S' . Ir IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF TWO THOUSANDAND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the honourable SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA ^ AND THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUMATHI WRIT PETITION NO- 4111 OF 2()9fi -■ amaravati p,OES^ FEBRUARY SO- f or X I- ^ P JAGADAM Between: M/s. China Rama Reddy and Co, D.No.2-295, Srinagar Coiony, Anaparty East Godavan District. Rep by itsManging Partner, Smt.Chiria Santoshi Pavani. ...PETITIONER AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Environment, Forest, Science and Technoiogy, Veiagapudi, Secretariat Building, Guntur District., Rep. by its Principal Secretary. 2. The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada-520 010. Board, D.No. 33-26-14D/2, Near , Chalamavalari Street, Rep. by its Chairman 3. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Control Board Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Environmental Engineer, Andhra Andhra Pradesh Pollution Pradesh Pollution Control Board Regional Office, Vizianagaram. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Consiitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 2 and 3 in not renewing the Consent Fee to Operation as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 and 3 to issue CTO on payment of fee as per G.O.Ms.No 10 dt 14.02.2023 only. lA NO: 1 OF Petition under Section 151 stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to direct the Respondent No.2 per G.O.Ms. No. 10 dt. 14.02.2023 Writ Petition. CPC praying that in the circumstances may be on payment of fee only pending disposal of the above &3 to issue CTO as Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. UTTARA LEGAL Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1,3 & 4; GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI YELISETTI SOMARAJU, SC FOR APPCB The Court made the following: ORDER APHC010072392025 % IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3494] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY 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.4111 of 2025 Between: 1.M/s.Chirla Rama Reddy and Co., D.No.2-295, Srinagar Colony, Anaparty, East Godavari District, rep by its Managing Partner, Smt.Chirla Santoshi Pavani. ...Petitioner AND 1.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Department of Environment, Forest, Science and Technology, Velagapudi, Secretariat Building, Guntur District, rep. by its Principal Secretary, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner Uttara Legal Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Forests Yelisetti Somaraju, Standing Counsel 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. The present writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in not renewing Consent Fee to Operation as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to issue Consent to Operate on payment of 2. f 2 WP_4111_2025 fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 14.2.2023. . 3. Before dealing with the case on hand, this Court deems it appropriate to mention here that challenging the demands for renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) under G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.l) Department, dated 26.2.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, number of writ petitions were filed and a Division Bench of this Court while considering the matter in detail delivered orders dated 30.8.2023 in Writ Petition No. 14057 of 2023 holding inter alia that the demand/levy of fee for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect is not tenable. While dealing with the Writ Petitions on raising of demands with retrospective effect, this Court following the said decision disposed of similar writ petitions. In one of the writ petitions i.e.. Writ Petition No.27175 of 2024, vide Orders dated 02.12.2024, this Court made the following observations: 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. Be that as it may. It would appear that the learned counsel representing the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) vide e-mail dated 13.12.2024 communicated the purport of the above said order to the Officials of the APPCB. Despite the order in Writ Petition No. 14075 of 2023 and the order of this Court dated 02.12.2024 in Writ Petition No.27175 of 2024, demands with retrospective effect are being raised compelling the Industries . to file writ petitions. On a querry of this Court, the learned counsel for APPCB submits with reference to his communication dated 13.12.2024, e-file is under circulation and necessary action in the matter would be taken. While noting the said aspect and expecting appropriate orders would be issued by the > 10. 3 WP_4111_2025 APPCB with reference to the retrospective demands for renewal of CTO, this Writ Petition is being disposed of. The learned counsel 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 got transferred unexpired period (up to 31.8.2030) of mining lease for road metal, building stone and gravel from M/s.Sterling Minerals over an extent of 4.00 Hectares in Survey No.45, Pedadungada Village, Vepada Mandal, Vizianagaram District and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 02.8.2023. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 31.12.2024, 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 03.1.2025 and paid a sum of Rs.2,509/- vide Challan No.327309715 (Ex.P.3) and also paid an amount of Rs.4,79,300/- vide D.D. No.642740, dated 08.1.2025 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, the 4‘^ respondent is orally calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs. 14,11,768/- as per G.O.Ms.No.13, for the period from 26.3.2021 to 13.3.2023 and as per G.O.Ms.No.10, for the period from 14.2.2023 to 31.12.2024 towards Consent fee. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had paid requisite fee and the CTO was valid upto 31.12.2024 and the impugned oral 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 5. f 4 WP_4111_2025 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 31.12.2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 31.12.2024, if at all, the respondents are entitled to levy fee as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 only from 01.1.2025. 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 was for considered 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. The learned counsel submits that in the light of the said decision, the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. 6. 7. Mr.Yelisetti Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 to 4 made submissions with reference to the . remarks dated 21.2.2025. para-wise 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. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record. 8. 9. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 31.12.2024 on payment of fee at the time the application was initially made by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the CTO, paid a sum of Rs.2,509/- vide Challan No.327309715 (Ex.P.3) and an amount of Rs.4,79,300/- vide D.D. No.642740, dated 08.1.2025. 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 01.1.2025. The oral demand made by the 4^^ respondent insisting the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.14,11,768/- towards balance fee much less the amount referred in the para-wise remarks on the basis of 5 WP_4111_2025 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 31.12.2024 is not sustainable. In this regard, * it is appropriate to refer to the decision 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: 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. 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, with a direction to the respondents to process the petitioner’s application and renew the CTO for the period from 01.1.2025 to 31.12.2025, within a period of two weeks, subject to the payment of renewal fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023. In the event, the respondent authorities are of the view that certain 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. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. 18. 10. 11. Sd/- N. NAGAMMA ASSISTANT REGISJRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER SE To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Department of Environment, Forest, Science and Technology, State of Andhra Pradesh, Velagapudi, Secretariat Building, Guntur District. i 2. The Chairman, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, D.No. 33-26- 14D/2, Near Sunrise Hospital, Pushpa Hotel Centre, Chalamavalari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada-520 010. 3. The Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam. 4. The Environmental Engineer, Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Vizianagaram. 5. One CC to M/s. Uttara Legal, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri Yelisetti Somaraju, SC for APPCB[OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Forests, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. Three CD Copies. ssb HIGH COURT DATED:25/02/2025 ORDER WP.No.4111 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS