3 PILs challenge KBR park sensitive zone notification, HUH infrastructure project

Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court division bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice Ghouse Meera Mohiuddin on Tuesday took up three PILs seeking interim stay of a Central government notification declaring an eco sensitive zone around the Kasu Brahmananda Reddy National Park, as well as a stay on the operation of the Hyderabad City Innovation and Transformative Infrastructure HUH project, which envisages construction of flyovers and underpasses in and around the park and its eco sensitive zone.

The bench adjourned all petitions to May 5, directing both the Centre and the State government to file respective counters before the next hearing. It issued specific directions requiring the Centre and the State government to comprehensively address, in their affidavits, whether the construction being undertaken in the vicinity of KBR park are permissible under the law, and whether it can be regulated in accordance with the environmental legislation.

The petitions raise distinct but interconnected challenges. The first, filed by environmentalist Dr K Purshotham Reddy, assails the decision of the erstwhile government in approving multilayer flyovers and junctions under GO 208 dated June 30, 2015.

The second petition, filed by Kingshuk Nag, Editor-in-Chief, Times of India, questions the proposed felling of approximately 3,100 trees along the walkway circle of KBR park to facilitate construction of a flyover under the Strategic Road Development Plan, contending that the proposed infrastructure would adversely affect the flora and fauna of the park, which extends over 390 acres.

The third petition filed by Kaajal Maheshwari along with two others seeks to quash the notification dated 27 October 2020 issued by the Union Ministry of Environment, declaring an ESZ under the park, on the ground that the government failed to invite public objections prior to commencement of construction and that substantial public funds have been committed to the project without such consultation.

During the hearing, the contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioners were contested by B Narasimha Sharma, Deputy Solicitor-General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, who submitted that the construction been commenced in accordance with the recommendations of the expert committee.

Advocate-General A Sudarshan Reddy sought time to obtain instructions from the government whether public objections had been invited prior to the construction.

The case was listed to May 5 for filing counters by the State and Union governments.