Andhra Pradesh High Court Emphasizes Duty to Preserve Resources for Future
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has made a strong statement on environmental protection. It stressed the need to preserve natural resources for future generations. The court did this while upholding a verdict from the National Green Tribunal.
Court Dismisses Mining Company's Petition
A bench of Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Maheswara Rao Kuncheam heard the case. The company had filed a petition challenging the NGT's order. The High Court dismissed this petition firmly.
The bench stated clearly on January 8. It said the state and its citizens have a duty to safeguard the country's forests. The resources we have today must be preserved for future generations. This principle guided their decision.
Balancing Environment and Development
The court acknowledged the importance of sustainable development. It said protecting the environment is crucial. However, the need for development must also be considered. A proper balance between these two goals is essential.
The judges explained their reasoning. They said the NGT acted correctly. The tribunal had valid reasons to interfere with the environmental clearance. No jurisdictional error was found in the NGT's order.
Background of the Case
The case started with an NGT order from November 15, 2021. This order suspended the environmental clearance granted to a silica sand mining project. The project was located in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh.
The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change had granted this clearance on April 16, 2020. The mining lease itself dates back to 1975. It was later transferred to M/s Sri Kumaraswamy Silica Mines, the petitioner company.
The company argued it had been operating lawfully. It claimed the environmental clearance was granted after proper appraisal by the Expert Appraisal Committee. However, the NGT found serious procedural and environmental lapses.
Arguments Presented in Court
Senior advocate P Veera Reddy represented the mining company. He argued that the NGT exceeded its jurisdiction. He claimed the project involved silica sand mining, not river sand mining. Therefore, certain sand mining guidelines should not apply.
The senior counsel also said the NGT violated natural justice principles. He claimed the tribunal relied on grounds not presented to the company for response. He asked the High Court to quash the NGT order and restore the environmental clearance.
Advocate G Sai Narayana Rao appeared for the ministry. He opposed the writ petition strongly. He argued the NGT rightly exercised its jurisdiction. The tribunal found critical aspects were not properly evaluated.
These aspects included district-level surveys and assessment of ecological damage. Compensation for illegal mining and impacts on fragile dune ecosystems were also not properly assessed according to the NGT.
Court's Final Decision
The High Court agreed with the NGT's approach. It emphasized that pollution laws must be strictly enforced. Industries that pollute cannot operate unchecked. They must not be allowed to degrade the environment.
The court noted that environmental clearance depends on site suitability from an environmental perspective. Necessary infrastructure and equipment for compliance with environmental norms must exist. One principle cannot be applied in isolation from others.
The bench highlighted the NGT's role. It said the tribunal's function is not just adjudicatory. It also performs preventive and remedial roles to save the environment from degradation. The NGT rightly considered various aspects in discharging its statutory function.
The court concluded that the NGT acted to ensure no environmental degradation occurs. The grant of environmental clearance must follow prescribed procedures and laws. Since no jurisdictional error was found, the High Court saw no reason to interfere with the NGT's order.
