M/S Virgin Rocks Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2024 Latest Caselaw 8103 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

M/S Virgin Rocks Pvt Ltd vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 September, 2024

Author: Ninala Jayasurya

Bench: Ninala Jayasurya

APHC010357642024
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                  AT AMARAVATI                         [3495]
                           (Special Original Jurisdiction)

                   FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                    TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                        PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                       WRIT PETITION NO:18313/2024
                                     NO:
Between:
  1. M/S VIRGIN ROCKS PVT LTD, SY.NO.60, GUMMAPADU
     VILLAGE, SARAVAKOTA MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.
     REP BY ITS MANGING PARTNER, D.D.RAM
                                     RAM MANOHAR NAIDU.
                                                 ...PETITIONER
                             AND
  1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF
     ENVIRONMENT, F   FOREST,
                       OREST, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
     VELAGAPUDI, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, GUNTUR DISTRICT,
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
  2. THE ANDHRA PRADESH POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, D.NO.
     33-26-14D/2,
           14D/2, NEAR SUNRISE HOSPITAL, PUSHPA HOTEL
     CENTRE,,     CHALAMAVALARI    STREET,     KASTURIBAIPET,
     VIJAYAWADA- 520 010. REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
  3. THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER ANDHRA PRADESH,
     POLLUTION      CONTROL   BOARD,     REGIONAL      OFFICE,
     SRIKAKULAM
                                           ...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring Lr.No.01/PCB/ROSKLM/Comp/ Lr.No.01/PCB/ROSKLM/Comp/ 2024 Dt.08.08.2024 08.08.2024 to the the extent of balance demand of CTO of Rs.94,14,032/- under G.O.Ms.No.13 G.O.Ms No.13 dt.26.02.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.10 G.O.Ms dt.14.02.2023 illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to issue CTO on payment

wp_18313_2024

of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dt.14.02.2023 only and refund the paid amount and pass.

IA 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 may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms. No. 10 dt.14.02.2023 only pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. UTTARA LEGAL

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR FORESTS

2. YELISETTI SOMARAJU, STANDING COUNSEL, APPCB

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

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 and 3.

2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the letter dated 08.8.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the petitioner is called upon to pay an amount of Rs.94,14,032/- towards balance fee for renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) under G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.I) Department, dated 26.2.2021 and G.O.Ms. No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.I) Department, dated 14.2.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia submits that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for Colour Granite over an extent of 40 Hectares (20 Hectares each in Badri and Gummapadu Villages) from 13.4.2010 to 08.2.2027 and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment

wp_18313_2024

Authority (SEIAA) on 31.5.2019. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 31.5.2024, which was granted by collecting requisite fee as fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, as per Section 64 read with Section 25(2) of the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 54 read with Section 21(2) of the Air (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1981. He submits that the Government issued orders vide G.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 CTE and CTO. Be that as it may.

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for renewal of CTO and paid a sum of Rs.19,000/- on 26.6.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner's utter surprise, the 3 rd respondent issued the proceedings dated 08.8.2024 impugned in the present writ petition calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.94,14,032/- stated to be the balance Consent fee, which was determined on the basis of the G.Os referred to above.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had already paid Rs.19,000/- and even as per the said demand an amount of Rs.14,82,000/- has to be paid for CTO for the period from 01.6.2024 to 31.5.2025. When such is the position, he contends that the impugned demand is not sustainable in as much as the 3 rd respondent is insisting for payment for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He also contends that when G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 is superseded by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the Consent fee for the period from February 2021 to February 2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.5.2024, if at all the respondents are entitled to levy fee i.e., from 01.6.2024 as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, but not prior to 01.6.2024.

wp_18313_2024

5. 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 of 2023, and by an order dated 30.8.2023, a Division Bench of this Court was inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the demand raised against the petitioner therein and issued directions to grant CTO on payment of fee, 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 writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for.

6. Mr.Y.Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023.

7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record.

8. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.5.2024 on payment of fee at the time the application was initially made by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the CTO, an amount of Rs.19,000/- was paid on 26.6.2024 (Ex.P.2) and he has to pay Rs.14,63,000/- after giving credit of Rs.19,000/- (R.14,82,000 - Rs.19,000/-) in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the CTO was granted initially up to 31.5.2024, the demand made by the 3 rd respondent through impugned letter calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs.94,14,032/- on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 is not sustainable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023, wherein it is categorically held that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 or /

wp_18313_2024

and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 cannot be given retrospective effect and that the same shall be applied only prospectively after the expiry of the validity period of the CTO. The Division Bench at paragraph No.18 of the judgment observed as follows:

18. The expression "from the date of issue of this notification" in G.O.Ms.No.13 and the expression "shall come into force from the date 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 or the applications for 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 counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the decision referred to above, the writ petition is disposed of. As the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.19,000/-

out of Rs.14,82,000/-, there shall be a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner's application and renew the CTO for the period from 01.6.2024 to 31.5.2025, within a period of two weeks on receipt of the balance amount of Rs.14,63,000/-, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, without insisting for payment of further amounts. In the event, the respondent authorities are of the view that certain amounts are due/ liable to be paid by the petitioner towards CTO, they are at liberty to issue an appropriate show cause notice to the petitioner and after affording an opportunity of hearing, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with Law. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J

______________________ T MALLIKARJUNA RAO,J September 06, 2024 vasu