VEDIRE VENKATA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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.