Order :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

Heard Sri Shaik Md.Umar Abdullah, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.K.Swaroopa Rani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, representing learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the 1^st respondent, Sri Yelisetty Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4, and Sri Y.Nagendra, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent.

2. Under challenge is the order of closure dated 08.04.2025 passed by the 4^th respondent-Environmental Engineer. The said order was passed making a mention under reference No.3 that a show cause notice No.1003/PCB/RO-VSP/2025, dated 07.01.2025 was issued to the petitioner.

3. The main ground of challenge is that any such notice was not issued to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing, directly, the order of the closure was passed in violation of the principles of the natural justice.

4. Time was granted to obtain instructions to the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4.

5. Counter-affidavit was filed, mentioning that the show cause notice dated 07.01.2025 was issued and a copy was also annexed to the counter-affidavit.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that the said notice is dated 08.01.2025 and not 07.01.2025. Even the notice annexed was not sent to the petitioner but to some other occupier of M/s. Ammabhagwan Cement Fal-G Brick Factory.

7. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute that the notice annexed to the counter was the only notice, which was sent and the same does not relate to the petitioner. He further submits that any notice dated 07.01.2025 is not on record.

8. We, therefore, find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of closure is without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, without notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. The order of closure has civil consequences and therefore, is required to be passed with prior notice in consonance with the principles of natural justice of opportunity of hearing.

9. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order of closure only on the aforesaid ground.

10. The respondents shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law with due notice to the petitioner.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, i) no notice on the petitioner, ii) giving notice to some other industry and filing the copy thereof with counter-affidavit in the petitioner’s case to justify the impugned order, and iii) passing the order without verifying the record, which shows non-application of mind, we impose the costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) on the 4^th respondent, the Environmental Engineer, who has passed the order of closure.

12. The cost shall be deposited with the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee, Andhra Pradesh High Court, within four weeks from today.

13. With the above directions and observations, the Writ Petition is partly allowed.

14. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the impugned order.

15. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.