Cases are pending in the Andhra HC and NGT against the hill resort which is among the sites selected to house CM’s office.
Published Nov 03, 2023 | 3:11 PM ⚊ Updated Nov 03, 2023 | 3:11 PM
Rushikonda construction (Drone video screen grab)
The Supreme Court on Friday, 3 November, declined to entertain a public interest plea challenging the development of resorts at Rushikonda hill in Vishakhapatnam — being projected as the address for the future office of Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy — stating that the plea was not public but political.
The matter of setting up the camp office at the hill resorts has fuelled speculation that they might eventually house the permanent Chief Minister’s Office (CMO).
Cases are pending in the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and the apex court said it will not interfere.
Asking the PIL petitioner — Lingamaneni Sivaramaprasad — to approach the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, heading a Bench also comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said, “They are not public but political.”
Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for Lingamaneni, told the court that the NGT on 31 January had issued notice but did not stay the work and the state government was going ahead with the development of a project.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said, “It is all political. Merely chief minister has set up a camp office, you come here, why do you come to the Supreme Court to give vent to your political grouse.”
Declining to entertain the petitioner’s plea, the Bench, in its order, told him that he had an efficacious remedy under Article 226 before the high court.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Andhra Pradesh government.
The Rushikonda resort has been mired in controversy since the decision to build the CMO and residence there once he shifts the administrative capital of the state from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada.
Climate and environment activists raised a hue and cry, claiming the resort falls in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and as such Rushikonda cannot bear any construction activity.
They also approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the NGT with their complaint. The hearings are in progress.
In a letter to the Union Environment Ministry, former Union secretary EAS Sarma said that the resort constructed “illegally” by the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation (APTDC) will not be used for tourism purposes but to house the CMO. He said this goes against the spirit of the CRZ clearance communication.
In late September, Jagan Mohan announced his Cabinet’s decision to formally shift to Vizag after Dasara, but the deadline was later extended till December.
Following this decision, the government set up a committee to look for sites in Vizag for the chief minister’s camp office and transit accommodation for him and his senior officials.
The committee came up with five alternatives: The Distance Education and Open Varsity blocs of Andhra University, the Visakhapatnam Metropolitan Region Development Authority (VMRDA) Complex at Siripuram, Millennium A Tower and Millennium B Tower, both at IT Hills and finally the tourism resorts atop Rushikonda Hill.
The committee, however, said it preferred Rushikonda because it offered hassle-free VIP movement, would not inconvenience the public, and also not pose any security issues.
Earlier, on 1 June, the Supreme Court had set aside the proceedings before the NGT, which stopped the Rushikonda construction, saying that the Andhra Pradesh High Court order would prevail over tribunal orders in a scenario where both have passed contradicting orders.
It said the NGT could not pursue the case when the high court was already seized of it and had passed orders.
However, the Supreme Court said, “Taking into consideration serious allegations levelled by the respondents, it will be appropriate that all these facts are placed before HC and HC considers passing appropriate orders in accordance with the law so as to strike a balance between development and environmental issues.”
It explained its order: “Though the HC has permitted construction to proceed in accordance with the law, we find that till HC takes a call on the said issue, it will be necessary to issue certain directions.”
The apex court’s order followed a challenge of the NGT order by the Andhra Pradesh government. The latter argued that a petition challenging the Rushikonda construction was pending in the high court which had, in December 2021, issued an order permitting the construction.
While this petition was still pending, K Raghu Ramakrishna Raju, the rebel YSRCP Lok Sabha MP, moved the NGT which took cognizance of his letter.
Meanwhile, in two PILs filed with the Andhra Pradesh High Court against the violation of CRZ norms by APTDC in Rushikonda, the court on 31 October directed the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change to assess the impact of violations in light of the report submitted by the expert committee the high court nominated.
The response of the APTDC should also be taken into account, the court said.
The court also told the expert committee to see if steps to revegetate Rushikonda were adequate and suggest measures if not.
The next hearing in the Andhra Pradesh High Court is on 29 November.
