Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Peddinti Venkata Sivaramakrishna, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 1 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AT AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No.: W.P.No.234 of 2025
PROCEEDING SHEET
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
07 01.04.2025 GRKP, J
Heard Sri N. Srihari, Ld. Counsel for the
Writ Petitioner and Sri Krishna Kishore, Ld. Asst.
Government Pleader for Agriculture, Cooperation,
Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development and
Fisheries appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 6 to
8 and Sri Y. Somaraju, Standing Counsel for
APPCB appearing for Respondent Nos. 4 and 9.
2. Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner has
drawn the attention of this Court to the Notice
issued by the Respondent No.8 dated 30.10.2024
to the Unofficial Respondent No.10. The Notice
would indicate that the Unofficial Respondent has
violated the „Terms of License‟ and has started
salt water prawn culture while he had in fact
obtained license for fresh water fish culture.
3. It was noticed by this Court that the said
Unofficial Respondent No.10 was only directed by
the Respondent No.8 to stop the salt water prawn
culture and revert back to the fresh water fish
culture without referring to any provision of law for
the alleged violations. It is also noticed that the
Competent authority has not prescribed any
2
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
punitive measures and punishment for violating
the terms and conditions of the license granted to
the Unofficial Respondent No.10.
4. Upon query by this Court, Ld. Counsel for
the Writ Petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to G.O.Ms.No.7 Animal Husbandry, Dairy
Development and Fisheries (Fish.II) Department,
Dated 16.03.2013 (Ex.P.2). Ld. Counsel
appearing for the Respondent No.9 has drawn the
attention of this Court to Para-E of Annexure-I
(Guidelines) titled as “Violations”.
5. On going through the provisions dealing
with the violations, this Court has noticed that for
the conversion of fresh water aquaculture to that
of salt water prawn culture no specific punishment
has been prescribed in as much as such
conversion causes serious damage to the
surrounding land as well.
6. It is a matter of common sense that when
the pond which is meant for fresh water
aquaculture is converted into salt water prawn
culture, not only the pond but the surrounding area
also would become saline due to the presence of
the salt water, and that would invariably have an
adverse impact on the surrounding lands. It may
have an adverse impact even on the agricultural
yield in the neighbouring farm lands.
3
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
Unfortunately the G.O.Ms.No.7 Animal,
Husbandry, Dairy Development and Fisheries
(Fish.II) Department, Dated 16.03.2013 (Ex.P.2)
has not dealt with this contingency.
7. It is a settled law that the act of pollution
is visited with „strict liability‟. The Hon‟ble Apex
Court has already laid down the principle of
“Polluter Pays”. Whereas, neither the Fisheries
Department nor the Andhra Pradesh Pollution
Control Board, have, so far, devised any method
in curbing this menace of illegal conversion of
fresh water ponds into salt water prawn culture
ponds. The G.O.Ms.No.7 Animal, Husbandry,
Dairy Development and Fisheries (Fish.II)
Department, Dated 16.03.2013 (Ex.P.2) appears
to be a one „without teeth to bite‟, which made it a
heaven for the violators to obtain fresh water
aquaculture license and violate the same with
impunity by undertaking prawn culture in the
medium of either salt water or brackish water as
the same appears to be more lucrative than the
fish culture.
8. In Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
action and others Vs. Union of India and
others; 1996 (3) SCC 212, the Hon‟ble Apex
Court had held in Para No.67 as under:
67. The question of liability of the
4SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
respondents to defray the costs of remedial
measures can also be looked into from
another angle, which has now come to be
accepted universally as a sound principle,
viz., the “Polluter Pays” principle.
[ (Historic Pollution — Does the Polluter
Pay? by Carolyn Shelbourn — Journal of
Planning and Environmental Law, Aug.
1974 issue.)]
“The Polluter Pays principle demands
that the financial costs of preventing or
remedying damage caused by pollution
should lie with the undertakings which
cause the pollution, or produce the goods
which cause the pollution. Under the
principle it is not the role of Government to
meet the costs involved in either prevention
of such damage, or in carrying out remedial
action, because the effect of this would be
to shift the financial burden of the pollution
incident to the taxpayer. The „Polluter Pays‟
principle was promoted by the Organisation
for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) during the 1970s
when there was great public interest in
environmental issues. During this time there
were demands on Government and other
institutions to introduce policies and
mechanisms for the protection of the
environment and the public from the threats
posed by pollution in a modern
industrialised society. Since then there has
been considerable discussion of the nature
of the Polluter Pays principle, but the
precise scope of the principle and its
implications for those involved in past, or
potentially polluting activities have never
been satisfactorily agreed.
Despite the difficulties inherent in
defining the principle, the European
Community accepted it as a fundamental
5
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
part of its strategy on environmental
matters, and it has been one of the
underlying principles of the four Community
Action Programmes on the Environment.
The current Fourth Action Programme
[(1987) OJC 328/1] makes it clear that „the
cost of preventing and eliminating
nuisances must in principle be borne by the
polluter‟, and the Polluter Pays principle has
now been incorporated into the European
Community Treaty as part of the new
articles on the environment which were
introduced by the Single European Act of
1986. Article 130-R(2) of the Treaty states
that environmental considerations are to
play a part in all the policies of the
community, and that action is to be based
on three principles: the need for preventive
action; the need for environmental damage
to be rectified at source; and that the
polluter should pay.”
Thus, according to this principle, the
responsibility for repairing the damage is
that of the offending industry. Sections 3
and 5 empower the Central Government to
give directions and take measures for
giving effect to this principle. In all the
circumstances of the case, we think it
appropriate that the task of determining the
amount required for carrying out the
remedial measures, its recovery/realisation
and the task of undertaking the remedial
measures is placed upon the Central
Government in the light of the provisions of
the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It
is, of course, open to the Central
Government to take the help and
assistance of State Government, RPCB or
such other agency or authority, as they
think fit.
6
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE NO. NOTE
8.1. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v.
Union of India and others; (1996) 5 SCC 647,
the Hon‟ble Apex Court, while reiterating the
principle of “Polluter Pays” (as laid down in the
case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action)
has held in Para Nos. 12, 13 and 14 as under:
12. “The Polluter Pays Principle” has
been held to be a sound principle by this
Court in Indian Council for Enviro-Legal
Action v. Union of India [(1996) 3 SCC 212 :
JT (1996) 2 SC 196] . The Court observed :
(SCC p. 246, para 65)“… we are of the opinion that any
principle evolved in this behalf should be
simple, practical and suited to the
conditions obtaining in this country.”
The Court ruled that : (SCC p. 246, para
65)
“… once the activity carried on is
hazardous or inherently dangerous, the
person carrying on such activity is liable to
make good the loss caused to any other
person by his activity irrespective of the fact
whether he took reasonable care while
carrying on his activity. The rule is premised
upon the very nature of the activity carried
on”.
Consequently the polluting industries are
“absolutely liable to compensate for the
harm caused by them to villagers in the
affected area, to the soil and to the
underground water and hence, they are
bound to take all necessary measures to
remove sludge and other pollutants lying in
the affected areas”. The “Polluter Pays
Principle” as interpreted by this Court
7
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
means that the absolute liability for harm to
the environment extends not only to
compensate the victims of pollution but also
the cost of restoring the environmental
degradation. Remediation of the damaged
environment is part of the process of
“Sustainable Development” and as such the
polluter is liable to pay the cost to the
individual sufferers as well as the cost of
reversing the damaged ecology.
13. The Precautionary Principle and the
Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted
as part of the law of the land. Article 21 of
the Constitution of India guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty.
Articles 47, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the
Constitution are as under:
“47. Duty of the State to raise the level
of nutrition and the standard of living and to
improve public health.–The State shall
regard the raising of the level of nutrition
and the standard of living of its people and
the improvement of public health as among
its primary duties and, in particular, the
State shall endeavour to bring about
prohibition of the consumption except for
medicinal purposes of intoxicating drinks
and of drugs which are injurious to health.
48-A. Protection and improvement of
environment and safeguarding of forests
and wildlife.–The State shall endeavour to
protect and improve the environment and to
safeguard the forests and wildlife of the
country.
51-A. (g) to protect and improve the
natural environment including forests,
lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have
compassion for living creatures.”
Apart from the constitutional mandate to
protect and improve the environment there
8
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
are plenty of post-independence
legislations on the subject but more
relevant enactments for our purpose are :
the Water (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1974 (the Water Act), the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,
1981 (the Air Act) and the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 (the Environment
Act). The Water Act provides for the
constitution of the Central Pollution Control
Board by the Central Government and the
constitution of the State Pollution Control
Boards by various State Governments in
the country. The Boards function under the
control of the Governments concerned. The
Water Act prohibits the use of streams and
wells for disposal of polluting matters. It
also provides for restrictions on outlets and
discharge of effluents without obtaining
consent from the Board. Prosecution and
penalties have been provided which include
sentence of imprisonment. The Air Act
provides that the Central Pollution Control
Board and the State Pollution Control
Boards constituted under the Water Act
shall also perform the powers and functions
under the Air Act. The main function of the
Boards, under the Air Act, is to improve the
quality of the air and to prevent, control and
abate air pollution in the country. We shall
deal with the Environment Act in the latter
part of this judgment.
14. In view of the above-mentioned
constitutional and statutory provisions we
have no hesitation in holding that the
Precautionary Principle and the Polluter
Pays Principle are part of the environmental
law of the country.
9. Having regard to this aspect, the Principal
Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Development
9
SL. DATE ORDER OFFICE
NO. NOTE
and Fisheries Department is directed to file an
Affidavit as regards the measures which are
required to be taken for making necessary
provisions of law for penalizing the violators of
fresh water aquaculture licensees under the
principle of “Polluter Pays”. Let the Affidavit be
filed within two weeks.
10. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the
Writ Petitioner that the Unofficial Respondent
No.10 has also entered appearance through his
counsel, but there is no appearance.
11. The Respondent No.8 namely Fisheries
Development Officer is directed to file an Affidavit
as regards the current status of the fish ponds.
He shall personally inspect and file a Report to
this effect along with the Affidavit.
12. List this matter on 16.04.2025.
________
GRKP, J
MNR