Goli Sudhakar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 8973 AP

    THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                         &
      HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

              WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.118 of 2022

                             ORDER

Dt.06.09.2022

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

The three petitioners, claiming to be farmers belonging

to G. Kothuru and Marripudi villages of East Godavari District,

have preferred this writ petition, in the form of public interest

litigation, seeking issuance of mandamus declaring the action

of respondents 2 and 3 in respectively issuing Environment

Clearance (EC) to respondent No.5-M/s.Godavari Bio

Management for establishment of bio-medical waste

treatment plant in Sy.No.258, Marripudi village, Rangampeta

Mandal, East Godavari District, as illegal, arbitrary and

consequently to set aside the same.

2. The writ affidavit states that respondent No.5 applied

for and got in-principle permission for establishment of second

bio-medical treatment facility in Marripudi village. The project

is classified as Category B Project in terms of Notification HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

bearing No.S.O.1533(E) dated 14.09.2006 issued by the

Ministry of Environment and Forests under the Environment

(Protection) Rules, 1986. In the public hearing conducted on

28.07.2017, majority of the villagers expressed opposition to

the proposed project on the ground that it would pollute the

villages surrounding the proposed project and affect the cattle

and water bodies situated in the vicinity. However, despite

the opposition, the project was approved and permission was

accorded. This is the main ground on which the petitioners

have assailed issuance of Environment Clearance for

establishment of bi-medical treatment facility in Marripudi

village to respondent No.5.

3. In the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No.5,

objection to the maintainability of the writ petition has been

raised on the ground that under Section 16(h) of the National

Green Tribunal Act, 2020, if any person is aggrieved by the

grant of an environmental clearance in the area in which any

industries, operations or processes or class of industries,

operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be

carried out subject to certain safeguards under the

Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, such aggrieved person HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

may appeal to the jurisidictional National Green Tribunal;

therefore, in view of existence of alternative remedy, the

present petition is not maintainable.

4. Counter-affidavit of respondent No.5 further discloses

that M/s.MCV Eco Systems, business rival of respondent No.5,

preferred W.P.No.27717 of 2018 challenging the in-principle

permission accorded in favour of respondent No.5 for

establishment of bio-medical waste treatment plant. Since

interim relief was not granted and during pendency of the said

writ petition environment clearance was accorded by the

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the writ

petition was withdrawn. Immediately thereafter,

W.P.No.21820 of 2021 was filed on 15.09.2021 seeking the

same relief in relation to the environment clearance granted

to respondent No.5. W.P.No.21820 of 2021 was disposed of

by a coordinate bench of this Court reserving liberty in favour

of the petitioners therein to approach the National Green

Tribunal in accordance with law. Respondent No.5 raised a

grave suspicion that the present writ petition is a motivated

litigation at the behest of its business rivals M/s.MCV Eco

Systems and M/s.EVB Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

5. Although respondent No.5 has traversed the allegations

in the writ affidavit by submitting necessary pleadings and

materials in the counter-affidavit, we are not inclined to deal

with the issue on merits, as, in the course of hearing, we have

required the learned counsel for the petitioners to satisfy

about the bona fides of the petitioners to submit the present

writ petition (PIL), in view of dismissal of similar writ petition,

i.e. W.P.No.21820 of 2021 by a coordinate bench of this

Court. We have also summoned the original record of

W.P.No.21820 of 2021 to ascertain the nature of pleadings

made in both the writ petitions.

6. To our utter dismay and rather shockingly, when we

compared the averments made in the present writ petition

(PIL) with that of W.P.No.21820 of 2021, the entire pleadings

in both the writ petitions are one and the same. In such a

situation, the grave suspicion raised by respondent No.5 as to

the bona fides of the petitioners and the possibility of they

being setup and framed by business rivals appears certain.

The first attempt to derail the project of respondent No.5 was

made in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the

State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, by HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

preferring W.P.No.27717 of 2018, which was finally withdrawn

on 13.09.2021. Two days thereafter, W.P.No.21820 of 2021

was filed on 15.09.2021.

7. The Division Bench refused to entertain W.P.No.21820

of 2021 on the reasoning mentioned in paragraphs 7 and 8,

which is reproduced hereunder:

"7. According to the petitioners, they are all farmers and they own lands around the subject unit. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is their categoric case that the local villagers as well as the petitioners herein were not aware of the environmental clearance granted in favour of respondent No.4 in the year 2018. Though it is the case of respondent No.4 herein that the publication was given in two local newspapers, the knowledge as to the issuance of the environmental clearance in favour of respondent No.4 cannot be automatically inferred to the petitioners, having regard to the nature of the controversy and the avocation of the petitioners herein and the petitioners herein should not be rendered remediless also. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they had no intimation earlier with regard to the issuance of the impugned clearance. Though a number of legal contentions have been urged by the HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

learned counsel for the petitioners, including the effect of Rule 17 of the Bio Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016, this Court, having regard to the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners herein under Section 16 of the NGT Act, is not inclined to go into the sustainability or otherwise of the same."

"8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of, leaving it open for the petitioners herein to file statutory appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, against the impugned order, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for consideration of the same by the National Green Tribunal in accordance with law and for passing appropriate orders. It is also made clear that all the contentions, which are sought to be pressed into service in the present Writ Petition, are kept open. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition."

8. W.P.No.21820 of 2021 was also preferred by persons

claiming to be farmers of Marripudi village. The said writ

petition was not preferred in the nature of public interest

litigation. However, when the petitioners failed to satisfy this

Court as to the maintainability of the petition in view of

existence of alternative remedy of preferring statutory appeal HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

before the National Green Tribunal, the present writ petition

(PIL) was preferred. The present writ petition (PIL), is, thus,

frivolous and vexatious, preferred only with a view to frustrate

the bio-medical waste treatment plant proposed to be

established by respondent No.5. There is every likelihood

that the petitioners, bereft of bona fides, approached this

Court for extraneous reasons being motivated by persons who

want that the bio-medical waste treatment plant of

respondent No.5, may not see the light of the day. In such

situation, we cannot remain mute spectators, leaving the

petitioners go scot-free without paying any costs for wasting

the precious time of the Court and bringing a frivolous

litigation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sri Abraham T.J. v.

State of Karnataka, reported in (2018) 12 SCC 515, has

held thus in paragraph 8:

"8. Ordinarily, we would have straightway dismissed the special leave petition but we are inclined to say something in addition. Shifting of "Mini Vidhan Saudha" of present nature by an executive decision to six kilometres away is not a matter of public interest. It does not espouse any kind of public cause. It really pertains to smooth administration where the "Mini Vidhan Saudha" or taluk office HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

complex will be situated. It does not come within the domain of public interest litigation. It is pure and simple abuse of the concept of public interest litigation. Be it clarified that the conception of public interest litigation was not conceived to be used for this purpose. Therefore, while dismissing the special leave petitions, we impose Rs 25,00,000 (Rupees twenty-five lakhs only) as costs to be deposited by the petitioner before this Court within four weeks, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated against him."

9. In paragraph 5 of the writ affidavit, petitioners have

undertaken to pay costs as directed by this Court in the event

of a contrary finding or upon adjudication by this Court that

the instant petition is filed for extraneous/personal

consideration or with an oblique motive. In view of the said

undertaking and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court referred above, we dismiss the present writ

petition (PIL) by imposing Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh

only) as costs to be deposited by the petitioners with the

Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority within a period

of four (4) months from today. If the costs are not deposited

within the time stipulated above, appropriate action shall be HCJ & DVSS,J W.P.(PIL) No.118 of 2022

initiated against the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

      Sd/-                                         Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ            D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J

MRR