Dismissed

Patlola Karthik Reddy v. Union of India

NGT2 Apr 2026Original Application No. 47/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application challenging the Musi River Front Development Project for allegedly lacking Environmental Clearance, the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone held that since the authorities had already applied for required clearances, the application was premature and closed as such.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is closed as premature. No declarations were granted.

Patlola Karthik Reddy vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.01:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Thursday, the 2^nd day of April 2026.

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶5

Original Application No.47 of 2026 (SZ)

¶6

IN THE MATTER OF:

¶7

Patlola Karthik Reddy

¶8

S/o. Late Patlola Indra Reddy Aged about 41 years, Occ: Politician R/o. H. No. 34/9, SBH Colony, Phase 2, Near Satya Sai Nigamam, Sri Nagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500 073.

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,

¶11

Jorbagh, New Delhi – 110 003.

¶12

2. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Jal Shakti Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶13

3. The Central Water Commission, Represented by its Secretary, 3^rd Floor, (South) Sewa Bhavan

¶14

R.K. Puram, Sector – 1, New Delhi – 110066.

¶15

4. The Central Monitoring Committee Represented by its Secretary,

¶16

Ministry of Jal Shakti

¶17

Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi.

¶18

5. The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) Represented by its Member Secretary Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jorbagh, New-Delhi – 110003.

¶19

6. The National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA) Represented by its Chairman Central Water Commission 3^rd Floor, (South) Sewa Bhavan

¶20

Page 1 of 4

¶21

R.K. Puram Sector – 1, New Delhi – 110066.

¶22

7. The State of Telangana

¶23

Represented by its Chief Secretary, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad – 500022.

¶24

8. The Musi River Front Development Corporation Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, Ground Floor, ENC-PH Building, MA&UD Campus Opposite PTI Building, Masab Tank, Hyderabad Telangana – 500004.

¶25

9. The Telangana State Pollution Control Board

¶26

Represented by its Joint Chief Environmental Engineer A-3, Paryavaran Bhavan, Sanath Nagar Road Sanath Nagar Industrial Estate Hyderabad, Telangana – 500018.

¶27

10. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Represented by its Metropolitan Commissioner Swarna Jayanti Complex, Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar, Srinivasa Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad – 500038. Telangana State.

¶28

11. The Irrigation & CAD Department

¶29

Represented by Engineer-in-Chief 4F-39, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad – 22.

¶30

12. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (HoFF), Environmental, Forest, Science and Technology Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Telangana Secretariat, Hyderabad – 22.

¶31

13. The Hyderabad Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Represented by its Managing Director Administrative Office Building, Khairtabad, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500 004.

¶32

...Respondent(s)

¶33

For Applicant(s): Mr. T.N. Rajagopalan a/w. M/s. N. Suresh Sah, N. Balasubramaniam. For Respondent(s): Mr. Rajinikanth Reddy, AAG a/w. Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for State of Telangana. Mr. Srinath Sridevan, Sr. Adv. for MFDC. Ms. Sarada M Ajith represented Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for TGPCB & HMDA.

¶34

CORAM :

¶35

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶36

HON’BLE Dr. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶37

Page 2 of 4

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

1. The above application has been filed challenging the actions of Respondent Nos.7 and 8, in particular the 8^th Respondent, namely, the Musi River Front Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (MFDC), which has not obtained Environmental Clearance from the MoEF&CC, despite the project falling under Category ‘A’ and coming within the ambit of Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶40

2. It is further alleged that the project area lies within 10 km of Mrugavani National Park, and that no Detailed Project Report has been prepared regarding the Maximum Flood Level, Full Tank Level, or demarcation of the floodplain zone, among other requirements.

¶41

3. Hence, the applicant seeks a declaration that the proposed Gandhi Sarovar Project under the Musi River Front Development Project, undertaken without Environmental Clearance, is in violation of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986; the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and other applicable laws.

¶42

4. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned AAG, Mr. Rajinikanth Reddy, appearing for the State of Telangana and the learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Srinath Sridevan, for the 8^th Respondent, who were present, submitted that an application for Environmental Clearance has already been filed and that the SEIAA, Telangana has issued the Terms of

¶43

Page 3 of 4

¶44

Reference (ToR). Based on the ToR, the EIA is presently under preparation. The said statement is recorded.

¶45

5. Since the authorities have already applied for the required clearances and approvals, the applicant cannot raise objections at this stage. It is open to the applicant to raise objections only after the Environmental Clearance is granted, if it is found to be in violation of the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶46

6. In view of the above, the Original Application [O.A.

¶47

No. 47 of 2026 (SZ)] is closed as premature.

¶48

Sd/-
Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM
Sd/-
Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM
O.A. No.47/2026(SZ)
02 nd April, 2026. NS.

¶49

Page 4 of 4

Patlola Karthik Reddy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patlola Karthik Reddy 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

Dr.Mgr-Janaki College of Arts and Science for Women Alumni Associationrep by Its Secretary Ms. Sarjana S vs the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board Rep by Its Member Secretary

Bhagyashree Pancholy vs State of Rajasthan

Shailesh Kumar Singh vs the State of West Bengal through Principal Secretary

Arun Tiwari vs

Deepank Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Dhenupuri Housing Colony, Kannadasan Avenue, Seethalakshmi Nagar Welfare Association, a Registered Society, Rep by Its President, D.Ravi vs the Secretary, State Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Brackish Water Research Centre vs Ministry of Environment & Forest

Nitin Saxena vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

Anantha Seetharam Reddy vs State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Anantha Seetharam Reddy vs State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 1/2026 in Original Application No. 19/2026 of Anantha Seetharam Reddy vs State of Telangana Rep. by Its Principal Secretary. Irrigation and Cad Department

Paramesh Baligolla vs Chief Secretary Govt of Andhra Pradesh

K. Balamurugan vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Dhenupuri Housing Colony, Kannadasan Avenue, Seethalakshmi Nagar Welfare Association, a Registered Society, Rep by Its President, D.Ravi vs the Secretary, State Urban Development Department, Govt. of Tamil Nadu