IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30837 OF 2024 Between: M/s. Veerabhadra Exports Private Limited, regd. Office at D.No.l 1-15-3, 3 Floor, Near Bala Tripura Sundari Temple, Atchutaramayya Street, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada-533004 rep. by its Managing Director, Dwarampudi Veerabhadra Reddy. rd ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat, Velaghapudi, Guntur District. The Andhra Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Chairman cum State Board Member, Paryavaran Bhavan, Autonagar, Vijayawada. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, rep. by its Member Secretary, cum State Board Member, Paryavaran Bhavan, Autonagar, Vijayawada. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer (I/C), Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visalchapatnam. The Environmental Engineer, Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, East Godavari District at Kakinada 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in ^ cjr,cumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may it is prayed before this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue t A Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the issuance of impugned Order by the 4*^ respondent vide Order NO.6391/APPCB/ZO-VSP/2024-287 dated 02.12.2024 without any authority of law and without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of Sections 4 & 17 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Further, declare that the impugned order is not following the principles of natural justice by considering the compliance letter/application/ explanation dated 02.12.2024 as law settled in the matter of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex Court of S.N.Mukherjee Vs., Union of India reported (1990) 4 SCC 594 & State bank of India and others vs Rajesh Agarwal and others as reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1, and To declare that, the incompetent 4‘^ respondent passed the impugned order without jurisdiction, the State Board is competent to pass an order and the impugned order is without following the due procedure as contemplated under Sections 18 & 30 of the Water Act, and Consequently set aside the impugned proceedings as issued by the 4th respondent Order No.6391/APPCB/ZO- VSP/2024-287 dated 02.12.2024 on the grounds of without jurisdiction. a ('! of (ii) as (iii) (iv) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15T CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned order viz.. Order No.6391/APPCB/ZO- w VSP/2024-287 dated 02.12.2024 passed by the 4**^ respondent by permitting the petitioner herein to run the business activity in accordance with the scheme of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, pending disposal of the above said writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the impugned NO.6391/APPCB/ZO-VSPA/SP/2024-28 7 02.12.2024, pending disposal of the above said writ petition by permitting the petitioner industry to run the industry by accepting the undertaking o complete still, if any minor requirements are required to complete and further request to treat the instant case as court monitoring case pending disposal of the above said Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.SURENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: ADVOCATE GENERAL Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondents: SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU, SC FOR APPCB The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010592362024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3494] WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM WRIT PETITION NO: 30837/2024 Between: M/s Veerabhadra Exports Private Limited, regd. Office at D.NO.11-15-3, Floor, Near Bala Tripura Sundari Temple, Atchutaramayya Street, Ramaraopeta, Kakinada-533004. rep. by its Managing Director, Dwarampudi Veerabhadra Reddy. ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology Department, Secretariat, Velaghapudi, Guntur District and Others ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr. V Surendra Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: 1. Learned Advocate General 2. GP for Forests 3. Mr. Yelisetti Somaraju (SC for APPCB) Contd... NJS, J&JS.j W.P No.30837 of 2024 * 2 % The Court made the following Order: (per NJS,J) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Advocate General appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5. The present writ petition is filed challenging the Stop Production Order dated 02.12.2024 issued by the respondent on various grounds. 2. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, on 08.01.2025, this Court, taking into account that a joint inspection of the petitioner unit was sought to be conducted, directed the same to be carried out in the presence of the petitioner’s representative and complete the same within one week, from the date of the said order. 3. 4. Now, a copy of the Temporary Revocation of Stop Production Order dated 04.02.2025 has been placed before this Court. As seen from the said proceedings, it would appear that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board reviewed the status of the industry in the Monitoring (TF) Committee meeting held on 03.02.2025, and thereafter the temporary revocation of Stop Production Order came to be issued for a period of three (03) months, with the directions mentioned herein under, while noting that the previous five non- compliances were compiled by the industry. 1. The industry shall ensure continuous operation of ETP and STP for trade and domestic effluents respectively, to ensure compliance to prescribed discharge standards. 2. The industry shall provide above ground level HOPE pipelines for conveyance of effluents from process of ETP. 3. The industry shall submit soil test report from Agriculture Department, as per the CPCB Guidelines for utilization of treated effluents in irrigation. 4. The industry shall periodically calibrate the pollution control measures on adequacy of the performance and report every six months to the Board. 5. The industry shall obtain CTE & CTO to operate ice plant. Contd... NJS, J&JS,J W.P No.30837 of 2024 4 3 6. The sludge generated from ETP shall be disposed within the industry premises only. 7, The industry shall dispose the solid waste on daily basis. There shall not be any overnight storage of solid waste in the plant premises. 8. The industry shall ensure that there shall not be any pollution problems in the surroundings. 9. The industry shall pay the Environmental Compensation as levied by the Board. In view of the subsequent developments, granting temporary revocation of Stop Production Order, this Court deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail. 5. ■1 At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the condition No.2 submits that it would be very difficult to comply the same, since vehicle movement will be there in the open soil, but leaving vehicle track, the said permission is complied right after the track as directed by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, on above ground level HOPE pipelines for conveyance of effluents from process to ETP and that the period of three months stipulated in the order dated 04.02.2025 is not sufficient and the petitioner requires more time. 6. However, it may be relevant to note that in memo dated 27.01.2025, wherein the above referred aspect is set out, the petitioner himself in paragraph-4 stated as follows:- 7. It is submitted that, the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the APPCB to comply that condition also as per the directions, once the stop production order is revoked. The photos of the and 3 conditions are placed herewith for appreciation.” 4. rd Therefore, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in case, if the petitioner could not comply with the condition No.2 within the stipulated time, it is at liberty to approach the respondent- 8. Contd... f NJS, J&JS,j W.P No.30837 of 2024 , 4 Pollution Control Board for extension of time. Further, if the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions referred to above and the respondent authorities are contemplating any action in that regard, it is needless to observe that they are required to issue prior notice and give an opportunity to the petitioner. 9. The writ petition with the above observations is closed. No costs. As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed. Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUECOPY// W % SECTION OFFICER To. 1. One CC to Sri V.Surendra Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 3. Two CCs to Advocate General, High Court of Andhra 4. One CC to Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, SC for APPCB. 5. Three CD Copies. [OUT] Pradesh. [OUT] [OPUC] gi f HIGH COURT DATED:05/02/2025 ORDER x" 2 8 FEB 2025 | ^ . Current Section WP.No.30837 of 2024 CLOSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS