In a significant verdict underscoring the role of public participation in environmental governance, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that the statutory process of environmental clearance must not ignore the grievances of affected villagers. The Division Bench comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam delivered the judgment on March 25, 2025, in Writ Petition No. 7163 of 2025, filed by Vennapusa Siva Sankar Reddy and four other villagers of YSR Kadapa District.
Background of the Case
The petition was triggered by the proposed expansion of M/s. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Limited, which sought to scale up its cement production from 4.6 MTPA to 12.6 MTPA and limestone mining from 3.819 MTPA to 11.32 MTPA in Nawabpeta and Talamanchipatnam villages.
The Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB), through a notification dated 21.02.2025, scheduled a public hearing for 27.03.2025 regarding the environmental impact of the expansion. The petitioners contended that this public hearing was being rushed without considering serious environmental and humanitarian concerns, especially flooding due to obstruction of natural streams caused by the existing factory and mine.
Key Legal Issues Raised
- Whether the public hearing should proceed without considering the findings of the High-Level Grievance Redressal Committee constituted by the Government?
- Whether the application submitted by Dalmia Cement contained misleading information about potential environmental impacts?
- Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the expansion process at this stage?
Arguments Presented
- For Petitioners: Senior Advocate Sri K. S. Murthy, assisted by Sri K. Guru Raja, argued that Dalmia Cement falsely claimed in their application (Form-I, Sl. No. 1.24) that there would be “no change in water bodies or land surface affecting drainage.” In reality, flash floods caused by altered drainage patterns had been submerging villages and damaging crops and houses.
The petitioners relied heavily on findings from the Lokayukta, which, based on various departmental reports, recommended a High-Level Grievance Redressal Committee to investigate the environmental and agricultural damage. - For Respondents (Govt): Ms. K. Vijayeswari, AGP for Revenue, and Sri Yelisetty Soma Raju, counsel for Pollution Control Board, contended that the public hearing was only a part of the consultative process and all grievances could still be raised there.
- For Dalmia Cement (Respondent No. 11): Senior Advocate Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, assisted by Sri Vimal Varma Vasireddy, argued that the petition was premature and petitioners lacked locus standi, as the hearing would provide sufficient platform to voice objections.
Court’s Observations
Rejecting the objection on locus standi, the Court held:
“Once the petitioners have a right to be heard and to file written response pursuant to the notification, with respect to the project in question, it cannot be said that they do not have locus standi to maintain the writ petition.”
The Court emphasized that the public consultation stage under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 14.09.2006 is not merely procedural but serves a substantive purpose:
“If any such fact is brought to the notice of the Authority conducting public hearing… it is not that the petitioners’ objection will not be received or not considered.”
The Court also reminded the regulatory authority of its power under Para 8(vi) of the 2006 Notification to reject or cancel environmental clearance if there is any “deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information.”
Final Directions by the Court
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions:
- Petitioners may participate in the public hearing on 27.03.2025 and submit written objections with supporting material, including the Lokayukta’s order and other reports.
- The APPCB and relevant authorities must receive and forward these objections to the regulatory authority.
- The regulatory authority must consider these objections while deciding on the grant of environmental clearance, and issue a reasoned order.
- The final decision must be communicated to the petitioners.
