12-2009 BETWEEN; M/s Sri Lakshminarayana Cashew Products, Akkupalli v. A.P. Pollution Control Board, Hyderabad & Anr.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN W.P.NO.10489 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: (Per GR,J) A show cause notice dated 19-04-2009 issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board- the 2nd respondent is assailed in this writ petition by a cashew manufacturing/processing unit located in Akkupalli village, Vajrapu Kottur Mandal, Srikakulam. By the impugned notice, the petitioner is directed to show cause why action be initiated against the unit under Section 31 (A) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987 and under Section 33 (A) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1988 for non-compliance with the Pollution Control Board’s directions and in view of the adverse impact on public health and environment. The notice asserts that the petitioner was operating a cashew unit without valid consent of the Board as required under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act,1981, a conduct punishable under Section 37 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Amendment Act, 1987.

It is further alleged that the petitioner was operating a cashew seed processing unit; that the Board had issued a notice dated 30-08-2003 directing the petitioner to alter the process from drum roasting to steam boiling process; that the CFO applications of the petitioner-unit were rejected for non-compliance of CFE conditions with a direction to comply with the CFE conditions by a notice dated 13-12-2004; and that when the unit was inspected on 19-02-2007 the petitioner was found persisting with the drum roasting process, failing to shift to the boiling process and therefore the impugned notice is issued. Reliance is placed by the petitioner for challenging the show cause notice on the observations of the appellate authority under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 dated 26-04-2008 in Appeal Nos.90 of 2006 and batch.

The appellate authority disposed of the appeals preferred by the aggrieved units against the orders of closure passed by the Board, observing that on a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances the Board should take a fresh look into the matter to evolve suitable guidelines afresh setting rehabilitation/relocation of existing units while fixing emission standard/equipment for cashew processing units and should consider whether roasting process can be permitted in individual units not forming a cluster and located away from human habitation and if so the appropriate conditions as to safeguards and the equipment, and technology on the basis of which the permissions could be granted for a roasting process unit as well. The petitioner contends that the respondents failed to evolve suitable guidelines for setting up of new units and for rehabilitating existing units and have instead proceeded to issue the impugned show cause notice.

We are not shown any statutory authority which empowers the A.P. Pollution Control Board to evolve guidelines or for taking steps for relocation of a polluting industry. The scheme of the relevant enactments provide a regulatory framework of operations for the Board namely, if pollution is established an order of closure could be passed or other incidental measures for abating the pollution may be taken. On this analysis, we are not persuaded that the impugned show cause notice is without jurisdiction as the relevant enactments do not enjoin a relocation process to be initiated by the Board as a prelude to exercise of its regulating powers. For the aforesaid reasons, we discern no infirmity in what is a mere show cause notice. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner may submit its objections or responses to the show cause notice within two weeks from today. No costs. ______________ GODA RAGHURAM,J __________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J 4th DECEMBER 2009 TSNR