IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 3173 of 2009 Between: Jeedimetla Effluent Treatment Limited, Plot No,267, Phase I, IDA, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad 500 055. Rep by its Whole Time Director, Mr. K.Lakshmana Rao. ... PETITIONER AND 1) A.P. Pollution Control Board, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. 2) Central Pollution Control Board, Parvesh Bhavan, East Arjun Nagar, New Delhi. 3) Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, Hyderabad Zone, Zonal Office, Podupu Bhavan, Hyderabad Collectorate Building, Nampally Station Road, Hyderabad. 4) Chairman, A.P. Pollution Control Board Cum Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 5) Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Science & Technology, Secretariat Buildings, Saifabad, Hyderabad. 6) Environmental Engineer, Regional Office A.P. Pollution Control Board, Ranga Reddy Dist II, Chintal, Hyderabad. 7) The Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Shapuranagar Branch, IDA, Jeedimetla, R.R. Dist, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order, declaration or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and declare, A. The Analysis report under Sec. 21 of the Water Act given by the third party viz., Environment protection, Training and Research Institute (EPTRI) From April 2008 to January 2009 and thereafter form the basis for determining the violation and extent of discharge in terms of the standards for parameters and that penalty may be imposed solely only on the basis of such reports as per Sec. 22(4) of the Water Act and the Rules made thereunder. B. The Action of the respondents in collection of samples from petitioner company from Nov.2007 to March 2008 in violation of the prescribed norms U/Sec. 21 of the Water Act as bad in law C. The Action of the 1st and 6th Respondent in invoking the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 50 Lakhs belonging to the petitioner company in favour of the 1st respondent, A.P. Pollution Control Board and the 6th Respondent from State Bank of Hyderabad, Shapurnagar Branch as violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner by Articles 19(1)(g) 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, expropriate and of the relevant provisions contained in the Water Act and EP Act and the Rules made thereunder and terms and conditions of the Action plan and consequently direct the concerned respondents to refund the amount of the said Rs. 50 Lakhs together with the interest to the petitioner company D. The Orders No. 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-2301 dt. 13-3-2008(Rs. 22,37,250) 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-2302 dt. 13-3-2008 (Rs.28,80,000) 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-2302 dt. 13-3-2008 (Rs.13,78,800) 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-430 dt. 31-5-2008 (Rs.16,75,800) 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-1140 dt.28-8-2008 (Rs.18,92,200) 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-1281 dt. 23-10-2008 (Rs.16,49,400), 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-1514 dt. 3-12-2008 (Rs.15,19,350) and 22/PCB/ZO- HYD/JETL/2007-1931 dt. 7-2-2009 (Rs.1,32,32,800) passed by the respondent No,.1 & 3 as illegal, without authority in law in contravention of Water (Prevention and control of Pollution )Act and Environment Protection Act and the Rules made thereunder and the order dt. 17-7-2007 and therefore a total nullity in Law and of no consequence. E. The Proceedings of the A.P. Pollution Control Board made in Order No. 22/PCB/ZO-HYD/JETL/2007-1931 dt. 7-2-2009 , 22/PCB/ZO-HYD/JETL/2007-1947 dt. 10-2-2009 and Order No. 22/PCB/ZO-HYD/JETL/2007-1957 dt. 12-2-2009 as bad in Law ultra vires the powers of the respondent, A.P. Pollution Control Board and violative of the rights guaranteed to the Petitoner company by Art. 14,19(1)(g) 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India, expropriatory and therefore not capable of being enforced in law and a nullity in the eye of law and violative of Sec.33(A) and other relevant provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Environment Protection Act and the rules made thereunder. F.The Proceedings of the 3rd respondent made in Lr.No. 22/PCB/ZO-HYD/JETL/2007-1960 dt. 13-2- 2009 as lacking foundations in law ultra vires its powers suffering from malice in law impracticable, unachievable, unworkable and quixotic. G.All the impugned demands made by the Respondent No.3 as penalties and all the various impugned orders made as being motivated by malice in law and on the part of the A.P. Pollution Control Board and suffer from legal mala fides and violative of the rights guaranteed to the petitioner company by Art. 19(1)(g) 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and therefore not capable of being enforced in Law and a nullity in the eye of law. H.That joint Action plan may be implemented and the paameters determined in terms thereof after taking into consideration the relevant factors in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its Orders dt. 17-7-2007 in WP No. 476 of 2005 and dt. 10-11-1998 in WP No. 1056 of 1990 1. That the petitioner company from hence forth shall be investigated monitored. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.V.T.M.PRASAD Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 & 6: MR.Y.SRINIVASA MURTHY Counsel for Respondent No.2: MR. A. RAJASEKHAR REDDY Counsel for Respondent No.5: GP FOR FORESTS Counsel for Respondent No.7: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: Oral Order: (Per Shri Anil R. Dave, Chief Justice) 1. Shri V.T.M. Prasad, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that as an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, the petitioner would like to file the appeal along with an application for stay before the appellate authority on or before 20.2.2009. 2. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents – Pollution Control Board has assured this Court that as far as possible, the application for stay filed along with the appeal, will be finally heard by the appellate authority on 21.2.2009. 3. In view of the fact that an alternative remedy is available, which the petitioner is going to exhaust, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition. 4. Permission granted. The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. 5. The parties are directed to maintain status quo till 28.2.2009. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ February 18, 2009 RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Note: Issue Copy by 19.2.2009. (By Order) svs ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{JMR}