A consent order issued by an unauthorized authority is invalid, necessitating compliance with prior court directives regarding jurisdiction.

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 5^th respondent – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the 14^th respondent.

2. Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel, appears for the 8^th 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 13^th respondent, and they submit that the main contest is between the petitioner and the respondents No.5 and 14.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Kodali Rajendra Prasad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order vide Letter No.1672/APPCB/RO-ELR/2025, dated 22.01.2025 passed by the 5^th respondent – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (in short ‘APPCB’), Regional Office, Eluru, represented by its Environmental Engineer, in rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2023 for cancellation of the Consent to Operation (in short ‘CTO’) granted by the 5^th respondent to 14^th respondent –M/s. Green Asia Impex Private Limited, West Godavari District.

I. Facts:

4. The 14^th respondent – M/s. Green Asia Impex Private Limited, West Godavari District is a processed shrimp/fish unit to produce processed shrimp/fish of capacity 10 TPD & Ice – 10 TPD. The APPCB issued Consent to Operation (CTO) to the said industry on 22.04.2022 by stipulating certain conditions therein and the validity of the said CTO was up to 31.03.2027. The 14^th respondent commenced operations during May, 2022. The raw material (raw shrimp) capacity of the industry is 15 TPD, which generates 150 KLD of wastewater for processing of 15 tons of raw shrimp. It provided Effluent Treatment Plant (in short ‘ETP’) of capacity of 300 KLD for treatment of wastewater. The treated wastewater from ETP is being utilized for greenbelt development within lease lands of an extent of 16.9 acres adjacent to the industry. The said area includes Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.677/2A purchased by the 14^th respondent under registered document No.3263/2017. It also includes 12 acres of land allegedly leased by the petitioner vide Lease Document dated 18.10.2021 and the rest area under the lease from other persons. The 14^th respondent was also issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Gram Panchayat.

5. The petitioner filed representations dated 07.08.2023, 25.09.2023, 11.10.2023 and 29.01.2024 to the respondent authorities, including the present respondents No.4 and 5 – APPCB, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam and APPCB, Regional Office, Eluru respectively, submitting that the alleged lease by the petitioner was the result of fraud and forgery. The said lease deed was also unregistered. Further submitting that, in getting ‘no objection certificate’ from the Gram Panchayat authorities, the 14^th respondent misrepresented that there was 30 feet width road of gram panchayat, whereas the same was not the gram panchayat road, but was private puntha being used by the owners and possessor of Sy.Nos.686/3, 686/2A, 686/2B, 685/2C, 685/2A, 685/2B and 685/1 of Ungutur village, lying in Sy.Nos.686/1B and 677/2B. The same was also used by the owner in Sy.Nos.686/1A, 686/2A and 677/2A. The width of the said puntha was only 13 feet and not 30 feet and it was a private puntha. Based on the misrepresentation of the 14^th respond