Contd… APHC010363682020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3494] MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 24247/2020 Between: Sandala Srinivasa Rao S/o. Kodaiah Aged about 50 years, R/o. H.No.8-102/3, Ayyappa Nagar, Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District. ...PETITIONER AND The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep. by its Member Secretary and Others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P Nagendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: 1. GP for Revenue (AP) 2. Mr. Raji Reddy, Senior Counsel 3. Mr. Yelisetti Somaraju, Counsel for APPCB 4. GP for Mines and Geology 5. GP for Municipal Administration and Urban Development NJS,J & JS,J W.P No.24247 of 2020 2 Contd… The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J) The present writ petition is filed seeking following relief:- “…issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in proposing to consider the application of the respondent No.8 for expanding Mining Limestone area in the land admeasuring 88.35 Hectares in various survey numbers of Jayanthipuram revenue village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna District without resolving the Air and Water pollution problems in the locality as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents not to allow the respondent No.8 to expand the Limestone Mine Area in various survey numbers of Jayanthipuam revenue village, Jaggaiahpet mandal, Krishna District by arranging Environmental Public Hearing…” 2. The petitioner, a permanent resident of Jaggiahpet town, Krishna District filed the present writ petition inter alia stating that the 8th respondent established a cement factory in Jayanthipuram village which is situated about 2 Kms from his house and that the said factory is causing air and water pollution in the locality. His grievance is that the respondent authorities are not taking any action preventing the respondent No.8 from causing air and water pollution despite making several complaints and the 8th respondent is proposing to expand the Limestone Mine Area in an extent of Ac.88.35 Hectares in various survey numbers of Jayanthipuram revenue village, that he made representation dated 01.12.2020 to the 3rd respondent-District Collector, raising various objections. The respondent authorities without considering the same, are proceeding in the matter to grant permission. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition and that if the 8th respondent is allowed to expand its mining area, it would not only lead to air and water pollution problems, but also cause serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4. However, the learned counsel for the 8th respondent, Mr. K Raji Reddy, learned Senior Counsel who appeared through online, had drawn the attention of this Court to the memo filed on 20.01.2025 as also the order dated 26.10.2021 of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)- NJS,J & JS,J W.P No.24247 of 2020 3 Contd… Andhra Pradesh, granting environmental clearance to the project, subject to implementation of certain specific and general conditions, set out in the order. He submits that the respondent authorities in terms of the statutory provisions, conducted the public hearing on 22.01.2021, wherein the 53 persons attended, out of them 50 persons spoke in favour of the 8th respondent and only 3 persons opposed the proposals for expansion of the unit. He submits that as required under the said order dated 26.10.2021, the 8th respondent complied with the various conditions and subsequently the Consent for Establish and Consent to Operate were also issued to the 8th respondent. He contends that without raising any objections, at the relevant point of time during public hearing, the petitioner straight away filed the present writ petition and infact as the permission for expansion was already granted to the 8th respondent, that the writ petition has become infructuous. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 5. A counter-affidavit and also a additional counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, from a reading of which, it is discernible that the 8th respondent had applied for expansion of its operations within the mining area of 88.35 Hectares granted to it and subsequent to the order dated 26.10.2021, the Pollution Control Board issued CTO on 04.01.2022 which was valid upto 31.01.2023 and the same was renewed thereafter upto 31.01.2028. It is pertinent to state here that the State Level Pollution Control Board/its officials are monitoring the operations of the 8th respondent-industry with regard to the emissions etc., and it is apposite to reproduce the averments made in the additional counter-affidavit at paragraph Nos.9 and 10, which reads thus: “9. It is to submit that, the Respondent No.8 industry installed Continuous online stack monitoring system for monitoring of stack emissions at 13 locations, 2 No’s of online continuous Ambient Air Quality Monitoring (CAAQM) stations with data logger facility and online effluent monitoring system at the outset of Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). The ambient air quality in and around the cement plant and existing mines sites of the Respondent No.8 industry Sewage treatment is being monitored continuously by APPCB through online with Real NJS,J & JS,J W.P No.24247 of 2020 4 Time Pollution Monitoring Systems. As and when there is deviation from the norms the industry will be alerted by sending message for rectification and to submit compliance, as per the protocol. 10. It is to submit that, The Environmental stakes in the form of conditions stipulated the Consent To Establish (CTE) & Consent To Operate (CTO) issued to the Respondent No.8 are being ensured by the Board and same are being reviewed taking into account of compliance status half-yearly submitted by the Respondent No.8. In addition to the regular inspections by the Regional office, the Board officials from Head office / Zonal office are also inspecting the industry every Six months under Randomized inspections to verify the compliance of the Board consent conditions.” Further, the Consent Order For Establishment (CTE) dated 02.12.2021 imposes a condition inter alia that the 8th respondent shall submit compliance to the conditions stipulated in the EC and CFE orders to the concerned Regional Officer of APPCB every six months and upload the same at APPCB website. 6. 6. Thus, from the material on record, it is apparent that the application made by the 8th respondent for expansion within the area granted to it vide G.O.Ms.No.315, Industries & Commerce (Mines-III) Department dated 28.12.2004 has been considered and appropriate orders/clearance was issued on 26.10.2021 by the competent authority. 7. In view of the same, the writ petition has become infructuous and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 03.02.2025 Ksj