logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1164 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : Writ Petition No. 14423 of 2024
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D RAMESH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALAPATI GIRIDHAR
Parties : V. Shiva Sankar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep By Its Principal Secretary, Andhra Pradesh
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: D. Narendar Naik, Advocate. For the Respondent: Bolla Venkata Rama Rao (SC for APPCB), V. Surendra Reddy (SC for PCB).
Date of Judgment : 06-07-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, order, direction, particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the request of the Petitioner's application/proposal more No.videfor EC application SIA/AP/MIN/ 459521/2024 on 22.01.2024 to issue an Environmental Clearance (EC) as violative of Clause 8(iii) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and to consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to issue a Consent for Operation as per Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to carry out quarry operations in 2.630 hectares situated in Sy. No. 28 of Chinaganipalli Village, Amadagur Mandal, Anantapur District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including orders as to costs for this petition, and to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased)

D. Ramesh, J.

1. The present Writ Petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:

               “to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or an appropriate writ or order declaring the inaction of the Respondents in not considering the request of the Petitioner's application/ proposal more No.vide for EC application SIA/AP/MIN/ 459521/2024 on 22.01.2024 to issue an Environmental Clearance (EC) as violative of Clause 8(iii) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006 as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Indian Constitution and to consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to issue a Consent for Operation as per Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to carry out quarry operations in 2.630 hectares situated in Sy. No. 28 of Chinaganipalli Village, Amadagur Mandal, Anantapur District and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case including orders as to costs for this petition, and to pass….”

2. Heard Sri D.Narendra Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri V.Surendra Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent no.4.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that initially the petitioner has made an application in the year 2024 to the respondents for issuance of environmental clearance (EC). But for the reasons of pendency of Revision before the Hon’ble Apex Court, all the applications in the country wide were stalled and not considered finally. After disposal of the review by the Hon’ble Apex Court in diary no.41929 of 2025 dated 18.11.2025, the respondents ought to consider the applications filed by the petitioner in terms of the above said directions and to pass appropriate orders. But in vain. Hence the writ petition.

4. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents more specifically respondent nos.4 and 5 has submitted that based on the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme court, the application of the petitioner dated 22.01.2024 has been considered and accordingly the SEAC, A.P. communicated the status of the proposal of the proponent by raising EDS on 02.02.2024 and again on 10.01.2025. Subsequently, the applicant submitted reply to the EDS on 05.4.2025 and after that a meeting was conducted. However, neither the project proponent nor the authorized consultant attended the meeting. Therefore, the committee deferred the proposal.

5. Considering the above instructions, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that as the issue involved in this Writ Petition is only to consider the application filed by the petitioner for environmental clearance in terms of the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner is directed to file fresh application within one (01) week from today before respondent no.4 and 5 and if any such application is filed, the same may be considered and if at all required by fixing a specific date and time, the matter may be considered and disposed of within a period of one (01) month from the date of filing of the said application.

6. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the writ petition, shall also stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal