ORDER : This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner, who is engaged in the business of Shrimp processing and operating an unit, which is stated to be in reviving stage and commenced its production in the month of February, 2024. Challenging the proceedings of the 3rd respondent dated 08.08.2024, in issuing the closure orders under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act-1974 (for short “the Act”), the present Writ Petition is filed on various grounds. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to change in the dispensation of the State of Andhra Pradesh, entertaining an anonymous complaint dated 26.06.2024, alleged to have been made by the public residing in the nearby villages against the petitioner, a showcause notice dated 29.06.2024 was issued referring to the observations made by the A.P. Pollution Control Board officials during the inspection conducted on 26.06.2024. He submits that the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 12.07.2024 setting out the various measures taken by the petitioner unit, that after submitting the said reply, the respondent authorities entertained one more complaint dated 01.08.2024 stated to have been made by the public and with reference to the same, submitted a report dated 03.08.2024. In so far as the said complaint and the report dated 03.08.2024, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner by calling for explanation and on the other hand, the 3rd respondent issued the order impugned in the writ petition without considering the reply dated 12.07.2024, objectively. He contends that though hearing with reference to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner was conducted on 08.08.2024, even before conclusion of the proceedings which went upto 5.30 p.m., the impugned order came to be passed at 4.34 p.m., as is discernable from the impugned order. It is his contention that in fact the impugned order was made ready on 05.08.2024 and even before the minutes of the meeting dated 08.08.2024 were drawn, the impugned proceedings have been issued. 3. The learned counsel further contends that the order of the 3rd respondent is cryptic and there is no consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and no reasons were assigned as to why the reply merits no consideration. He also submits that as the impugned order is bereft of reasons, the same is vitiated. 3. The learned counsel further contends that the order of the 3rd respondent is cryptic and there is no consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner and no reasons were assigned as to why the reply merits no consideration. He also submits that as the impugned order is bereft of reasons, the same is vitiated. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel places reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.N.Mukherjee v Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and State Bank of India and others v Rajesh Agarwal and Others (2023) 6 SCC 1 . Learned counsel while stating that about 400 Tonnes of Shrimp are ready for export, the same are perishable goods, pleads that unless the power supply which is disconnected pursuant to the order impugned in the Writ Petition is directed to be restored, the petitioner would suffer heavy losses. He also submits that the Cold Storage Unit of the petitioner shall continuously maintain the temperature of (-)18° degrees Celsius and if the same is not maintained, it may lead to breakage of ammonia condensers and lead to serious repercussions. Making the said submissions, he seeks the interim reliefs as prayed for. He also refers to a decision of a co-ordinate 1 2 Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15944 of 2024, dated 31.07.2024, wherein one of us (Smt. Justice Sumathi Jagadam) is a member. 4. On the other hand Mr. Vishnu Teja, learned Special Government Pleader along with Mr.Somaraju Yelisetti appearing on behalf of the Pollution Control Board made submissions referring to the objects of the Act and the relevant provisions. He contends that the writ petition itself is not maintainable and that an Appeal lies before the National Green Tribunal under Section 33B of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. While stating that the proceedings dated 05.12.2022 granting CTO (Consent To Operate) to the petitioner Unit, which contains the conditions was not filed. The learned counsel contends that as the petitioner failed to comply / adhere to the conditions, a showcause notice dated 29.06.2024 was issued after thorough inspection of the petitioner’s unit. While stating that the proceedings dated 05.12.2022 granting CTO (Consent To Operate) to the petitioner Unit, which contains the conditions was not filed. The learned counsel contends that as the petitioner failed to comply / adhere to the conditions, a showcause notice dated 29.06.2024 was issued after thorough inspection of the petitioner’s unit. He submits that though the petitioner submitted a reply dated 15.07.2024, from a reading of which it is clear that no steps have been taken for conducting the operations of the petitioner unit in terms of the CTO and even on 08.08.2024, the petitioner sought further time for complying with the conditions, which itself shows that the petitioner is carrying on the operations of shrimp processing unit with gross violations and causing many pollution problems. He submits that though Section 33A of the Act which empowers the authorities to initiate action for closure of the polluting industry does not contemplate issuance of a showcause notice, yet in compliance with the principles of natural justice an opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and after considering its reply, the proceedings dated 08.08.2024 have been issued. 5. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Kosher Pharmaceutical Private Limited v State of Telangana 2020 SCC OnLine learned counsel submits that interpreting Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act and Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the said Division Bench opined that neither of the said provisions require that the principles of natural justice should be followed. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the said case, the Court directed the 2nd respondent to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein, as a post decisional hearing and to give him sufficient time to rectify the defects without setting aside the closure notice. In any event, the learned counsel contends that in the present case, the principles of natural justice have been complied with before passing the impugned order in the Writ Petition and therefore no interference is called for by this Court, more particularly in view of the availability of alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 33B of the Act. Making the said submissions he seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. Making the said submissions he seeks for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 6. In a short reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed under Section 33A of the Act, according to his TS 1029 instructions, an appeal lies to the Appellate Authority to be constituted by the State Government and but the same has not been constituted so far. Be that as it may. Hhe submits that as it is the case of the petitioner that there is violation of principles of natural justice, remedy of appeal is not a bar for maintaining the present Writ Petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. On consideration of the rival submissions, the point for consideration by this Court is – Whether the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice or the petitioner has to be relegated to the remedy of appeal as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent authorities? 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner as mentioned earlier, inter alia, contended that the order under challenge is violative of principles of natural justice and in fact, issued before the conclusion of meeting by the External Authority Committee (EAC). However, this court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects and confine to the legal contentions regarding the violation of principles of natural justice. 10. As seen from the record, to the show cause notice dated 29.06.2024, the petitioner submitted a reply dated 12.07.2024 and thereafter, it would appear that another complaint dated 01.08.2024 alleging pollution of water was made against the petitioner and the Pollution Control Board officials conducted an inspection on 02.08.2024 with regard to the compliance status pursuant to the reply submitted by the petitioner and submitted a report dated 03.08.2024. Subsequently, the EAC conducted a hearing and recommended the issuance of a closure order. Though the impugned order refers to the observations of the Board officials about non-compliances, except referring to the recommendations of the EAC, no independent reasons were assigned by the 3rd respondent considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. 11. Subsequently, the EAC conducted a hearing and recommended the issuance of a closure order. Though the impugned order refers to the observations of the Board officials about non-compliances, except referring to the recommendations of the EAC, no independent reasons were assigned by the 3rd respondent considering the reply submitted by the petitioner. 11. In S.N. Mukherjee case (supra), a Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, held that “the requirement to record reasons can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities.” In Rajesh Agarwal case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that “the principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities, they constitute substantive obligations that need to be followed by the decision making and adjudicating authorities”. It also held that ‘every order or proceeding which involves civil consequences or adversely affects a citizen should be in accordance with the principles of natural justice.” 12. In Kosher Pharmaceutical case (supra), the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Telangana High Court while rejecting the contentions with regard to denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner therein before issuing the closure notice, however, opined that a post-decisional hearing can always be given by the Pollution Control Board to the erring unit to rectify the defects or violations committed by the erring unit. In the case on hand, though such an opportunity was afforded, if the 3rd respondent is of the opinion that there is non-compliance with the defects / violations, he should have passed an independent order assigning the reasons by considering the reply of the petitioner. The order under challenge, in the opinion of this Court is violative of principles of natural justice and not sustainable in the light of the expressions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra. 13. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the premise that the statute provides for remedy of appeal against the impugned order is not sustainable. 14. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 is set aside, solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 15. 14. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.08.2024 is set aside, solely on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. 15. Considering the submission that the 400 Tonnes of stocks (shrimp) are presently in the unit in question, which are perishable in nature, and the cold storage unit has to be maintained at (-)18° of Celsius temperature, that in view of the disconnection of power supply there is an imminent danger / occurrence of blasting of ammonia condensers, which may lead to serious repercussions, pending consideration of the matter afresh by the 3rd respondent, the power supply to the petitioner unit shall be restored. Further, the 3rd respondent shall pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of one (01) week from the date of this order. Thereafter, the petitioner shall rectify the defects / violations within a period of two (02) weeks, failing which it would be open to the respondent authorities to take appropriate action, as per Law. No costs. 16. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.