IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 3259 OF 2025 Between: Veluru Adi Narasimhulu, S/o. Velum Kesanna, aged about 59 years, Occ; Business, R/o H.No. 4/83": Main Road, Rayalacheruvu Aanthapur District. ...PETITIONER AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Dept. Velagapudi, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P. The Member Secretary, APPCB, Dr. YSR Paryavaran Bhavan, APIIC Colony, Road, Gurunanak Colony, Beside Raithu Bazar, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada-520007. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Zonal Office Kurnool, 2"^ Floor, Dr. YSR Paryavarana Bhavan, Venkataramana Colony, Kurnool- 518002, Andhra Pradesh. The Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Regional Office Ananthapuramu, D.No.6-3-145, Revenue Ward No.6, 1 Ananthapuramu-515001. 1. 2. 3. 4. St Floor, Ramnagar ...RESPONDENTS 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 an appropriate Writ Order or Direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the more action of the 4 respondent in raising a demand of Rs. 6,11,188/- on the petitioner vide No.1048-APPCB/RO-ATP/CTO-2024 Dt:20-11-2024, for the period 26.02.2021 to 13.02.2023 as per the rates levy under G.O.MsNo.13 dated| ^6.02.2021 which stands superseded as illegal arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14, and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the demand of Rs. 6,11,188/- made on petitioner vide Lr.No.1048-APPCB/RO-ATP/CTO-2024 Dt.20-11-2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 f 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 demand notice issued by the 4 respondent bearing Procs. Lr.No. 1048-APPCB/RO-ATP/CTO-2024 Dt.20-11-2024, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI R.SUJAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU, SC FOR APPCB th The Court made the following: ORDER V . mil APHC010050532025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) w [3503] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION No.3259 of 2025 Between: I.Veluru Adi Narasimhulu, S/o Veluru Kesanna, aged about 59 years, Occ.Business, R/o H.No.4/83, Main Road, Rayalacheruvu Aanthapur District. ...Petitioner AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (SEC.I) Dept., Velagapudi, Secretariat Buildings, Amaravati, Guntur District, A.P., and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.R Sujan Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: 1.G.P. 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 to 4. 2 WP 3259 2025 The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the Lr.No.1048- APPCB/RO-ATP/CTO-2024, dated 20.11.2024 to the extent of balance demand of Consent to Operate (CTO) fee of Rs.6,11,188/- under G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 26.2.2021 from the petitioner firm as illegal, arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Scc.l) Deportment, doted 14.2.20 3. The learned eounsel for the petitioner, while referring to 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 Dolomite Steatite over an extent of 2.428 Hectares in Survey Nos.162-B2, 163-A1 and 165-2 of Kristipadu Village, Peddavaduguru Mandal, Ananthapur District for twenty (20) years and Environment Clearance by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) was issued 03.5.2019. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 31.7.2024, 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 on 16.11.2024 by paying an amount of Rs.1,87,211/- with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, the 4‘^ respondent issued the proceedings dated 20.11.2024 den landing the pellllorier to Rs.6,11,188/- towards Conse.nt fee on the basis of the G.Os referred to above. _ 2. no i-ij. on pay 3 WP 3259 2025 The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 31.7.2024 and the impugned demand is not tenable in as much as the 4**^ respondent is seeking to collect fee for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He also contends that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 is superseded by G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 and the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the Consent fee under the said G.Os for the period prior to He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.7.2024, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from 01.8.2024. 4. 31.7.2024. 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 co,t:i.§ideration 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. submits that in the light of the said decision, the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. Mr.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 made submissions with reference to the para-wise remarks dated 15.2.2025. However, he 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. 5. The learned counsel 6. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned r.nimsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record. 7. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.7.2024 on payment of fee at the time the application was initially made by the petitioner is not 8. 4 WP 3259 2025 in dispute. Therefore, he has to pay the renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 for the period subsequent to 01.8.2024. The demand made by the 4*^ respondent vide proceedings dated 20.11.2024 insisting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.6,11,188/- towards balance fee for the period from 26.2.2021 to 13.2.2023 on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 or the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 for the period prior to 31.7.2024 is not sustainable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to ihe declslon 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 / 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 P'mdesh 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.I\/ls.Nos.1 3 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. The respondents are directed to process the petitioner’s application and renew the CTO for the period from 01.8.2024 to 31.7.2025, within a period of two weeks, subject to the payment of renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.lO, dated 14.2.2023. In the event, the respondent authorities are of the view that cert.?jn 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. 5 WP 3259 2025 % Before parting with this order, we are constrained to observe that despite the orders of the earlier Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023 and the subsequent orders of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, the Authorities concerned are either orally or through written proceedings raising demands with retrospective effect and driving the parties to approach this Court, which cannot be appreciated. 10. 11. There shall be no order as to costs, pending, if any, shall stand closed. Miscellaneous petitions cn/. A. VENUGOPALA RAO assistant registrar ^ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1. The Secretary, Environment, Forest, Science and Technology (Sec.l) of Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi Dept., State Amaravati, Guntur District. 2. The Member Secretary, APPCB, Dr. YSR Paryavaran Bhavan, APIIC Gurunanak Colony, Beside Raithu Bazar, Auto Nagar, Colony, Road Vijayawada-520007. 3. The Joint Chief L 2"'' Floor, Dr. YSR Paryavarana Bhavan, Venkataramana Colony, Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Zonal Office Kurnool Kurnool- 518002, Andhra Pradesh. Environmental Engineer, APPCB, Regional Office Ananthapuramu D.No.6-3-145, Revenue Ward No.6,Floor, Ramnagar, 4. The Ananthapuramu-515001. Sri R.Sujan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] Yelisetti Somaraju, SC for APPCB. [OPUC] 5. OneCCto 6. Two CCs to GP 7. OneCCto Sri 8. Three CD Copies. gi HIGH COURT DATED:21/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.3259 of 2025 of X 18 MAR 2025 jj ^ . Current Section DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS