mill and Boiling Mill, Vs The… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.3366 OF 2012

¶3

ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao)

¶4

The petitioner, a propriety, established Para Boiled Rice Mill in the name and style of M/s. Sree Modern Rice Mill & Boiling Unit in Penumur Village and Mandal of Chittoor District fifteen years ago, statedly, after obtaining license from the third respondent. By impugned order dated 17.01.2012, the first respondent in purported exercise of Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act) and Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1980 (the Air Act), directed the petitioner to stop all industrial activity in the interest of public

¶5

health and environment for the following reasons.

¶6

Operating without CFE/CFO order of the Board as

¶7

required u/s.25/26 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and u/s.21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1981 and amendments thereof.

¶8

· Operating without effluent treatment plant and

¶9

discharging the effluents to outside the factory premises and causing water pollution to the surroundings.

¶10

The petitioner assails the order mainly on the ground that the impugned order was not preceded by a notice and that the petitioner is taking steps to get necessary consent for establishment (CFE) and consent for operation (CFO) from the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) and therefore, the closure order is unsustainable. Per contra, the Standing Counsel for APPCB would submit that in view of effective alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act and Section 31 of the Air Act, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.

¶11

The counsel for the petitioner does not dispute over the effective alternative remedy. Therefore, we are not inclined to go

¶12

into the merits of the case.

¶13

While giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dismiss the Writ Petition. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶14

_______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J)

¶15

_________________________________ (G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J)

¶16

9^th February 2012 RRB

M/s. Modern Rice Mill and Boiling Mill, v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Modern Rice Mill and Boiling Mill, v. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankara Janaki, Vs State Bank of India, Db Division Main Branch

Prakash Sadre Vs The Chief Manager

K.Venkata Narsimha Reddy, Vs Union of India,rep.by its Secretary

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Vs Chairman, Appellate Committee

Andhra Pradesh Gas Power Corporation Limited, Vs Chairman, Appellate Committee Secretariat

M/s. Sri Ganesh Job Works, Vs The Appellate Authority under Air (Prevention and