Telangana HC Issues Contempt Notice to Jayesh Ranjan Over Outdoor Ad Policy

According to the petitioners, despite clear directions from the High Court to consider representations submitted by hoarding owners and to provide them a fair hearing, the government had proceeded to issue the policy on March 4. The association stated that multiple representations were submitted earlier in February outlining technical and safety considerations, including inputs based on studies conducted by JNTUH engineers and independent experts, but no response was received from the authorities.

Telangana HC Seeks Clarity From State, Centre on KBR Park Construction Under ESZ Norms

The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the state and Central governments to clarify on the ongoing construction activity around the KBR Park at Jubilee Hills here. The court asked whether or not the work fell within the category of “prohibited” or “regulated” activities under the eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) norms. The court was not inclined to grant any stay or status quo orders on the work.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G.M. Mohiuddin was hearing three PILs that were filed in 2016 and 2021, which challenged the approval for constructing multiple flyovers and junctions vide GO 208 dated May 30, 2015. The petitioners challenged the proposal of felling of 3,100 trees on the walkways for the construction of the flyovers.

The petitioners alleged that the proposed structures would disturb the flora and fauna in the 390-acre park and sought quashing of notification SO 3879(E) issued by the Union ministry of environment, forests and climate change dated 27.10.2020 under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1989 declaring an ECZ under the KBR Park as illegal as it did not serve the purpose of a ‘buffer zone’.

P. Sree Ramya, counsel for Mohammed Absar Ahmed, one of the petitioners, submitted that large-scale construction activity was continuing on pavements around KBR Park despite the ECZ notification of 2020 being under challenge in the pending writ petitions. Photographs were placed before the court to substantiate the claims.

They contended that the construction activity violated guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court regarding eco-sensitive buffer zones. It was argued that no project could be undertaken within one kilometre of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries without due process, including public consultation. The petitioners alleged that the works were taken up without conducting a public hearing and in disregard of earlier directions issued by the High Court.

Advocate-General A. Sudarshan Reddy agreed that construction activity was underway but stated that it was being carried out in compliance with directions issued by the High Court in 2021 in a connected matter. He sought time to obtain detailed instructions from the state. He submitted that severe traffic congestion around the park itself constituted an environmental concern.

Additional solicitor-general B. Narasimha Sharma, appearing for the Union government, also sought time to place the Centre’s response on record. It was submitted that a buffer zone had been demarcated and that a public consultation process had been conducted, with an expert committee granting its approval.

Referring to the material placed on record, the court noted that the photographs appeared to indicate pavement repair works and observed that such activity may not necessarily be objectionable. The bench queried whether there was any evidence of tree-felling or harm to wildlife, to which the petitioners’ counsel responded that there was no specific information.

The court emphasised the need for petitioners to place comprehensive and verified facts before invoking the court’s jurisdiction and observed that adequate groundwork must precede the filing of public interest litigations. Clarifying that it would confine itself to relevant issues and not proceed on mere apprehensions, the bench adjourned the matter, granting time to both governments to file their responses.