The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition challenging a beverages manufacturing unit in Nagarapalem village, Srikakulam district. It held that unsupported fears of environmental damage and groundwater depletion cannot justify halting an industrial project that has obtained statutory approvals.

The Court noted that the petitioners had failed to produce authenticated official records establishing that the disputed land formed part of a public water body or that the company had encroached upon it.

Explaining the limits of judicial review, the Court noted that Article 226 does not ordinarily permit courts to substitute their assessment for the technical decisions of expert statutory authorities.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy dismissed the writ petition and observed:

“Mere apprehension of environmental damage, ground water depletion, etc., unsupported by cogent material, cannot be a ground to interdict an industrial project which has secured all statutory approvals.

There is no dispute that natural water bodies constitute public trust properties and deserve protection. However, the applicability of those principles necessarily depends upon the existence of foundational facts. In the present case, respondent No.7 has specifically denied the existence of any Gedda passing through the subject property and has asserted that there is no encroachment upon any water body. … The petitioners have not produced any authenticated revenue record, village map, field measurement book, irrigation record or any other official document conclusively establishing that the lands in question form part of a notified water body or that 7th respondent has encroached upon the same.

In the absence of any material demonstrating that the permissions were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or in violation of mandatory statutory provisions, this Court finds no justification to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the establishment of the industrial unit”

The dispute arose after M/s Ravikiran Beverages proposed to establish a unit manufacturing carbonated soft drinks, fruit pulp juices and packaged drinking water in Nagarapalem village.

According to the company, it obtained the necessary permissions from the competent authorities, including the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board, the Factories Department, the Ground Water and Water Audit Department and the Revenue Divisional Officer, before commencing construction.

The petitioners, who were residents of the village, challenged the project, alleging that the company had filled up and obstructed a public Gedda (natural water channel), affecting the flow of water and irrigation facilities for surrounding agricultural lands. They further alleged that the company had dug deep borewells, leading to groundwater depletion and ecological imbalance.

On this basis, the petitioners contended that the authorities had permitted the establishment of the unit without adequately protecting public water resources or complying with mandatory statutory requirements.

They approached the High Court under Article 226, seeking directions to stop the establishment or operation of the unit and restore the alleged water body to its original condition.

Opposing the plea, the company denied that any Gedda passed through the land in question and relied on a certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat stating that no such water channel existed at the proposed site. It maintained that the necessary permissions had been granted after verification by the competent authorities. The official respondents similarly submitted that the requisite approvals and no-objection certificates had been obtained.

Examining the rival submissions, the Court noted that the petitioners had not produced any authenticated revenue records, village maps, field measurement books, irrigation records or other official documents conclusively establishing the existence and location of the alleged water body or its obstruction.

It further observed that determining whether the Gedda existed at the site and had been obstructed involved disputed questions of fact that could not be conclusively decided in writ proceedings without examining the relevant evidence.

Explaining the scope of its powers, the Court observed that judicial review under Article 226 is confined to the legality of the decision-making process and does not ordinarily extend to substituting the Court's assessment for that of expert authorities on technical matters. Interference is warranted only in cases of patent illegality, mala fides, lack of jurisdiction or violation of mandatory statutory provisions.

Applying these principles to the case, the Court recognised that natural water bodies are public trust resources requiring protection but held that the foundational facts concerning the alleged encroachment had to be established.

It also noted that the Ground Water and Water Audit Department had permitted groundwater extraction subject to conditions and that the Pollution Control Board had granted its consent. The competent authorities could monitor compliance and take appropriate action in the event of any violation.

Finding no material to establish that the approvals had been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, or in breach of mandatory statutory provisions, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Counsel for the Petitioners: P. Viseswar Rao

Counsel for the Respondents: Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, Government Pleader for Home, K. Yarraguntla Koteswara Rao, Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishads, Mandal Praja Parishads and Gram Panchayats and S. Lakshminarayana Reddy