IMPORTANT POINT
Administrative decisions affecting rights must be reasoned and adhere to principles of natural justice, failing which they are liable to be set aside.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of Shrimp processing and operating an unit, which is stated to be in reviving stage and commenced its production in the month of February, 2024. Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 08.08.2024, in issuing the closure orders under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act-1974 (for short “the Act”), the present Writ Petition is filed on various grounds.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to change in the dispensation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, entertaining an anonymous complaint dated 26.06.2024, alleged to have been made by the public residing in the nearby villages against the petitioner, a showcause notice dated 29.06.2024 was issued referring to the observations made by the A.P. Pollution Control Board officials during the inspection conducted on 26.06.2024. He submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 12.07.2024 setting out the various measures taken by the petitioner unit, that after submitting the said reply, the respondent authorities entertained one more complaint dated 01.08.2024 stated to have been made by the public and with reference to the same, submitted a report dated 03.08.2024. In so far as the said complaint and the report dated 03.08.2024, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by calling for explanation and on the other hand, the 3rd respondent issued the order impugned in the writ petition without considering the reply dated 12.07.2024, objectively. He contends that though hearing with reference to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was conducted on 08.08.2024, even before conclusion of the proceedings which went upto 5.30 p.m., the impugned order came to be passed at 4.34 p.m., as is discernable from the impugned order. It is his contention that in fact the impugned order was made ready on 05.08.2024 and even before the minutes of the meeting dated 08.08.2024 were drawn, the impugned proceedings have been issued.

3. The learned counsel further contends that the order of the 3rd respondent is cryptic and there is no consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and no reasons were assigned as to why the reply merits no consideration. He also submits that as the impugned order is bereft of reasons, the same is vitiated. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.N.Mukherjee v Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and State Bank of India and others v Rajesh Agarwal and Others (2023) 6 SCC 1. Learned counsel while stating that about 400 Tonnes of Shrimp are ready for export, the same are perishable goods, pleads that unless the power supply which is disconnected pursuant to the order impugned in the Writ Petition is directed to be restored, the petitioner would suffer heavy losses. He also submits that the Cold Storage Unit of the petitioner shall continuously maintain the temperature of (-)18° degrees Celsius and if the same is not maintained, it may lead to breakage of ammonia condensers and lead to serious repercussions. Making the said submissions, he seeks the interim reliefs as prayed for. He also refers to a decision of a co-ordinate 1 2 Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15944 of 2024, dated 31.07.2024, wherein one of us (Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam) is a member.

4. On the other hand Mr. Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader along with Mr.Somaraju Yelisetti appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board made submissions referring to the objects of the Act and the relevant provisions. He contends that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and that an Appeal lies before the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. While stating that the proceedings dated 05.12.2022 granting CTO (Consent To Operate) to the petitioner Unit, which contains the conditions