JUDGMENT : Ravi Nath Tilhari, J. Heard Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y. Soma Raju, learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri N. Srihari, learned counsel for the 14 th respondent. 2. Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned standing counsel, appears for the 8 th respondent – Ungutur Gram Panchayat, Ms. M. Anusha, learned counsel, representing the learned Government Pleader for Industries, appears for the respondents No.11 and 12, Sri M. Srinu Babu, learned Assistant Government Pleader, appears for the 13 th respondent, and they submit that the main contest is between the petitioner and the respondents No.5 and 14. 3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Kodali Rajendra Prasad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order vide Letter No.1672/APPCB/RO-ELR/2025, dated 22.01.2025 passed by the 5 th respondent – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (in short ‘APPCB’), Regional Office, Eluru, represented by its Environmental Engineer, in rejecting the petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2023 for cancellation of the Consent to Operation (in short ‘CTO’) granted by the 5 th respondent to 14 th respondent –M/s. Green Asia Impex Private Limited, West Godavari District. I. Facts: 4. The 14 th respondent – M/s. Green Asia Impex Private Limited, West Godavari District is a processed shrimp/fish unit to produce processed shrimp/fish of capacity 10 TPD & Ice – 10 TPD. The APPCB issued Consent to Operation (CTO) to the said industry on 22.04.2022 by stipulating certain conditions therein and the validity of the said CTO was up to 31.03.2027. The 14 th respondent commenced operations during May, 2022. The raw material (raw shrimp) capacity of the industry is 15 TPD, which generates 150 KLD of wastewater for processing of 15 tons of raw shrimp. It provided Effluent Treatment Plant (in short ‘ETP’) of capacity of 300 KLD for treatment of wastewater. The treated wastewater from ETP is being utilized for greenbelt development within lease lands of an extent of 16.9 acres adjacent to the industry. The said area includes Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.677/2A purchased by the 14 th respondent under registered document No.3263/2017. It also includes 12 acres of land allegedly leased by the petitioner vide Lease Document dated 18.10.2021 and the rest area under the lease from other persons. The said area includes Ac.1.43 cents in Sy.No.677/2A purchased by the 14 th respondent under registered document No.3263/2017. It also includes 12 acres of land allegedly leased by the petitioner vide Lease Document dated 18.10.2021 and the rest area under the lease from other persons. The 14 th respondent was also issued ‘No Objection Certificate’ by the Gram Panchayat. 5. The petitioner filed representations dated 07.08.2023, 25.09.2023, 11.10.2023 and 29.01.2024 to the respondent authorities, including the present respondents No.4 and 5 – APPCB, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam and APPCB, Regional Office, Eluru respectively, submitting that the alleged lease by the petitioner was the result of fraud and forgery. The said lease deed was also unregistered. Further submitting that, in getting ‘no objection certificate’ from the Gram Panchayat authorities, the 14 th respondent misrepresented that there was 30 feet width road of gram panchayat, whereas the same was not the gram panchayat road, but was private puntha being used by the owners and possessor of Sy.Nos.686/3, 686/2A, 686/2B, 685/2C, 685/2A, 685/2B and 685/1 of Ungutur village, lying in Sy.Nos.686/1B and 677/2B. The same was also used by the owner in Sy.Nos.686/1A, 686/2A and 677/2A. The width of the said puntha was only 13 feet and not 30 feet and it was a private puntha. Based on the misrepresentation of the 14 th respondent ‘no objection certificate’ was granted, and inter alia considering the ‘no objection certificate’ CTO was also issued. Some other objections were also raised in the petitioner’s representations. However, when no action was taken on those representations, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14036 of 2024 which was disposed of vide Order dated 07.01.2025 with a direction to the 8 th respondent therein – the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, to examine the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2023 in accordance with law. 6. The 5 th respondent herein – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Eluru, represented by its Environmental Engineer, by Order dated 22.01.2025 decided the representation of the petitioner. By the said Order inter alia it was held that at present the industry was complying the APPCB consent conditions. It also recorded the latest status that the analysis results were meeting the Board standards. The 14 th respondent was operating the industrial operations with valid consent of APPCB and meeting the consent conditions. By the said Order inter alia it was held that at present the industry was complying the APPCB consent conditions. It also recorded the latest status that the analysis results were meeting the Board standards. The 14 th respondent was operating the industrial operations with valid consent of APPCB and meeting the consent conditions. In point-5 of its Order, the 5 th respondent recorded that the 14 th respondent industry submitted lease land documents for 16.9 acres at the time of Consent to Establish (in short ‘CTE’) permission for treated wastewater utilization. Out of 16.9 acres, the lease land, the industry had obtained 12 acres of land from the petitioner on lease basis on 18.10.2021 valid up to 17.10.2027. 7. The respondents Nos. 5 and 14 have filed counter affidavits to which petitioner has filed the reply affidavit. The rest of the respondents have not filed the counter affidavits. II. Submissions of the learned counsels: i) For the Petitioner: 8. Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lease agreement dated 18.10.2021 for 12 acres alleged to be executed by the petitioner in favour of 14 th respondent was forged and fabricated. He submitted that the 14 th respondent filed O.S.No.396 of 2023 pending in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem for injunction against the present petitioner to restrain him from interfering with the discharge of the processing water into plaint-A schedule property, i.e., the land of the defendant/possessor, leased out to the plaintiff (14 th respondent), till the expiration of the lease period up to 17.10.2027, with some further reliefs. In the said suit, the petitioner filed written statement. The Trial Court granted injunction. The 14 th respondent further filed O.S.No.68 of 2024 in which the petitioner filed written statement disputing the signatures of the petitioner on the lease agreement dated 18.10.2021 and termed the same being nothing, but forged one. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.444 of 2023 against the 14 th respondent and impleading two more defendants for permanent injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property, with prayer for direction to the defendants therein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and not to destroy the boundaries. The petitioner also filed O.S.No.444 of 2023 against the 14 th respondent and impleading two more defendants for permanent injunction with respect to the plaint schedule property, with prayer for direction to the defendants therein not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and not to destroy the boundaries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the pending litigation of three suits, the 5 th respondent ought to have allowed the petitioner’s representation as the alleged lease deed by the petitioner was not established, but was the result of forgery. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran , [ (2006) 1 SCC 228 ] to contend that ‘litigious possession’ does not connote a valid legal right to continue in possession, and that the occupation without consent is wrongful occupation. He contended that since there is a dispute with respect to the lease deed, besides it being unregistered, and three suits being pending referring to the said lease deed, the lease deed is sub judice in the Civil Court. So, the possession of the 14 th respondent being litigious possession, based on such unregistered and disputed lease deed, the 14 th respondent could not acquire a valid right for grant of Consent of Establishment and Consent to Operate, which should have been withdrawn or revoked on the petitioner’s representation. 10. Sri M. R. S. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, further submitted that the consent to operate order granted to the 14 th respondent contained the conditions in the said Order itself and one of the conditions, under Schedule-B, Special Conditions-1 was that: “The Industry shall submit registered lease deed for 15.22 acres leased land acquired adjacent to the industry within 1 month”. He further submitted that Condition No.33 of the Order also provided that: “Concealing the factual data or submission of false information / fabricated data and failure to comply with any of the conditions mentioned in this order may result in withdrawal of this order and attract action under the provisions of relevant pollution control Acts”. He further submitted that Condition No.33 of the Order also provided that: “Concealing the factual data or submission of false information / fabricated data and failure to comply with any of the conditions mentioned in this order may result in withdrawal of this order and attract action under the provisions of relevant pollution control Acts”. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that as per those conditions, the lease document required from the industry/14 th respondent was to be a registered lease deed, and so, even if it be taken for the time being that there was a lease deed by the petitioner, but admittedly and apparently the same being unregistered, the 5 th respondent ought to have withdrawn the Order of Consent to Operate, which was apparently issued on misrepresentation and the 14 th respondent failed to comply with the condition No.1 of Schedule-B. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Order dated 22.01.2025 also does not address all the grievances raised in the representation, particularly with regard to the lease deed being unregistered; the alleged private puntha/land its width, and the misrepresentation made to the authorities with respect to it being Gram Panchayat land or/and its width being 30 feet instead of 13 feet. ii) For the 5 th Respondent: 12. Sri Y. Soma Raju, learned standing counsel for the 5 th respondent, submitted that there was no dispute on the facts of the grant of Consent for Establishment and Consent to Operate based on lease deed dated 18.10.2021. He submitted that on receipt of the information of W.P.No.14036 of 2024 previously filed by the petitioner, on 24.10.2024 the APPCB officials inspected the 14 th respondent industry and its surroundings and some non-compliances of Consent to Operate order were observed during inspection. So, on 18.11.2024 the APPCB issued notice to the industry and directed to submit the compliance within 30 days time. On receipt of the said notice, the 14 th respondent complied the consent conditions which were verified. The analysis report dated 08.11.2024 showed that the 14 th respondent was meeting the APPCB standards for the outlet of ETP stipulated in CTO Order. On receipt of another notice dated 17.12.2024 also the industry had submitted compliance status and complied the non-compliances. On receipt of the said notice, the 14 th respondent complied the consent conditions which were verified. The analysis report dated 08.11.2024 showed that the 14 th respondent was meeting the APPCB standards for the outlet of ETP stipulated in CTO Order. On receipt of another notice dated 17.12.2024 also the industry had submitted compliance status and complied the non-compliances. He further submitted that the 14 th respondent also submitted soil test report from A. P. Agriculture Department for treated water utilization land and as per the analysis report, it was revealed that the soil was suitable for cultivation. He submitted that after the order passed in W.P.No.14036 of 2024, the Order dated 22.01.2025 was passed by the 5 th respondent. 13. Learned counsel for the 5 th respondent further submitted that there was a Memo dated 25.07.2006, referring to another Memo dated 16.10.1999, annexed to the counter whereby, the A. P. Pollution Control Board directed all the Zonal Officers and Regional Officers that as per the liberalization policies of the Government, the Board considered that all the Zonal Officers and Regional Officers shall accept and process applications of the industries who were taking land on lease basis. He referred to this document to contend that in the said memo, there is no reference to the registered lease deed. iii) For the 14 th Respondent: 14. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate for the 14 th respondent, submitted that the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 28 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, so, the writ petition deserves not to be entertained. 15. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, further submitted that the farmers were not intending to execute the registered lease deed and they insisted for unregistered lease deed, may be notarized, and consequently, the registered lease deed from the petitioner also, could not be obtained and submitted. But, the lease deed was executed and it is not a case of forgery or fraud. In any case, he submitted that the plea to that effect has been taken by the present petitioner in the written statement in O.S.No.68 of 2024 filed by the 14 th respondent and would require consideration in the said suit in due course of time subject to the contentions raised and issues framed in the suit. In any case, he submitted that the plea to that effect has been taken by the present petitioner in the written statement in O.S.No.68 of 2024 filed by the 14 th respondent and would require consideration in the said suit in due course of time subject to the contentions raised and issues framed in the suit. He submitted that the 14 th respondent submitted a letter dated 04.09.2020 to the Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, A. P. Pollution Control Board, Visakhapatnam, with respect to the condition No.1 in Schedule-B that the industry asked the adjacent land farmers the land on lease basis through registered lease deed, but they did not accept the proposal and came forward to give notarized lease documents which were submitted in original for Consent for Establishment (CFE) and requested to consider the said request. He submitted that when such lease deed was presented before the authority and the authority found that the 14 th respondent fulfilled the requirement and accepted and granted Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, no illegality can be found on the ground of non-compliance with Condition No.1 in Schedule-B. 16. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Senior Advocate, further submitted that the condition with respect to the registered lease deed was only directory and not mandatory by referring to any statute. Even if the lease deed in case of the 14 th respondent was unregistered but when based on the Consent to Establish industry was established, and it was also operating after obtaining Consent to Operate for more than three years and the present petitioner previously did not raise any objection and raised for the first time by making representation only in the year 2023, the APPCB was justified in not withdrawing or cancelling the Consent to Establish or to Operate. He referred to Section 27 (2) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 to contend that the Board has power to review any conditions, and therefore, by grant of Consent to Operate and Consent to Establish, acting upon the unregistered lease deed, it can be taken that the strict compliance of Schedule-B, Condition No.1, was reviewed and relaxed. He submitted that there was no misrepresentation on the part of 14 th respondent in that regard that the lease was registered or unregistered, because on the face of the document it was unregistered and also in view of the letter dated 04.09.2020 by the 14 th respondent. iv) Reply submissions of petitioner’s counsel: 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply to the submissions of the learned counsels for the respondents No.5 and 14, submitted that it is not open to the 5 th respondent to support the Order impugned in the writ petition by taking an additional ground of the Memo dated 25.07.2006 as they had not been mentioned in the impugned Order. He submitted that any additional ground to support the impugned order by way of counter affidavit would not be permissible, citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commr. , [ (1978) 1 SCC 405 ] , in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed, referring to the judgment in Commr. Of Police, Bombay v. Gondhandas Bhanji , [ AIR 1952 SC 16 ] that “Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself”. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh , [ (2021) 6 SCC 771 ] to contend that an alternative remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. Based on the said judgment, he submitted that though there is alternative remedy against the Order impugned, but as the 14 th respondent did not submit the registered lease deed which was one of the special conditions under Schedule-B and such non-compliance being apparent, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board had no jurisdiction to issue Consent for Establishment and Consent to Operate. So, the present is a case of the Order being without jurisdiction. III. Consideration: 19. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 20. We find from the documents on record that in the previous W.P.No.14036 of 2024 filed by the petitioner, which was disposed of by this Court, direction was given to the 8 th respondent –Pollution Control Board therein to examine the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2023. The operative part of the Order dated 07.01.2025 is as under: “Without going into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent No.8-Pollution Control Board to examine the representation made by the petitioner herein dated 11.10.2023 in accordance with law and address the issue raised by the petitioner herein and communicate the said decision to the petitioner herein within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 21. The 8 th respondent in W.P.No.14036 of 2024 is: “The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer”. 22. So, the direction was given to the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer. 23. The petitioner had represented vide representation dated 11.10.2023, P6 (page-96) to the Chairman, Head Office and copy forwarded to the Zonal Office, the Regional Office and other authorities. 24. The direction was specifically given by this Court, to the 8 th respondent, the Zonal Office, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer to consider the petitioner’s representation dated 11.10.2023. 25. However, pursuant to the Order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.14036 of 2024, the representation has been considered by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Eluru by the Environmental Engineer of the Regional Office. 26. 25. However, pursuant to the Order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.14036 of 2024, the representation has been considered by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Eluru by the Environmental Engineer of the Regional Office. 26. We are of the considered view that once the direction was issued in the previous writ petition No.14036 of 2024, of the learned single Judge to a particular authority, 8 th respondent – Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, it was his duty to pass the order on the petitioner’s representation. Any other authority could not pass the order. The 5 th respondent therefore could not pass the order and so, the impugned Order passed by the 5 th respondent herein, on the face of it is without jurisdiction. 27. We are therefore of the further view that we need not enter into the merits of the contentions raised from both the sides and noted hereinabove, at this stage in the present writ petition, except the entertainability of this writ petition, on which point, we are of the view that even if there is remedy of appeal, the Order dated 22.01.2025, impugned in the present writ petition, being without jurisdiction, for the reason recorded that the same has been passed by an authority other than the authority to whom the direction was given by this Court in W.P.No.14036 of 2024, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner and pass orders thereon, such an alternative remedy would not come in the way of entertaining the present writ petition. 28. In Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the principles of law with respect to the maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in paras-27 and 28, which read as under: “ 27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where : (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with. 28. These principles have been consistently upheld by this Court in Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad [Chand Ratan v. Durga Prasad, (2003) 5 SCC 399 ] , Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot [Babubhai Muljibhai Patel v. Nandlal Khodidas Barot, (1974) 2 SCC 706 ] and Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India [Rajasthan SEB v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 632 ] among other decisions.” 29. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries (supra) also referred to the dictum in the case of Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks , [ (1998) 8 SCC 1 ] in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. v. Registrar of Trade Marks , [ (1998) 8 SCC 1 ] in which the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. In an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in at least three contingencies: (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. IV. Result: 30. Thus considered, only on the above ground, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Order dated 22.01.2025, passed by the 5 th respondent herein, is quashed, with direction to the present 4 th respondent (8 th respondent in W.P.No.14036 of 2024) i.e., Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Zonal Office, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer, to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner dated 11.10.2023, by a reasoned and speaking Order, with due opportunity to the petitioner and also to the 14 th respondent, taking into account the contentions as may be raised before the present 4 th respondent. 31. Let the Order be passed by the 4 th respondent within a period of two months from the date the copy of this order is placed before the said authority. 32. The Writ Petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. 33. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.