The Telangana High Court on Tuesday disposed of a PIL petition seeking instructions to check contamination of Cheriyal and Edulabad tanks due to leakage of leachate from Jawaharnagar dumping yard, directing the petitioner to file an interim application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT).
A Bench of Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili, passing the order, said that the petitioner better raise the issue before the NGT, which was already hearing a similar matter.
The petitioner, P. Lalitha Kumar, hailing from Kapra said in the plea that GHMC and two private companies were managing Jawaharnagar dumping yard. Due to leakage of leachate from this yard, Cherial and Edulabad tanks were getting polluted. The leachate was also entering irrigation canals joining Musi river and thereby, damaging the latter as well, the petitioner’s counsel said.
Noting that since NGT was already hearing a petition with similar content filed by a citizen, the Bench directed the petitioner to file an interim application before the Tribunal.
HC on village mentioned in GO 111
In a separate matter, the Bench directed the government to explain its stand on whether Vattinagulapally village lands fall outside the purview of the catchment areas of twin reservoirs of Osmansagar and Himayatsagar. The Bench was hearing a petition filed by four private companies which had lands in Vattinagulapally village.
This village is among 84 villages mentioned in GO 111 which prohibited constructions of buildings and industries within 10 km radius of the twin reservoirs. The counsel for the petitioners contended that though the government stated that major portion of Vattinagulapally village was outside the purview of GO 111, the petitioner companies were facing difficulties at field level while trying to put to use their lands.
Additional Advocate General J. Ramchander Rao, appearing for the State during previous hearings, told the Bench that Vattinagulapally lands were outside purview of GO 111. While this was so, the government brought in GO 69 making some modifications to GO 111. Since the lands of the petitioners were not part of the lands coming under GO 111, they cannot be part of GO 69, the counsel said.
The matter was posted to Thursday for next hearing.
