APHC010051962025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI WRIT PETITION NO: 2791/2025 Between: Chaitanya Infra The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR FORESTS 2. YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL APPCB The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2791/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent(S): YELISETTI SOMARAJU STANDING COUNSEL APPCB The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3524] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2791/2025 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri K.Sai Naveen, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kata Sambasiva Rao, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Burlu Chandra Sekhar representing Sri Yellisetty Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel for APPCB for respondent Nos.2 to 3. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief: “………to issue a Writ Order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Lr.No.N-317/69/PCB/RO/NLR/2023-835 dated 27.01.2025 to the extent of demand of CTO fee of Rs.3,56,920/- under G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 26.02.2021 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023 only and pass..” 3. On 17.03.2025, the following order was passed: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s application for renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) is not being considered and by the impugned order dated 27.01.2025, the petitioner has been directed to pay balance CTO fee of Rs.3,56,920/- in favour of respondent. He submits that the said demand is pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.13 dated 26.02.2021, which could not be applicable, as the validity period of petitioner’s CTO was up to 31.01.2025 and before 31.01.2025, G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023 came into force subsiding G.O.Ms.No.13. He submits that for renewal, the petitioner would be liable only to pay the fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10 dated 14.02.2023. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has filed counter, but submits that time may be granted to file additional affidavit, clearly stating whether the demand was made under the order dated 27.01.2025 as per G.O.Ms.No.13 or G.O.Ms.No.10. 3. Post on 24.03.2025.” 4. Learned counsels for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered with the judgment of this Court in G.Radha Reddy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 1. On consideration of G.O.Ms.Nos.13 & 10, the Co-ordinate Bench held that those G.Os., are prospective in nature and pursuant thereto any arrears/balance of the CTO, could not be demanded. The relevant part reads as under: 6. G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.02.2021 is reproduced as under: “{G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (SEC.I)} 26th February, 2021. NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 64 read with sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act 6 of 1974) and section 54 read with sub-section (2) of section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Act 14 of 1981) and in supersession of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.157, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department, dated 22nd November, 1997 (to the extent of the subjects Oil & Gas sector and Mining projects concerned), the Government hereby revise the Consent Fee for Establishment (CFE) and Consent Fee for Operation (CFO) for Fresh / Renewal of Oil & Gas Sector, mining projects / facilities / activities etc., by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board as follows: (i) The revised Consent Fee for Establishment is as detailed in Annexure-I of this notification. (ii) The revised Consent Fee for Operation Fresh / Renewal is as detailed in Annexure-II of this notification. The revised rates of consent fee payable by the Oil & Gas Sector, mining projects / facilities / activities etc., shall come into force from the date of publication of this notification. The existing Oil & Gas Sector, mining projects / facilities / activities etc., who have already obtained CFO of the Board, have to pay the fee as per the revised rates after expiry of the remaining validity period of CFO from the date of issue of this notification. VIJAY KULAR G Srkr Secretary to Government” 7. G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.02.2023 is as under: “{G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (SEC.I)} 14th February, 2023. NOTIFICATION 1 WP.No.19097 of 2023 APHC In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 64 read with sub- section (2) of Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Act 6 of 1974) and section 54 read with sub- section (2) of section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Act 14 of 1981) and in supersession of the orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology Department, dated 26th February, 2021, the Government hereby revise the Consent Fee for Establishment (CFE) and Consent Fee for Operation (CFO) for Fresh / Renewal applications from Oil & Gas Sector and Mining Sector – projects / facilities / activities etc., by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board as follows: (i) The revised Consent Fee for Establishment is as detailed in Annexure-I of this notification. (ii) The revised Consent Fee for Operation Fresh / Renewal is as detailed in Annexure-II of this notification. The revised rates of consent fee payable by the Oil & Gas Sector, Mining Sector – projects / facilities / activities etc., shall come into force from the date of publication of this notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette.” NEERABH KUMAR PRASAD, Special Chief Secretary to Government” 8. From G.O.Ms.No.13, it is evident that the existing Oil & Gas sector, mining projects/facilities/activities etc., who have already obtained Consent for Operation (CFO) which is same as CTO of the Board, have to pay the fee as per the revised rates after expiry of the remaining validity period of CFO from the date of issue of that notification. 9. This G.O.Ms.No.13 was superseded by G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.02.2023. It also provided that the fee for consent for operation (CFO) was for fresh/renewal applications, from Oil and Gas Sector and mining sector – projects / facilities / activities etc., by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board. 10. Consequently, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.13 and G.O.Ms.No.10, for the remaining validity period of the petitioner’s CFO, the difference because of the fee revision by G.O.Ms.No.13 and G.O.Ms.No.10, could not be demanded from the petitioner. 11. Learned standing counsel could not dispute that G.O.Ms.No.13 and G.O.Ms.No.10 are not retrospective, in view of its clear language. The same will apply only after expiry of the remaining validity period of the existing CTO and for fresh applications or for renewal. 12. Sri V. Surendra Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that there is Circular No.APPCB/HO/CFE&CFO fee/ROs/2022, dated 05.01.2022 and Circular No.APPCB/CTE/HO/2021, dated 24.02.2023, whereunder instructions were issued with respect to revised fee for processing CTE & CTO applications filed by the Industries / other projects, activities, facilities etc., remain the same. He further submitted that in the present case, the demand was made pursuant to the Circular dated 24.02.2023. 13. We are of the considered view that any such circular, contrary to G.O.Ms.No.13 and G.O.Ms.No.10, could not be issued, and pursuant thereto, the demand could not be made. 14. It is not disputed that the CTO of the petitioner had been already obtained and was valid upto 30.06.2023. 15. We are of the considered view that G.O.Ms.No.13 or/and G.O.Ms.No.10, cannot be given retrospective effect to the petitioner concern. The same shall apply only prospectively after the expiry of the validity period of the CTO, i.e., after 30.04.2023. 16. 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 Pradesh 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.Ms.Nos.13 and 10 are made to operate prospectively. 17. Consequently, the respondents are under duty to consider renewal of CTO without asking the petitioner to pay the alleged arrears of fee for the period covered under previous CTO till its validity period pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.13 & G.O.Ms.No.10 by giving retrospective effect. 18. The order dated 11.05.2023 of the 4th respondent cannot be sustained to the extent indicated above for the period up to 30.06.2023 and is liable to be quashed to that extent of demand.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the period of validity of the CTO granted previously expired on 31.01.2025. The petitioner applied for renewal on 22.01.2025. Consequently, as per para-3 of the Notification dated 29.01.2025, the petitioner is liable to pay additional fee as late fee @ 100% for the fee to which the petitioner is ready to pay. 6. Consequently, the Writ Petition is being disposed of finally, with the direction to the competent authority/respondent No.3 to consider the petitioner’s renewal or grant of fresh CTO in accordance with law as per the guidelines as well as the GO of the subject but without insisting for payment of the arrears of the CTO fee as per the impugned notice. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM,J Dated: 27.03.2025 AG 293 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 2791/2025 Dated: 27.03.2025 AG