DEVINDER GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS, including a retired engineer- in-chief, A. P. transco, belong to various sections of society. Petitioners 3 to 6 and others are stated to have formed an association called "pulichintala project porata sambhavana committee". They claim that this association includes the affected farmers of guntur and nalgonda districts whose agricultural lands are situate near the proposed site of pulichintala project and to safeguard the interests of the people living in twelve villages situated in nalgonda and guntur districts, whose lands are likely to be submerged if the project is allowed to commence at the site, this writ petition has been filed as public interest litigation on 30-9-2004. The writ petition challenges the action of the respondents in commencing the pulichintala project for the purpose of stabilizing the command area under prakasham barrage. Inter alia, it is alleged that the respondents have decided to commence the pulichintala project without obtaining environmental clearance, as envisaged under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Without obtaining such consent, the petitioners allege that the work of the proposed project cannot be commenced.

( 2 ) RULE nisi was issued in the writ petition on 4-10-2004. The petitioners also filed miscellaneous application, viz. , W. P. m. p. No. 23349 of 2004, praying for issuance of directions that the respondents be restrained from finalizing the tender process and not to commence the construction work of the project during the pendency of the writ petition. Time was sought to file counter affidavit and reply to the miscellaneous application. In the meanwhile, apprehending likelihood of passing some interim orders a number of miscellaneous applications have been filed by some individuals and associations for being impleaded as party respondents to the writ petition and to permit them to submit their views before the court. The said applications were also taken up for consideration. In view of the averments made in the implead applications, they are ordered.

( 3 ) THE main relief sought by the petitioners in the writ petition is to declare the action of the respondents in taking steps to commence the construction work of the pulichintala project without obtaining environmental clearance from the central government as arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural Justice and contrary to the notification dated 27-1-1994 issued by the first respondent. The second relief sought in the petition is to direct the respondents to shift and relocate the pulichintala project to an alternate location immediately after the confluence of muneru tributary.

( 4 ) WHEN we commenced hearing, learned counsel for the parties were asked to address us only on the question of grant of an interim relief, if any, as prayed for by the petitioners on the ground that environmental clearance has not been obtained. On the other aspects raised in the petition, we pointed out the said questions would arise for consideration only after this question is answered. Learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that since elaborate arguments on the points of environmental clearance have been addressed, the writ petition itself can be disposed of.

( 5 ) SUBMISSIONS were made on the question that whether or not it is obligatory on the part of the state government to obtain environmental clearance prior to commencement of the project work in any manner whatsoever or whether the work undertaken is such which would not require the said clearance. Arguments were also addressed on behalf of the state government that though it was bound to obtain necessary environmental clearance before the commencement of the work but by entrusting the construction work to M/s. Srinivasa construction company after evaluation of the tenders and acceptance thereof, the only work undertaken at the site is only to assess soil strata which is a part of foundation investigation along with dam acc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document