IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
Vennapusa Siva Sankar Reddy S/o V. Pulla Reddy - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of AP Rep. By its chief secretary, A.P. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 7163 OF 2025
Decided On : 25-03-2025
(A) Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Notification dated 14.09.2006 - Environmental clearance process - Petitioners challenged the issuance of a public hearing notification for expansion of a cement factory, alleging violations of natural justice and suppression of facts regarding environmental impacts - The court emphasized the importance of public consultation and the right of affected parties to raise grievances during the process. (Paras 5, 11, 27)
(B) Locus Standi - The court affirmed the petitioners' standing to file the writ petition, recognizing their status as residents of the affected villages and their right to participate in the public consultation process. (Paras 16, 27)
(C) Procedural Compliance - The court highlighted the necessity for the regulatory authority to consider all material concerns raised during public consultations before making a decision on environmental clearance. (Paras 24, 27)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners, residents of villages affected by the expansion of a cement factory, filed a writ petition against the public hearing notification, claiming it violated principles of natural justice and failed to consider environmental reports.
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners have the right to participate in the public consultation process and that their grievances must be addressed by the regulatory authority.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the public hearing notification and the petitioners' locus standi.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the petitioners have the right to be heard and that the regulatory authority must consider their objections during the public consultation process.
Result: Writ petition disposed of with directions for public consultation.
JUDGMENT :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
Heard Sri K. S. Murthy, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K. Guru Raja, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Yelisetty Soma Raju, learned standing counsel for the respondents 3 & 4 and Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, learned counsel for the 11th respondent. Ms. K. Vijayeswari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appears for the respondents 1, 2, 6, 7 & 8.
2. Learned counsels for the respondents advanced the arguments. They did not pray for counter affidavit.
3. The 11th respondent-M/s.Dalmia Cements (Bharath) Limited, (Cement Division), Y. S. R. Kadapa District, had constructed and established its Cement Factory in 2006. It applied for expansion of cement production unit from 4.6 M.T.P.A to 12.6 M.T.P.A and mining unit from 3.819 to 11.32 M.T.P.A. and for that purpose for environmental clearance.
4. The Environment Engineer of A. P. Pollution Control Board, respondents 3 and 4 published Public Hearing Notification dated 21.02.2025 (in short ‘the Notification, dated 21.02.2025’), on the proposal of M/s.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited for expansion of Nawabpeta Talamanchipatnam Limestone Mine from 3.819 to 11.32 MTPA, 1.51 MTPA of OB and 0.76 MTPA of Soil (total excavation 13.59 MTPA) in the Mine Lease area of 407.05 Ha., located in Nawabpeta & Talmanchipatnam Villages, Mylavaram (M), YSR Kadapa District, giving details of the Project, fixing the date 27.03.2025 at 12.30 p.m, at the specified Venue, near Solar Power Plant of M/s.Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, Nawabpeta & Dugganapalli Villages, Mylavaram Mandal, YSR District for public hearing. The Notification has invited the concerns of the local affected people, if any, on the proposed project, within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification, in writing to the Environmental Officer, of the A. P. Pollution Control Board, YSR District, as also to participate in the proceedings of the public hearing on the specified date and venue.
5. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for declaring the action of the respondent authorities in processing the application of the 11th respondent for enhanced capacity of factory and mine, as also in issuing publication of the Notification dated 21.02.2025, on the grounds of being violative of the principles of natural justice, illegality and arbitrariness, submitting that the processing of the application was made without referring to the reports of the Irrigation Department regarding flooding etc., i.e., causing environmental pollutions, without waiting for the report of the High Level Committee constituted by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.90 dated 17.12.2024.
6. Sri K. S. Murthy, learned senior Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that the 11th respondent in his application for expansion (Ex.P10), inForm-I, under Point-II Activity, 1-Table, at Serial No.1.24, filled ‘No’.Sl.No.1.24 is as under:
“Changes in water bodies or the land surface affecting drainage or run-off?”
In the Column of Details, in the same table, against same Sl.No.1.24, the 11th respondent mentioned as under;
“There will be no change in water bodies or the land surface affecting drainage or run-off. Topography of the area is more or less flat; which may require little leveling for construction of new Line and Solar Power Plant”.
7. Learned senior Advocate submitted that the information so furnished or the details submitted by the 11th respondent ‘No’ as also in the remarks column, are not correct. There is suppression of fact. He submitted that in the year 2006, without considering the objections raised, the clearance was issued by the official respondents and the 11th respondent constructed and established its cement factory occupying the flood plains. The cement factory was constructed adjacent to the main stream of Chinnakommerla, Duggana palle village, Mylavaram mandalam, YSR Kadapa District. On the opposite side bit up stream, of the nat
The court affirmed the right of affected parties to participate in public consultations regarding environmental clearances, emphasizing the need for regulatory authorities to consider all material co....
The court held that the petitioner has the right to challenge relocation recommendations based on potential harm to its interests, reinforcing the need for a thorough review process under environment....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amended notification can apply retrospectively and not infringe the procedural law of holding public hearing.
Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance - It is a trite law that a writ cannot be issued on ground of violation of principles of natural justice if only one conclusion is possible in a given si....
The court affirmed that any expansion exceeding specified limits under the EIA Notification requires prior Environmental Clearance, emphasizing rigorous compliance with environmental assessment proce....
Court held that amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, which shifted authority and reduced public consultation, were unconstitutional and violated environmental protections u....
The court ruled that amendments extending environmental clearance validity violate statutory and constitutional mandates, undermining effective environmental governance and public interest.
The notification extending environmental clearance validity without proper consultation is unconstitutional, undermining environmental protection statutes.
The court ruled the retrospective effect of the environmental clearance extension under the EIA Notification violates legal provisions, rendering it unconstitutional.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.