Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Kodali Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
State Of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to cto based on alleged fraud. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments contending lease validity and industry compliance. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondents defend cto validity and alternative remedy. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court evaluates representation consideration compliance. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 25 , 26) |
| 5. writ petition allowed; order quashed for jurisdiction breach. (Para 30 , 31 , 32) |
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Soma Raju, learned standing counsel for the 5th respondent – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the 14th respondent.
2. Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel, appears for the 8th respondent – Ungutur Gram Panchayat, Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel, representing the learned Government Pleader for Industries, appears for the respondents No.11 and 12, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears for the 13th respondent, and they submit that the main contest is between the petitioner and the respondents No.5 and 14.
3. This writ petition ha
A consent order issued by an unauthorized authority is invalid, necessitating compliance with prior court directives regarding jurisdiction.
Pre-determined issuance of demand notices violates legal principles requiring fair process, rendering them null and void.
The court held that the U.P. Pollution Control Board exceeded its authority in revoking the consent to operate without evidence of non-compliance, affirming that prior approvals remained valid.
Writs under Article 226 can be maintained against predetermination by authorities, regardless of alternative remedies available, invalidating actions based on extraneous influences.
Writ petitions can be maintained against show cause notices if they demonstrate pre-determined conclusions by the authority, constituting a legal mala fide exercise of power.
Statutory authorities must exercise powers independently, and actions based on predetermination or external influence are deemed illegal.
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Ravish Agrawal, Sanjay Agrawal For the Respondent : Pushpendra Yadav, R. N. Singh, Akshay Pawar
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
