APHC010121742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the Eighth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No. Between: Ravela P.Raj and Union of India and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Kallemu Vijaya Raju Counsel for the respondent 1.V.Anil Kumar (Central Government Counsel) 2.The Advocate General –R2 3.V. Surya Kiran Kumar-R3 This Court made the following Order: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Quo Warranto quashing the appointment of Shankar Prasad) as the Chairman of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Andhra Pradesh No.1 vide notification dated 22 notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile and Forests, number S.o. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Monday, the Eighth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Writ Petition No.6572 of 2025 ...P ...Respondents etitioner: espondents: 1.V.Anil Kumar (Central Government Counsel)-R1 R2 R3 This Court made the following Order: The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a Quo Warranto quashing the appointment of respondent No 3 ( as the Chairman of the State Level Environment Impact Andhra Pradesh (AP-SEIAA), issued by otification dated 22.10.2024, S.O.No.4620(E) in pursuance of the of the Government of India in the erstwhile ministry of Environment .1533(E), dated 14.09.2006 and to pass a IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] Monday, the Eighth day of September, Two Thousand and Twenty Five ...Petitioner espondents The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India to a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of (Bandla Siva as the Chairman of the State Level Environment Impact issued by respondent in pursuance of the inistry of Environment and to pass any other 2 BSB, J W.P.No.6572 of 2025 appropriate order in the interest of justice on the following grounds: (1) The appointment made without following due process and appropriate procedure under the notification (S.O.1533) and without any advertisement or openly inviting applications would amount to breach of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The recruitment process is non- transparent. The recruitment process is non- transparent. No advertisement was issued prominently in any largely circulated newspapers. So experts could not be appointed as Chairman; (2) The appointment was made in violation of the mandatory provisions of the notification S.O.1533:3(4) on page.2 and APPENDIX VI item no.1 & 2 on page 41, ignoring minimum qualification of expert with 15 years of experience in the relevant field to be appointed as Chairman of SEIAA would be wholly illegal, as the incumbent did not possess the requisite expertise and experience and did not satisfy the requirement of APPENDIX-VI, points Nos.1&2; (3) The AP-SEIAA (Authority) was constituted by the Central Government by nominating retired persons recommended by the State Government. They did not have necessary expertise and experience as contemplated under the notification (S.O.1533). It amounts to substantive violation as it is not authorized and sanctioned by Section.3(3) and Section.4 of the Environment(Protection) Act, 1986; (4) The State has acted arbitrarily in appointing respondent No.3. The recruitment process was not based on merit. The selection was not fair, transparent and impartial. No person can be appointed without inviting applications from all eligible candidates to satisfy the mandate of Article l6 of the Constitution of India. Appointment should be based on merit alone; (5) The incumbent Chairman has not met the criterion laid down by the said notification and his appointment is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the appointment was arbitrary and illegal as it violates Article 16 of the 3 BSB, J W.P.No.6572 of 2025 Constitution of India and is contrary to the express provisions and implied restrictions of Section 3 (3) and Section 4 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 r/w S.o.1533(E), dated 14.09.2006. Therefore, this petition was filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner represented that the petitioner had withdrawn the writ petition and a letter dated 03.09.2025 to that effect had been addressed to the Registrar (Judicial) of this High Court. 3. Sri D.Yathindra Dev, learned Special Government Pleader, Office of Advocate General, representing respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has the habit of filing writ petitions one after the other challenging appointments made to several offices and withdrawing the petition after filing a counter explaining the detailed procedure adopted and therefore, if the court is inclined to close the petition, some costs may be imposed on the writ petitioner. 4. Since no such details of the earlier petitions are not provided, the request cannot be examined. 5. In view of the representation made on behalf of the petitioner, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date: 08.09.2025 GRL 4 BSB, J W.P.No.6572 of 2025 159 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Writ Petition No:6572 of 2025 Date:08.09.2025 GRL 5 BSB, J W.P.No.6572 of 2025