Dismissed

Venkatapathi Raja Yenumala v. Union of India

NGT3 Jul 2026Original Application No. 20/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, Southern Zone, disposed of an application seeking to constitute an expert committee and restrain operations following a well blowout. The Court held that the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board's actions satisfied the application's prays.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application was closed and dismissed as no further directions were needed following the actions of the APPCB.

Venkatapathi Raja Yenumala vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.02:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Friday, the 3^rd day of July, 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.20 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Venkatapathi Raja Yenumala,

¶8

H.No.2-232, Kesevadasupalem, Razolu Taluka, Sakhinetipalli Mandal, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh-533251.

Andhra Pradesh.

…Applicant(s)

Versus

1. Union of India

¶13

Through its Secretary,

¶14

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Jorbagh, New Delhi – 110003.

¶15

2. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd.,

¶16

Represented by its Chairman, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gases, Deendayal Urja Bhavan,

¶17

Vasanth Kunj, New Delhi-110070.

¶18

3. Deep Industries Ltd.,

¶19

Represented by its Managing Director, 2A & 14, Abhishree Corporate Park, Ambli Bopal Road, Ambli, Gujarat, Ahmedabad– 380058.

¶20

4. State of Andhra Pradesh,

¶21

Represented by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh-522503.

¶22

Page 1 of 5

¶23

5. Central Pollution Control Board,

¶24

Through Member Secretary, Parivesh Bhawan, CBD-Cum Office Complex, East Arjun Nagar, Delhi-110032.

¶25

6. Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board,

¶26

Represented by its Member Secretary, Chalamvari Street, Kasturibaipet, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-520010.

¶27

7. Director General, Fire Services,

¶28

Office of the Director General, State Disaster Response & Fire Services Department,

¶29

Near Police Control Room, Governorpet, Vijayawada-520002.

¶30

8. Andhra Pradesh Police Department

¶31

Represented by its Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eluru Range, Eluru, Andhra Pradesh-522501.

¶32

9. Directorate General of Mine Safety

¶33

Represented by its CIM & Director General, Dhanbad, Jharkhand-826016.

¶34

10. Directorate of Factories,

¶35

Represented by its Director of Factories, 3^rd Floor, D.No.16-72/1, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh-521225.

¶36

11. District Collector and Magistrate,

¶37

Amalapuram, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶38

…Respondent(s)

¶39

For Applicant(s): Ms. Kothai Muthu Meenal represented M/s. Sravan Kumar, Kumar Abhishek, M. Harshini, Santhosh Kumar Yadav & G. Sushmitha. For Respondent(s): Mr. K. Ravindranath for State of Andhra Pradesh. Mr. Karthik Rammohan represented M/s. S. Ramasubramaniam Associates for R2.

¶40

CORAM :

¶41

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶42

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶43

Page 2 of 5

¶44

J U D G M E N T

¶45

1. The above application is filed for the constitution of an independent Expert Committee comprising the representatives of MoEF&CC, Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB), Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board(APPCB), the Directorate General of Hydrocarbons (DGH) and a safety expert, to inspect the Mori-5 well and surrounding ONGC installations to assess the environmental and public safety risks, and conduct a cumulative environmental impact assessment and safety audit of ONGC’s oil and gas operations in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Konaseema District. Further, the applicant has sought a direction to restrain the respondents from carrying out further production enhancement or workover operations in the affected area without adequate precautionary measures, safety protocols and also have a remediation plan, including continuous air and gas monitoring and emergency preparedness.

¶46

2. Even though the matter was not admitted, a report was called for from the APPCB regarding the current status. Accordingly, the APPCB has filed a report dated 23.06.2026. In the said report, it is stated that an inspection was caused on 05.01.2026 at the incident site to ascertain the factual position.

¶47

3. The officials of ONGC have informed that the well had remained shut since 2018 and was handed over to the Protection Enhancement Contractor (PEC) operator in April 2025. On 05.01.2026, there was a blowout occurred at Mori-5, a drilling well of Petroleum and Natural Gas onshore facility engulfing about 60 Metres.

¶48

4. The said Mori-5 well was earlier maintained by the ONGC and was drilled down about 4700 Metres as a development well. The MORI GCS (Gas Collection Station) is located at 12 km away from the Mori-5 well. This indicates that the development well became a production well. A production well requires valid consent from the APPCB. The PEC operator had started the operations without obtaining a valid

¶49

Page 3 of 5

¶50

Environmental Clearance or the Consent to Establish (CTE) or Consent to Operate (CTO) from the APPCB.

¶51

5. Prima facie, the incident appears to have resulted from a technical failure on the part of the operator to prevent the blowout. An Ambient air quality monitoring station was installed at the Grama Sachivalayam, Lakkavaram Village and monitoring has been carried out for the parameters PM10, SO2, NO2 and Ammonia.

¶52

6. The APPCB has considered the reply submitted by the PEC operator. The APPCB had also issued a Stop Production Order on 23.04.2026, under Section 33(A) of the Water (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 31(A) of the Air (Prevention and Control Pollution) Act, 1981, directing ONGC well Mori-5 to immediately stop all operations. A Prosecution Notice was also issued on 18.05.2026.

¶53

7. In continuation of the actions taken by the APPCB, on 21.06.2026, a Committee was constituted to inspect and evaluate the environmental damage caused due to the blowout and the fire accident that occurred on 05.01.2026. The Committee has been entrusted with the responsibility of identifying remediation and restoration measures, assessing environmental damage using primary and secondary data from stakeholder departments, and estimating appropriate Environmental Compensation in accordance with the scientific methodology prescribed by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). The Committee was authorized to obtain assistance from domain experts, wherever required, and to submit a detailed report with specific findings and assessment of Environmental Compensation.

¶54

8. The above actions taken by the APPCB satisfy the prayer of the applicant to constitute an Expert Committee. Already the APPCB has taken regulatory action in the matter by conducting inspections, carrying out environmental monitoring, issuing a show cause notice, a stop production order, and a prosecution notice against the occupier for the violations

¶55

Page 4 of 5

¶56

observed. Further action for the computation and levy of Environmental Compensation is also being processed in accordance with the CPCB guidelines and the applicable statutory provisions.

¶57

9. In view of the above developments as reported by the APPCB, no further directions need be issued by this Tribunal and accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.20 of 2026(SZ)] is closed.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶60

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶61

O.A. No.20/2026 (SZ) 03^rd July, 2026. AD.

¶62

Page 5 of 5

Venkatapathi Raja Yenumala v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatapathi Raja Yenumala v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri vs State of Rajasthan

Mr John Phillipose vs L and T Realty Properties Ltd.

Rajesh Rangari S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal Rangari vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change through Its Secretary

International Environment Sansad through Its President vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Babu Lal and Ors. vs

E Lakshmipathy vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

N. Viswambharan vs State of Kerala

Rupesh Kalantri vs State of Maharashtra

J. Chandran vs Government of Tamilnadu

Suresh Kumar Ramisetti vs Bathula Anjaiah

Tharish Rahman vs Kerala Pollution Control Board

E Lakshmipathy vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

N. Viswambharan vs State of Kerala

N. Viswambharan vs State of Kerala