The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has refused to stay works on the future Bharat City project being developed by the Telangana government on the outskirts of Hyderabad as it is still at an early stage, people familiar with the development said on Wednesday.
The Southern District bench of the NGT in Chennai, comprising Justice Pushpa Satyanarayana and Dr Prashant Gargava, on Tuesday observed that it may not be appropriate for the court to interfere in the initial phase of the project which is being pursued through a vision document and a structured and planned approach.
The bench was hearing arguments on the petition filed by Hyderabad-based environmentalist and sociologist Donthi Narasimha Reddy, who alleged that the Telangana government initiated development activities for the project without obtaining mandatory environmental clearances.
The petitioner has sought a permanent injunction restricting the development of the future Bharat City project, which is proposed to spread over an area of approximately 30,000 acres spread across 56 villages.
While appearing before the state government, Additional Solicitor General Tera Rajinikanth Reddy argued that the petition was premature as the project remained in its initial stages and no activities requiring environmental clearance had begun.
He said that the state government would continue with the project after taking all necessary approvals where applicable and that it would act in accordance with the law.
The NGT body noted that the government had proposed to develop the city of the future through a planned framework backed by a vision document, and said intervention at such an early stage was not justified.
Drawing a comparison with the Chennai Metropolitan City Development Authority, the bench pointed out that the proposed Future City Development Authority aims to facilitate planned and orderly development.
The court said it could not issue directions that contradicted the state government’s assurances that all activities would be carried out in accordance with the law. “Interference at this initial stage may not be justified,” the court said, adjourning the case to July 14 for further hearing.
