ORDER : (per NJS,J): Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard the learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing for the respondent No.1 and the learned Standing Counsel for the A.P. Pollution Control Board representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2. The present writ petition is filed questioning the letter dated 26.6.2024 issued by the 3rd respondent, wherein the petitioners are called upon to pay an amount of Rs.2,98,841/- towards balance fee for renewal of Consent to Operate (CTO) under G.O.Ms.No.13, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.I) Department, dated 26.2.2021 and G.O.Ms. No.10, Environment, Forests, Science & Technology (Sec.I) Department, dated 14.2.2023, as illegal, arbitrary, etc. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, inter alia submits that the petitioner was granted a mining lease for Quartz over an extent of 5.000 Hectares in Survey No.190/1 of Vatlabayalu Village from 15.7.2019 to 14.7.2039 and obtained Environment Clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on 03.5.2019. He submits that the CTO was valid up to 30.4.2024, which was granted by collecting requisite fee as fixed by the A.P. Pollution Control Board, as per Section 64 read with Section 25(2) of the Water (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 54 read with Section 21(2) of the Air (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1981. He submits that the Government issued orders vide G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.6.2021 revising the fees for Consent to Establish (CTE) and CTO, that in supersession of the said G.O., the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 by revising the fee for CTE and CTO. Be that as it may. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner applied for renewal of CTO vide application dated 22.12.2023 and paid a sum of Rs.1,23,509/- on 11.6.2024 with a view to continue its mining operations. However, to the petitioner’s utter surprise, the 3rd respondent issued the proceedings dated 26.6.2024 impugned in the present writ petition calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,98,841/- stated to be the balance Consent fee , which was determined on the basis of the G.Os referred to above. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had already paid the requisite fee for CTO, as per the fee fixed at the time of granting mining lease, which was granted up to 30.4.2024. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had already paid the requisite fee for CTO, as per the fee fixed at the time of granting mining lease, which was granted up to 30.4.2024. When such is the position, he contends that the impugned demand is not sustainable in as much as the 3rd respondent is insisting for payment for renewal of CTO with retrospective effect. He also contends that when G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 is superseded by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, the petitioner cannot be called upon to pay the Consent fee for the period from 14.3.2023 to 30.4.2024. He further submits that as the CTO was granted to the petitioner up to 30.4.2024, if at all the respondents are entitled to levy fee, it is from 01.5.2024 as per G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, but not prior to 30.4.2024. 5. The learned counsel submits that the issue with regard to the orders in G.O.Ms. No.13, dated 26.2.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 fell for consideration in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023, and by an order dated 30.8.2023 the Division Bench was inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the demand raised against the petitioner therein and issued directions to grant CTO on payment of fee, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023. The learned counsel submits that in the light of the said decision, the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief sought for. 6. Mr.Y.Soma Raju, learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 does not dispute the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to the orders passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material on record. 8. The issuance of CTO to the petitioner up to 30.4.2024 on payment of fee at the time the application was initially made by the petitioner is not in dispute. However, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the CTO, it was asked to pay Consent fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,23,509/- on 11.6.2024 (Ex.P.5). So far as the said amount is concerned, it is in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, which reflects renewal fee from 01.5.2024 to 30.4.2026. However, when the petitioner applied for renewal of the CTO, it was asked to pay Consent fee in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 and the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,23,509/- on 11.6.2024 (Ex.P.5). So far as the said amount is concerned, it is in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, which reflects renewal fee from 01.5.2024 to 30.4.2026. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the CTO was granted initially up to 30.4.2024, the demand made by the 3rd respondent by impugned letter calling upon the petitioner to pay the balance of Rs.2,98,841/- on the basis of G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 and the subsequent G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 is not sustainable. In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.14057 of 2023, dated 30.8.2023, wherein it is categorically held that G.O.Ms.No.13, dated 26.2.2021 or / and G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023 cannot be given retrospective effect and that the same shall be applied only prospectively after the expiry of the validity period of the CTO. The Division Bench at paragraph No.18 of the judgment observed as follows: 18. The expression “from the date of issue of this notification” in G.O.Ms.No.13 and the expression “shall come into force from the date of publication of this notification in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette” in G.O.Ms.No.10 refers the applicability of the G.O.Ms.Nos.13 and 10 respectively, with respect to the fresh applications or the applications for renewal for CTO and CTE and in this way both the G.O.Ms.Nos.13 and 10 are made to operate prospectively. 9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the decision referred to above, the writ petition is allowed, declaring that the demand of Rs.2,98,841/- towards balance Consent fee for processing the renewal application of the petitioner is not sustainable. As the petitioner has paid the requisite renewal fee of Rs.1,23,500/- for two years i.e., from 01.5.2024 to 30.4.2026, in terms of G.O.Ms.No.10, dated 14.2.2023, the petitioner’s application shall be considered for renewal of CTO, without further demand. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.