WP/32776/2025 of VENNAPUSA SIVA SANKAR REDDY Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 17 December 2025

1. VENNAPUSA SIVA SA ABOUT 58 YEARS, POST, MYLAVARAM

2. SANNAPUREDDY VI REDDY, AGED ABO VILLAGE AND POS DISTRICT.

3. YERRABOLU SIVA B REDDY, AGED AB KOMMERLA VILLAG KADAPA DISTRICT.

4. PATNAM KALYAN B YEARS,

R/O D MYLAVARAM MANDA

5. CHEPATI ARUN KUM R/O DUGGANNA P MANDAL, Y.S.R KADA

6. C. IMMANIEL, S/O DUGGANNA PALLE, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTR

7. C. SWAMIDASU,, S/O AND POST, MYLAVA HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) HE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER HOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT E SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDA PETITION NO: 32776 OF 2025 ANKAR REDDY, , S/O V. PULLA REDD R/O D.NO. 6/99, NAWABPETA VILLA MANDAL,Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. JAYA BHASKAR REDDY,, S/O S. NA UT 52 YEARS R/O D.NO. 6/50, NAW ST, MYLAVARAM MANDAL, Y.S.R BHASKAR REDDY,, S/O Y. CHANDRA OUT 37 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6/100, E AND POST, MYLAVARAM MAND BABU,, S/O DEVADEENAM, AGED A UGGANNA PALLE VILLAGE AND AL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. MAR,, S/O YAKOBU, AGED ABOUT 3 PALLE, VILLAGE AND POST, MYL APA DISTRICT. YAHOAN, AGE 48 YEARS, R VILLAGE AND POST, MYLAVARAM RICT. O C.JERMIA, R/O DUGGANNA PALLE ARAM MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTR

R AVA DY, AGED AGE AND ARAYANA WABPETA KADAPA A SEKHAR CHINNA AL, Y.S.R ABOUT 34 D POST, 6 YEARS, LAVARAM R/O 7-50, MANDAL, , VILLAGE RICT.

...PETITIONER(S) AND

1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

2. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

3. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. INDUSTRIES, COMMERCE (MINES-LLL) DEPT. A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR, ANDHRA PRADESH.

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT, KADAPA

5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JAMMALAMDUGU, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

6. THASILDAR, MYLAVARAM MANDAL MYLAVARAM, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT.

7. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION CIRCLE, NAGARJUPETA, KADAPA Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT, A.P

8. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MINES AND GEOLOGY KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT.

9. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, KADAPA, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT

10. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, O/O DIRECTOR, REGIONAL OFFICE FOR MINES SAFETY, NELLORE. SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

11. A P STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REP. BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY, PARYAVARAN BHAVAN., GURUNANAK COLONY VIJAYAWADA, A.P

12. M/S DALMIA CEMENTS BHARATH LTD, (CEMENT DIVISION), R/O CHINNA KOMMERLA AND DUGGANA PALLI VILAGES, MYLAVARAMMANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toPleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondent authorities in not initiating process under G.O.M.s No.90 of dt.17-12-2024 but proceeding to send the recommendations to the concerned is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to complete the enquiry by the High level redressel committee constituted unoer G.O.Ms No.90 dt.17- 12-2024 while affording petitioners a chance of personal hearing furnishing a copy of report to eh petitioners and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to direct the respondents one to eleven ie., R1 to R11 not to send any report/recommendation to the central government ( MOEFCC etc.,) or agencies (EIA appraisal committee etc.) without finalisingand furnishing the report as per GO MS 90 dtd 17-12-2024 andpass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 may be pleased to permit the petitioners to amend the affidavit in support of the writ petition and the petitions by amending the main and interim prayers as follows. a). Amend the main prayer in para19 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition WP No 32776 of 2025 and main petition to the following extent “ It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble court maybe pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the inaction of respondent authorities in sending any report as per G.O.M.s No.90 of dt.17-12-2024 even after 11 months is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to complete the enquiry by the High level redressal committee constituted under G.O.Ms No.90 dt.17-12-2024 and finalise the report expeditiously while affording petitioners opportunity of personal hearing furnishing a copy of report to the petitioners and to pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” By replacing “ For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court, in the interest of justice, may be pleased to issue a Writ or order more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondent authorities in not initiating process under G.O.M.s No.90 of dt.17-12-2024 but p-oceeding to send the recommendations to the concerned is illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent authorities to complete the enquiry by the High level redressel committee constituted under G.O.Ms No.90 dt.17- 12-2024 while affording petitioners a chance of personal hearing furnishing a copy of report to eh petitioners and to pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” Amend the interim prayer in para 20 of the affidavit filed in support of the main writ petition and In lA No 1 of 2025 in WP No 32776 of 2025 to the following extent. “Pending disposal of the writ petition, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents one to eleven ie R1 to R11 to initiate steps as per GO Ms 90 dtd 17-12-2024 and pass such further order or orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” By replacing b). “ Pending disposal of the writ petition, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents one to eleven ie., R1 to R11 not to send any report/recommendation to the central government ( MOEFCC etc.,) or agencies ( EIA appraisal committee etc.) without finalising and furnishing the report as per GO MS 90 dtd 17-12- 2024 and pass such further order or orders as *nis Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.” and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. K S MURTHY ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR REVENUE

2. GP FOR IRRI AND CAD

3. VIMAL VARMA VASI REDDY

4. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

5. GP FOR AGRICULTURE

6. BOLLA VENKATA RAMA RAO SC For APPCB

7. GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY

The Court made the following order:

Heard Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for GAD appearing for respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent Nos.2, 4, 5, 6, Smt. Sudeepthi Potluri, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology appearing for respondent Nos.3, 8, 10, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Irrigation appearing for respondent No.7, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for respondent No.9, Sri Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, learned Standing Counsel for APPCB appearing for respondent No.11 and Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.12.

2. The petitioners are all the residents of villages located around the 12th respondent-company. While when the 12th respondent-company has proposed for expansion of factory. Vide the notification dated 21.02.2025, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) had proposed for public hearing. Challenging the said notification, the petitioner Nos.1 to 5 herein filed writ petition in W.P.No.7163 of 2025.

3. Contending that even before the said public hearing was contemplated the 1st respondent herein, pursuant to the direction of the Lokayuktha appointed a High Level Redressal Committee vide G.O.Ms.No.90, Industries and Commerce (Mines) Department, dated 17.12.2024 to examine the reports of the superintendent engineer dated 02.03.2023 and after verifying the subject area where the factory has proposed for expansion and consequential environmental impact of the said expansion. The committee was directed to submit the report to the Lokayuktha.

4. It is contended that even before the committee submitted the report, the 12th respondent has been making serious efforts to expand its operations. Thus, the petitioners approached this Court by way of the writ petition in W.P.No.7163 of 2025.

5. It is contended that though High Level Redressal Committee has been constituted. No enquiry has been conducted pursuant to the said G.O., and High Level Redressal Committee did not make any efforts to submit the report inspection. Hence, the petitioners approached this Court by way of instant writ petition.

6. Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vimal Varma Vasi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.12 would submit that all the issues were raised in the previous round of litigation before the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7163 of 2025 filed against the notification dated 21.02.2025. The Division Bench has considered all the issues that were raised and passed an order in a comprehensive manner covering all the issues while disposing of the writ petition granting liberty to the petitioners herein (petitioner Nos.1 to 5) to participate in the public hearing and raise their grievances, written responses accompanied by reports etc. If any such objections and written responses are filed, the competent authority, conducting the public

hearing was directed to forward the same to the regulatory authority. The regulatory authority in turn was directed to consider the objections raised by the petitioners herein and pass speaking orders while taking the action on the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Authority/State Level Appraisal Committee as per para 8 of the notification dated 14.09.2006.

7. It is thus contended by the Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel that the issue has been categorically discussed and a detailed order has been passed after considering the very same objections, the relief sought by the petitioner would be contrary to the decision of the Division Bench.

8. In reply to the said argument of Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, Sri K.S.Murthy, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the relief sought by the petitioners herein is only limited, and is only for issuance of a direction to the respondents to submit a report in terms of the G.O.Ms No.90 dated 17.12.2024. Sri Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that any directions in the said regard to the respondents may be restricted to the extent of the Terms of Reference made under the said G.O.(G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 17.12.2024).

9. The petitioner has filed an application seeking amendment of the prayer, the said application is allowed today vide separate order. From the relief (amended) sought, it would reflect that the relief sought by the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent authorities (High Level Redressal Committee) to complete the enquiry in terms of G.O.Ms.No.90 dated

17.12.2024. It is contended that any direction in that regard would not overlap with the directions of the Division Bench.

10. Having regard to the same, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent Nos.4 to 5 and 7 to 11, (members of the High Level Redressal Committee) to complete the enquiry in terms of the G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 17.12.2024 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the respondent No.12.

11. It is pertinent to observe that this order would not come in the way of the officers in giving effect to the directions of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7163 of 2025.

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

Date: 18.12.2025 BSK

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

WRIT PETITION NO: 32776 OF 2025

Date: 18.12.2025 BSK