PIL In AP High Court Challenges Google-Adani Data Centre Project At Visakhapatnam, State Claims Steps Taken To Protect Environment
A PIL has been filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the proposed Google-Adani data centre in Visakhapatnam, questioning the project's Environmental Clearance and the allotment of 160 acres of land for the project.The proposed project includes 160 acres of temple land belonging to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam. The land is situated across...
A PIL has been filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the proposed Google-Adani data centre in Visakhapatnam, questioning the project's Environmental Clearance and the allotment of 160 acres of land for the project.
The proposed project includes 160 acres of temple land belonging to Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam, Simhachalam. The land is situated across Adavivaram and Mudasarlova villages in Visakhapatnam Rural Mandal. The broader project ecosystem extends across Visakhapatnam and Anakapalli districts.
The PIL filed by environmental activist and Jal Biradari National Convenor Bolisetty Satyanarayana, also raises concerns about the project's proximity to Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary and Mudasarlova Reservoir, besides its substantial water and electricity requirements.
The high court had issued notice on the PIL on July 1.
When the matter was taken up in August, the State submitted before a Division Bench of Chief Justice Lisa Gill and Justice Balaji Medamalli that "due care and caution is being exercised in ensuring that all steps are taken within the parameters of law and due care is taken for protection of environment."
The petitioner has challenged the project's Category B2 Environmental Clearance, contending that the site is only 0.86 km from the Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary, where commercial construction within one kilometre is prohibited.
He alleges that the SEAC minutes recorded the distance as 850 km instead of 0.86 km. He contends that the error was material to the applicability of the distance norms and that the Category B2 clearance was granted without public consultation.
He has also raised concerns over the Mudasarlova Reservoir, a vital drinking water source for Visakhapatnam city. The reservoir is situated about 120 metres from the project site. He has also underscored the project's substantial water and electricity requirements.
The petitioner has further alleged that the project site falls within an Eco-Sensitive Zone and contains around 200 trees. Of these, 40 are proposed to be felled and 20 transplanted, according to the pleadings. He claims that the requisite permissions under the Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Trees Act (WALTA) and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have not been obtained.
The PIL also challenges the allotment of 160 acres of Simhachalam Devasthanam land alleging that the land was transferred and handed over to the project entity without following the mandatory procedure under Section 80(1)(b) of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, including issuing notice to interested persons.
State defends project
Meanwhile the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in its reply has disputed the allegations and defended the Environmental Clearance.
On the project's proximity to the Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary, SEIAA relied on the Forest Department's inspection and the resulting Divisional Forest Officer's Forest (DFO) NOC. It submitted that the project site falls outside designated forest land.
SEIAA also explained that the 850 km distance recorded in the SEAC minutes was a typographical error. According to SEIAA, the PARIVESH Portal records the distance as about 850 metres. The DFO's Forest NOC separately records the sanctuary as 750 metres from the project area and its Eco-Sensitive Zone as 470 metres away.
SEIAA submitted that data centres are not specifically covered under the Schedule to the EIA (Environment Impact Assessment) Notification, 2006. On the basis of the project's built-up area it was assessed under Item 8(a) as a Category B2 Building and Construction Project.
SEIAA maintained that such projects do not require a full Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report or public consultation. It further submitted that the General Conditions do not apply to Item 8(a) projects.
Regarding the Mudasarlova Reservoir, SEIAA acknowledged that it is a vital source of drinking water for Visakhapatnam and is located about 120 metres from the project site towards the east.
It submitted that the Environmental Clearance contains a specific condition requiring the project proponent to ensure that the project activities do not adversely impact the Mudasarlova Reservoir or the Kambalakonda Wildlife Sanctuary.
The project proponent has also allocated Rs. 900 lakh as capital cost and Rs. 155 lakh per annum as recurring cost towards the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). It has further volunteered to develop avenue plantation in Visakhapatnam city as part of its CSR activity and maintain the plantation until it grows.
The matter is now listed on October 5.
Case: Bolisetty Satyanarayana v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (PIL) No.137 of 2026
Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Virag Gupta, appearing vice Mr. Challa Ajay Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. T. Vishnu Teja, Special Government Pleader; Ms. Santhi Chandra, Standing Counsel for APIIC; Mr. Bolla Venkata Rama Rao, Standing Counsel for APPCB.