[ 3524 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 8576 OF 2025 Between: M/s. Vinayaka Dairy, Proprietor; Bhuma Anjali, W/o Bhuma Satyanarayana, R/o. D.No.20, Reningavaram (V), J. Panguluru (M), Bapatia District, Andhra Pradesh, ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Public Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. A.P Pollution Control Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Head Office, APIIC Colony Rd, Guru Nanak Colony, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Rep. By its Environmental Engineer, Regional office, Ongole, H.No.7-1004 A & B 2nd Floor, Harihara Nagar, 2nd Lane, Mangamuru Road, Ongole - 523002, Ongole District, Andhra Pradesh. 1. 2. 3. ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court be pleased to issue Writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the Respondents No. 2 and 3 in issuing the Impugned show cause notice vide Notice No. may NO.600/PCB/RO-OGL/2025-142 dt.05.03.2025 Environmental Engineer. Ongole, A.P., Pollution Control Board Regional Office, by the 3'^'^ respondent seeking explanation from the petitioner without having capacity and jurisdiction is quite illegal, arbitrary and also unjust and violation of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and The Air ((Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 as well as issued by the violation of principles of natural justice and fundamental rights of me provided under Indian Constitution and to quash the Impugned show notice and consequently to direct the Respondents No. 2 and 3 not to interfere with the Petitioners Vinayaka Milk Diary business and to withdraw the further proceedings on the Impugned show cause notice dt.5.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 against the petitioners Vinayaka Milk Diary. cause 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.600/PCB/RO-OGL/2025-142 dt.05.03.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 till the disposal of main writ petition; Counsel for the PetitionerSRI. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW : SRI Y. SOMA RAJU, STANDING COUNSEL show cause notice vide The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO, 8576 OF 2025 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari) Heard Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu,learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through virtual mode and Sri Burlu Chandrasekhar, learned counsel representing Sri Y.Soma Raju learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner has challenged the notice N0.6OO/PCB/RO- 2. OGL/2025-142 dated 05.03.2025, which is a show cause notice issued to the petitioner as to why action should not be initiated for operating without obtaining CTE & CTO of the Board, without providing air pollution control equipment to boiler, without providing ETP & discharging untreated effluents into municipal drain and thereby causing odour nuisance and air pollution in the surrounding area. Fifteen days time was granted to submit the reply. It was provided, failing which action would be initiated under Section 33(A) of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the i I petitioner is not covered under the industry. Consequently, the \ notice would not be issued. The petitioner has already filed the 2 reply, taking inter alia, the plea that the petitioner is doing small business in the milk dairy in the village and is not covered under the industry. 4. Since the petition is challenging the show cause notice and has already filed the reply to the same, which is said to be pending, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, at the stage of show cause notice. 5. The Writ Petition is being disposed of with direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to consider the petitioner’s reply to the show cause notice and take final decision, in the matter in accordance with law. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition i disposed of. No order as to costs. IS 7. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if pendina. shall also stand closed any Sd/- A. VENU GOPAL RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, I 1. The Principal Secretary, State of Andhra Pradesh, Public Health & Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. (BY SPECIALMESSENGER) 2. The Secretary. A.P Pollution Control Board Head Office. APIIC Colony Rd, Guru Nanak Colony, Vijayawada Andhra Pradesh. 3. The Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional office, Ongole, H.No.7-1004 A & B 2nd Floor, Harihara Nagar, 2nd Lane, Mangamuru Road, Ongole - 523002, Ongole District, Andhra Pradesh. (Addressee Nos.2 &3 BY RPAD) One CC to SRI. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW ,High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One CC to SRI. Y. SOMA RAJU, Standing Counsel [OPUC] Three CD Copies 4. 5. 6. 7. A high court v DATED;02/05/2025 ORDER VVP.No.8570 of 2025 ^ 18SEP20J5 1? ^^>M>ir«ntSectiy^ €r. disposing the Writ petition