IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NOs.32577 AND 33400 OF 2010 DATED:10.3.2011 Between: Nalgonda Drug Manufacturers Association Flat No.5B, Divya Sai Sahithi Apartments 6-6-347/20/3A, Dwarakapuri Colony Punjagutta, Hyderabad Rep. by its Secretary and others … Petitioners And The Government of A.P. Rep. by its Chief Secretary, and also Chairman, A.P. Pollution Control Board Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NISAR AHMAD KAKRU AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION NOs.32577 AND 33400 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Nisar Ahmad Kakru) Petitioners – industries have sought a Writ of Mandamus to command the respondents to receive and consider their applications for grant of consent for establishment of industries in view of there being an environmental clearance to their credit, as contended. The respondents have very frankly admitted that they had refused to receive the petitioners’ applications and refusal so made is sought to be justified on the basis of non-availability of common facilities, like Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) and Total Solid Disposal Facility (TSDF). The objection although not available any more to the respondents because of availability of an alternative treatment as indicated in the counter by the respondents, i.e., Zero Liquid Discharge, yet they have expressed inability to receive the applications on a mere apprehension of lack of requisite funds on the part of the petitioners but have failed to bring any material to our notice which would persuade us to agree with the objection of non-availability of funds. Nevertheless, nothing prevents the respondent – Pollution Control Board to subject the petitioners to that condition of course if envisaged by policy/law. In the aforementioned backdrop, there shall be a direction to the respondents to receive the applications of the petitioners for consent. Process the same on the touchstone of policy/rules/law and pass appropriate orders expeditiously. Disposed of. VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J NISAR AHMAD KAKRU, CJ 10-3-2011 B. Narsinga Rao