Dismissed

Sri.Annedi Srikanth Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC4 Apr 2024WP/8741/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging quarry lease renewal and EC was disposed directing petitioners to avail remedy under Section 16 of National Green Tribunal Act as statutory alternative. General principles on writ jurisdiction and alternative remedies were discussed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to avail remedy before National Green Tribunal; miscellaneous applications closed.

Sri.Annedi Srikanth Reddy Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

wRlT PETITION NO: 5131 OF 2024

¶7

Between:

¶8

N Sundaraiah, S/o Kanthaiah, Age. 62 years, Occ. Retd. Headmaster, R/o. H.No. 19-49-101, Ayyappanagar, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District.

¶9

Surakarapu Parvathalu, S/o Naraiah, Age. 39^years, occ. Agriculture, Kondabimenapalle, Kacharam village, Nalgonda District, 508248.

¶10

Nomula Balakrishna, S/o Anjaiah, Age. 29.^years, occ. Agriculture, Kondabimenapalle, Kacharam village, Nalgonda District, 508248.

¶11

Telangana Vanarula Parirakshana Committee, Rep, by its^{president G} Shyamsunder Goud S/o Venkataiah Goud, R/o.^{H.No. 1-8-74717, Near} saibaba Temple, Baghlingampally, Nallakunta, Hyderabad,^500044.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

1 The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mines and^Geology Department, Dr B.R.Ambedkar Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶15

2 The Director of Mines and Geology, Government of^{Telangana, Hyderabad-} 500 063

¶16

3 The State Environment lmpact Assessment Authority,^{(SEIAA),Rep. by its} member Secretary, Telangana Sanathnagar,^{Hyderabad- 500018}

¶17

4 The Telangana State Pollution^Control Board, Rep. by^{its Chief Environmental} Engineer, eollectorate Building, Nampally, Hyderabad^- 500⁰⁰¹

¶18

Gram Panchayat, Agraharakacharam, Rep. by its^{PanchayatSecretary,} Devarkonda Mandal, Nalgonda District.

¶19

M/s Nava Bhaiat Ferro Alloys Limited, Rep. by^{its Managing Director,Sri} Subramanyam Adapa, R/o.^6-3-1 109/1 Rajbhavan^{Road, Hyderabad - 500} 082

¶20

The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district.

¶21

...RESPONDENTS

¶22

Petition under Article 226^{of lhe} Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Courtmay be}

¶23

pleased to issue an' appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction,^{particularly in the} nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring^{the action of the 2nd respondentin} issuing the Order^granting Renewal vide^{proceeding No'} R/NLG/O100(2312970063) of Quarry^{Lease to 6th Respondent Company- Nava} Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited dated 08.11.2023^{despite3rd Respondent- SEIAA} rejection daled 25.02.2023 by duly considering^{the high-level negative impacton} environment and health of the^{nearby residents basedon the recommendations} of the SEAC and the^public hearing^{for the project on 26.03.2022is illegal'} arbitrary, unjust, u nconstitutional, and against^{the principle of natural justiceand} violative of the fundamental right^{to life guaranteed under the Article 21 of the} Constitution of lndia Consequently, set aside^{impugned proceedingNo.} R/NLG/O100(2312970063)^granted in favour of 6th^{respondent by the 2nd} Respondent and Environmental Clearance^{vide no EC23B001TG184029dated} 29.07.2023 as well and direct the respondents^{to coniine to the SEIAA reiection} daled 25.02.2023, until^proper and complele assessment^{such as reconducting} the public hearing and by considering all^{stakeholdersopinion.}

¶24

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶25

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High Court maybe pleasedto} suspend the operation of impugned^{proceeding No. R/NLG/0100 (2312970063)} dated 08.11.2023 issued by the^{2ndRespondentandEnvironmental Clearance} vide no EC238001TG184029 dated^{29.O7.2023 issued by 3rd respondent.}

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶27

Between:

¶28

M/s Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Sri Subramanyam Adapa, R/o. 6-3-1^',l09/1 Rajbhavan Road, Hyd erabad - 500 082

¶29

...RESPONDENT No.6/VACATE PETITIONER

¶30

AND

¶31

1 N Sundaraiah, S/o Kanthaiah, Age. 62^years, Occ.^{Retd. Headmaster,R/o.} H.No. 19-49-'101, Ayyappanagar, Devarakonda, Nalgonda^District.

¶32

2 Surakarapu Parvathalu, S/o^Naraiah, Age Q9^yeargL -^{9c9Agriculture,} Kondabirienapalle, Kacharam^village, Nalgonda^{District, 508248.}

¶33

Nomula^{Balakrishna, S/o Aniaiah'Age 29^ years' 'occ- Agriculture'} " ii"ili jui.Erlpiir", x".i,Z[r' uiilig",' t'I"(onda District' 508248'

¶34

4 Telanqana Vanarula^{ParirakshanaCommittee-,.Reo' bv its presidentG} ' sifiiilijla",.-'dorJ s;"'v;;6'n- c*o..nt9 hruo^{t-a-7azl7 Near} i"iyb?oiii,",i,r"I^{eiinli;!r;'piiiv' t'lattarunta' Hvderabad' 500044'}

¶35

5rhestate",r",,"n,.;,"*=J:'J?H,ffi l::i:[="T:,i:3]J:J":"; " D6"'ffi;.i, rjia niAm beo k'a r S-ecretariat, Hvderabad

¶36

The Director^{of Minesand Geology' Government of Telangana'Hyderabad-} 500 063

¶37

T,TheStateEnvironmentlmpactAssessmentAuthoritv.(SEIAA).Rep'byits m em be r^{Sec reta} ry,^r r n U J#"b''n"''t-n^{ni g i r' l-l} vd^{e rau ao - so o o t a} " "

¶38

The Telangana^{State P-ollutionControl Board' Rep hv lts Chief Environmental} Engineer, collectorate^{iiliiliil'"n;il'ril,lH-vo"i5o''i- 5oo ool}

¶39

Gram^{Panchayat, Agraharakacharam'Rep by its Panchayat Secretary'} - Oevart<onda Mandal, Nalgonda District

¶40

The District^{Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda district'}

¶41

...RESPONDENTS

¶42

Petition under^{Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition' the High Court may be pleased to} vacate the^{interim order daled 26'022024 in w'PNo 5'131 0l 2024and} consequently,^{dismissthe presentwrit petition'}

¶43

Counsel for^{the Petitioners:SRI RAMESHCHILLA}

¶44

Counsel for^{the Respondent No'1 to 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY}

¶45

Counsel for^{the RespondentNo'4: SRIPRANAVMUNIGELA'}

¶46

SC FOR TSPCB

¶47

Counsel for^{the RespondentNo's:SRIP'KISHORE-RAO'}

¶48

SC FOR GRAM^PANCHAYAT

¶49

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'6: SRI M'ABHiNAYREDDY}

¶50

Counsel^{for the RespondentNo'7: GP FORREVENUE}

¶51

The Gourt^{made the following:ORDER}

¶52

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI(A

¶53

WRIT PETITION No. 5L3l OF 2024

¶54

ORDER:

¶55

Vide proceedings of the 2"d respondent - Director of Mines and Geolory, dated 08.1 L.2O23, the 6fr respondent - M/s Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Limited was granted renewal of quarry lease for 20 more years with effect from 25.09.2017, subject to adherence of Telangana State Minor Mineral Concession Rules (TSMMC), 1966 in respect of an extent of 24.7OO Hectares in Survey No. 13 of Kacharam Agraharam Village, Devarakonda Mandal, Nalgonda. The said proceedings are impugned in this Writ Petition.

¶56

Petitioners 1to 3, representing the villagers of Agrahara Kacharam, along with the 4fr petitioner - 'I'elangana Vanarula Parirakshana Committee, a voiuntary organization advocating for environmental conservation, Iiled the affidavit. Their main grievance is that the 6th respondent had been conducting mining operations in the said village since 1987, initially, for ten years and subsequently, extended for 2O years by the Industries and Commerce Department, ending on 24.09.2017. At that time, villagers and voluntary organizations opposed the mining operations due to their adverse irnpact on health, environment, and qglisullure. Multiple represr:ntations

¶57

¶58

¶59

were made to the authorities; a public hearing was conducted by the District Collector on O2.O3.2O22, where people reacted against mining operations.

¶60

It is stated that at the request of the 6ft respondent for environmental clearance in 20 lg, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIA), conducted meeting on O5.O2.2023 and rejected permission, considering the high negative impact on the environment and health of the nearby residents. Again, the 6th respondent submitted fresh Application in 2023; after re_consideration, SEIAA approved the. project and on 21.08.2023, consent for establishment _ Red category, permission was granted by the Environmental Engineer & Assistant Environmental Engineer, Telalgana State Pollution Control Board, Nalgonda, \Mithout conducting meetings with villagers.

¶61

While So, the 6th respondent addressed the sarpanch of the v lage on os.or.2024 staring that finar renewal was granted on 08.11.2023 and they were planning to commence quarry operations. It is stated that though petitioners submitted representations to the District Collector and Environmental Engineer, no assurance was given.

¶62

¶63

This Court ot 06.02.2024 issued notice before admission and granted suspension of impugned proceedings dated 08.11.2023.

¶64

The 6h respondent has therefore, taken out I.A.No. I of 2024 seeking vacation of the impugned order. Along with it, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that petitioners concealed the respondent's name change from M/s Nava Bharat Ferro Alloys Ltd. to M/s NAVA Limited and filed the petition in a clandestine manner. This respondent contends that all necessary permissions and clearances were obtained in compliance with law, thus no violation occurred. According to this respondent, petitioners should have pursued the statutory remedy available before the National Green Tribunal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 20lO. Section 16 provides for an appellate remedy against grant of EC and relevant portion is extracted below:

¶65

" 16. Any person aggrieved by-

¶66

(h) an order made, on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, granting environmental clearance in the area in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations and processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards under the Environment (Protection) Act, i986."

¶67

It is stated that when a specialised body is estabiished for the purpose of examining the ECs granted by

¶68

¶69

the Committees, in a holistic manner, petitioners shall not be permitted to bypass the said remedy by invoking the writ jurisdiction when no extraordinary circumstances are made out. 5. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for petitioners, learned Government pleader for Moines & Geologz and Sri Abhinay Reddy M., learned counsel for the 6h respondent.

¶70

When a statutory forrm or Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventllate their grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Article 226, is a legal position which is too well-settled. The Hon,ble Supreme Court in lrtls South Ind.ian Bank Ltd. V. Nqaeen Mathew phfltp (Civil Appeal No. 28612a62 of 20231 decided on t2.O4.2O23, observed as under:

¶71

" When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non-compliaace of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedv as an alternative.

¶72

While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a

¶73

¶74

t t

¶75

borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal."

¶76

7 ln United. Bank oJ India a, Satgauati Tondont,

¶77

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding on the question of interference of High Court under writ jurisdiction when an effective and alternative remedy is available, observed as under

¶78

" It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difhcult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition fiIed under Article 226 of t}:.e Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remed5, by fiting application, appeal, revision etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance."

¶79

Coming to the case on hand, the National Green Tribunal Act, 20 10 provided for establishment of a National Green Tribunal for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection including enforcement of any legal right in relation thereto. Evidently, Section 16 prescribes appellate remedy against grant of EC. In that view of the matter and also in view of the legal position re-produced supra, without delving deep into the merits of the issue, this Court deems it appropriate to relegate petitioners; to the Tribunal to redress their grievance.

¶80

'^{(20 ro) 8 sccI to}

¶81

¶82

9 The Writ petition IS accordingly, disposed of directing petitioners to avail the remedy available to them before the National Green Tribunal. No costs

¶83