HYDERABAD: A bench of the Telangana High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N Tukaramji, on Tuesday quashed the ex parte ad interim order issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai. The order had put a halt to the desilting activity in the River Manair located in Jayashankar-Bhupalpally district. The court remanded the case back to the NGT for further consideration on a specified date or any other day.
The case was initially brought before the NGT by Gadeela Raghuveer Reddy and others, who raised concerns over the desilting operations conducted by the district Collector and chairman of the DLSC, Jayashankar-Bhupalpally.
The petitioners argued that the desilting process involved unauthorised sand mining without proper environmental approvals. In response, the NGT issued an ex parte ad interim order, served notices on the State government and other respondents, and scheduled the next hearing for July 5, 2023.
Dissatisfied with the NGT’s ex parte ad interim order staying the desilting activity in River Manair, the vice-chairman and managing director of the Telangana State Mineral Development Corporation and M/s. Kaveri Engineering Projects, along with another party, filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court.
During the hearing of the writ petitions, the bench expressed concerns over the private complaints raised by the respondents. The bench said the necessity of continuous desilting to prevent potential flooding that could affect a large number of people. Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan questioned the petitioners, stating, “Will you pay compensation? Deposit `10 crore. It is easy to argue, but how can you stall desilting works? The rainy season is approaching.”
The petitioners argued that the NGT’s ex parte ad interim order violated Section 19(4) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which stipulates that no interim order can be issued by the tribunal without granting an opportunity to all parties involved to be heard. They contended that no notice was served to the contesting respondents, and no hearing opportunity was provided, thus requesting the vacation of the ex parte interim ruling.
Additionally, they claimed that the complaint should have been lodged within six months of the date of the order as per Section 14 of the NGT Act. However, the complainants filed the application after the expiration of the designated time period, which, according to the petitioners, rendered it invalid.
After careful consideration of the writ petitions, the bench set aside the NGT’s rulings and referred the case back to the tribunal for further review.