AP High Court Orders Status Quo Over Construction Of Parking Space On Vizag Coast, Lauds Objective But Says Permissions Had To Be Sought
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered Status Quo on construction by the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) at the foot-steps of Kailsagiri Hills and Tenneti Park, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, which allegedly falls within the prohibited Coastal Regulation Zone ("CRZ").A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao...
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ordered Status Quo on construction by the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) at the foot-steps of Kailsagiri Hills and Tenneti Park, Vishakapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, which allegedly falls within the prohibited Coastal Regulation Zone ("CRZ").
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao passed these orders in a PIL by two residents of the Vizag Region who sought a writ of Mandamus, against the actions of the VMRDA in taking up development/construction projects at the foot-hills of the Kaisagiri and the Tenneti Park, without requisite permissions, leading to destruction of the natural habitat due to the felling of trees and excavation of the hill.
Upon noting that the VMRDA was carrying out the construction on a protected area without the necessary permissions, the Bench held:
“Although the object of construction of a car parking area may be laudable, if permissions are required for undertaking any construction activity from the concerned authorities including the Ministry of Environment and Forests considering the fact that the area falls in the CRZ, the necessary permissions ought to have been taken.”
The petitioners had contended that the VMRDA had excavated the Kailasagiri hill to a height of 20ft (spread over 1000 sq ft) for the construction of a commercial site and also undertaken construction, 200 meters from the high tide zone which was designated as a no-development zone.
It was further argued that the area in which construction was taking place had been designated as “hills” under the coastal regulation zone 2040 Masterplan and any construction had been prohibited in the said area under the CRZ notification of 2019.
The petitioners vehemently contended that for any construction activity to be undertaken within a prohibited zone, prior sanction was required from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) which was not taken in the present case.
Additionally, it was stated that for the excavation and transport of gravel, the VMRDA would require permission under the Andhra Pradesh Land, Water and Trees Act, from the Mining department and forest department, which was again, not sought.
“The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change through proceedings No.18(3)/2004-IA-III dt.04-03-2005 in relation to Environmental clearance for construction of coastal road from Vishakhapatnam to Bhimunipatnam has made some specific conditions and one of such conditions states that “No commercial activity of any kind should be established on the seaward side of the road,” the plea stated.
The petitioners further contended that the hill had protected the people of Vishakapatnam in the past from cyclones and hence it was essential to preserve the said natural habitat.
When the Bench questioned the respondent counsels on whether requisite permissions were sought, it was stated that while they were unaware of the same, the construction in this case was not being undertaken to set up a commercial site, but in fact, a parking area, which was being created for the convenience of citizens.
The Bench held that while the construction of a parking area was a laudable objective, it could only be undertaken after the necessary sanctions had been obtained.
“In any case, it is submitted that no further construction activity/excavation activity shall be carried out on the said spot. In that view of the statement having been made, we direct filing of the response within three weeks. The Commissioner of VMRDA shall ensure that status quo be maintained on spot till the objections are filed and the matter is considered. However, pendency of the present petition will not prevent VMRDA from approaching the concerned competent authority for obtaining the required permissions,” the Court concluded.
W.P(PIL) 180 of 2023
Counsel for petitioners: K. S. Murthy, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for Ponnada Sree Vyas.
Counsel for respondents: Jupudi V. K. Yagnadutt, In-charge Deputy Solicitor General of India, Government Pleader for General Administration, Government Pleader for Municipal Administration & Urban Development, V. Surya Kiran Kumar (SC VMDA), Government Pleader for the Forest Department, K. Madhava Reddy (SC GVMC), Government Pleader for Revenue, Government Pleader for Mines & Geology