With the consent of Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri V.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission.
Petitioner’s Contention
The petitioner contended that he was incorporated within the year 2010 and was carrying on business in the manufacturing of bulk drugs. The 3rd respondent granted consent for establishment order dated 24.04.2010 according to the petitioner dated 19.06.2009. Thereafter consent for the operation was accorded on 23.12.2020 and since then, he was manufacturing various lifesaving drugs in bulk. The validity of the consent for the operation was valid till 31.06. 2021. On 11.05.2021 because of the opening of a security valve of a reactor, four persons at the positioning got injured and three of them succumbed. The petitioner then submitted a compliance report including a letter on 20.05.2021 to the Pollution Control Board; according to the incident, a joint inspection team had been constituted and it submitted a report dated 21.05.2021. On 26.05.2021, the 3rd respondent without a show-cause notice issued impugned order of Stop Production instructing the petitioner to prevent production; there were several batches of an important lifesaving drug which were within the manufacturing process and also the same can’t be stopped all of a sudden without bringing them into a secure stop mode, which can take time. Hence, the petitioner made a representation to the 3rd respondent to reconsider their decision. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the necessities suggested by the Pollution control panel are complied with by the petitioner and compliance report is additionally submitted which the Board can inspect the premises of the petitioner at any time to test the compliance of the identical.
Key Highlights
- This writ petition filed “to declare the impugned order of stop production passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Pollution Control Board vide Order No.71/APPCB/UH-II/TF/NLR/2021 dated 26.05.2021 (received by the petitioner on 27.05.2021), as illegal and arbitrary.”
- Petitioner was incorporated in the year 2010 and was carrying out the business of manufacturing bulk drugs. Due to the opening of a safety valve, four people got injured.
- The respondent without a show-cause notice issued an order to stop production.
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the requirements suggested by the Pollution Control Board had been compiled.
- The Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered that the petitioner is permitted to carry out production for two weeks and the respondent can inspect to ensure compliance with all requirements.
- The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Respondent’s Contention
Sri V Surender Reddy learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the petitioner had submitted a representation on 27.05.2021 requesting fortnight time to prevent production which the said letter isn’t filed by the petitioner together with the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner then made missive of invitation to continue the operation of production for 2 weeks and within the meanwhile, the authorities of the board may come and inspect the premises and also denote the lapses and also the same would be attended by the petitioner within no time and also the learned standing counsel consented for the said request.
Court Order
The Andhra Pradesh High Court stated that, “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, with the consent of both the counsel, the stop order dated 26.05.2021 is ready aside and also the petitioner is permitted to hold on production for a period time from the date of receipt of a replica of this order. Meanwhile, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to conduct inspection of the petitioner to make sure compliance of all requirements and after inspection, the 3rd respondent is at liberty to require appropriate action in accordance with law. It’s needless to state that before inspection, the 3rd respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner with relevancy the date of inspection. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order on costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending within the writ petition shall stand closed.”
-Report by Sana Sheikh