Environmental Protection vs. Development: Supreme Court Rules on Andhra Pradesh Resort Project

The Supreme Court recently delivered a significant ruling in the case of The State of Andhra Pradesh v. Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.). The case revolved around a contentious resort construction project at Rushikonda Hill, near Visakhapatnam. The core issue was whether the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had jurisdiction to impose a construction ban while a similar case was already pending before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.

The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the NGT proceedings, ruling that the High Court had overriding jurisdiction. The judgment emphasized the need for a balanced approach between environmental protection and development, ensuring that judicial forums do not create conflicting orders that hinder progress.

Background of the Case

The case arose when the Andhra Pradesh government undertook the demolition and reconstruction of a resort at Rushikonda Hill. The project, according to the government, aimed to enhance tourism infrastructure while adhering to environmental regulations. However, concerns were raised about potential violations of environmental laws, leading to legal challenges in both the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the NGT.

The sequence of legal actions included:

December 8, 2021: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the resort construction.
December 16, 2021: The High Court permitted construction, provided it complied with environmental regulations and the existing master plan.
October 31, 2021: MP Raghu Ramakrishna Raju sent a letter to the NGT raising concerns over environmental violations.
December 17, 2021: The NGT took cognizance of the letter and initiated proceedings.
May 6, 2022: The NGT imposed a construction ban.
May 20, 2022: The NGT rejected the Andhra Pradesh government’s request to lift the stay.
June 1, 2022: The Supreme Court ruled that the NGT had no jurisdiction to interfere while the case was pending in the High Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The Andhra Pradesh government argued that:

The High Court had already taken up the matter and permitted construction within environmental guidelines.
The NGT had overstepped its jurisdiction by interfering in a matter that was sub judice before the High Court.
The NGT had appointed a four-member expert committee, which found no violations, yet the tribunal still imposed a construction ban.
Reconstruction of the resort was essential for tourism development and was being carried out with the necessary environmental approvals.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent, MP Raghu Ramakrishna Raju, contended that:

The Andhra Pradesh government had violated environmental norms during construction.
The project posed a threat to the ecological balance of Rushikonda Hill.
The government was acting in violation of the High Court’s directives by continuing construction without adequate oversight.
The NGT was justified in intervening to protect the environment.

Key Observations of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Andhra Pradesh government, quashing the NGT proceedings. The Court made the following key observations:

“When the High Court is already seized of the matter and has passed an interim order permitting construction, it was not appropriate for the NGT to pass a conflicting order.”

The Court further noted:

The NGT had exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the same cause of action that was pending before the High Court.
Conflicting orders from different judicial forums create administrative confusion and hinder governance.
Development and environmental protection must go hand in hand, but in this case, the government had obtained the necessary clearances.
The High Court had the primary jurisdiction in the matter and should be allowed to adjudicate it without interference.

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

The proceedings before the NGT in O.A. No. 361 of 2021 were quashed and set aside.
The High Court was directed to continue hearing the case and decide on environmental concerns raised by the respondents.
Construction would be permitted only in areas where buildings previously existed.
The Andhra Pradesh government could proceed with the project but could not claim any equities based on partial construction.
The respondent (MP Raghu Ramakrishna Raju) was given the liberty to file an impleadment application before the High Court.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that the High Court has overriding jurisdiction over statutory tribunals like the NGT in territorial matters. The judgment ensures that judicial bodies do not create conflicting directives, which could hinder both governance and development.

The Supreme Court’s decision also highlights the need for a balanced approach to environmental protection. While ecological concerns remain paramount, legitimate development projects should not be arbitrarily halted without clear evidence of violations.

Going forward, this judgment will serve as an important precedent in cases involving overlapping jurisdictions between High Courts and specialized tribunals.

Petitioner Name: The State of Andhra Pradesh.
Respondent Name: Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (M.P.).
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Hima Kohli.
Place Of Incident: Rushikonda Hill, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 01-06-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: the-state-of-andhra-vs-raghu-ramakrishna-ra-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-01-06-2022.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Environmental Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments

See all posts in Environmental Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Environmental Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Environmental Cases Category