AP HC asks environment ministry to form panel on Rushikonda Hill Resort

Visakhapatnam: The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday asked the Union environment ministry to form a committee for inspecting the works going on the Rushikonda Hill Resort and submit a report by January 31.

The High Court also asked the environment ministry to submit names of officials who will be part of the committee to go into the Rushikonda issue.

It further asked the ministry to remove the names of officials that the
state government had included in the earlier committee.

The court was hearing the petition filed by Jana Sena leader and GVMC
corporator P.L.N. Murthy Yadav, who alleged that the AP Tourism Development

Corporation is carrying out works on Rushikonda beyond the limit stipulated by the ministry of environment and forests while according permission under CRZ notification.

Incidentally, the High Court had on Wednesday said it will form its own
committee to study violations that have taken place at Rushikonda Hill
Resort in Visakhapatnam.

This was after the petitioner raised objection to state government including three of its officials in the five-member committee constituted to go study the violations. The court asked the government how it could appoint its own officials when facing allegations in the court.

The High Court later asked the petitioner to file objections afresh on the committee formed by the state government.

The petitioner, in his objections to the panel, stated that the three
officials from the state are from departments of AP Coastal Zone Management Authority (APCZMA), Town and Country Planning, and AP Pollution Control Board.

He pointed out that in the case pertaining to illegal activity at Tenneti
Park in violation of CRZ regulations, High Court had noticed that wrong
information (regarding demarcation of CRZ-I and CRZ-11) was fed to MOEF to obtain permission. Thus the track record of APCZMA and state government regarding correct identification of CRZ was not very encouraging. Further, the AP Pollution Control Board is headed by a former chief secretary of the government of AP and an IAS officer belonging to AP cadre is the secretary.

The same person is the secretary to APCZMA. The GVMC is respondent in the present case and is part of the Town Country Planning activity.

Thus, two of the respondents in this case have become part of the committee. Further, AP government officers are heading and controlling the APPCB, whose officer is the fifth member of the committee, the petitioner explained in his objection.