Telangana HC Issues Contempt Notice to Jayesh Ranjan Over Outdoor Ad Policy
Hyderabad: The Telangana High Court has issued notice to principal secretary of municipal administration and urban development Jayesh Ranjan in a contempt case filed alleging violation of court directions regarding outdoor advertising policy. The case was filed by Telangana Outdoor Media Owners Association (TOMO) and several advertising firms. The petitioners alleged that they deliberately disobeyed the Supreme Court’s February 20 order.
According to the petitioners, the government had gone ahead with issuing the policy on March 4 despite the Supreme Court’s express instruction to take cognizance of submissions submitted by hoarders and provide them with a fair hearing. The association said several submissions outlining technical and safety issues, including inputs based on studies carried out by JNTUH engineers and independent experts, were submitted in early February but no response was received from authorities.
Telangana HC Seeks Clarity from State and Center on KBR Park Construction Under ESZ Norms
The Telangana High Court on Tuesday directed the state and Central governments to provide clarification on the ongoing construction activity around KBR Park in Jubilee Hills here. The court asked whether the work fell under the category of “prohibited” or “regulated” activities under environmentally sensitive zone (ESZ) norms. The court was not inclined to make any order to stop work or maintain the status quo.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice GM Mohiuddin was hearing three PILs filed in 2016 and 2021 challenging the approval for construction of multiple flyovers and junctions under GO 208 dated May 30, 2015. The petitioners objected to the proposal to cut down 3,100 trees along the footpaths for the construction of flyovers.
The petitioners alleged that the proposed structures would disturb the flora and fauna in the 390-acre park and sought quashing of notification SO 3879(E) issued by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change under Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1989, declaring an ECZ under KBR Park illegal as it does not serve the purpose of ‘buffer zone’.
P. Sree Ramya, counsel for Mohammed Absar Ahmed, one of the petitioners, stated that despite the ECZ notification dated 2020 being challenged in the pending writ petitions, large-scale construction activity continues on the footpaths around KBR Park. Photos were presented to the court to verify the allegations.
They alleged that the construction activity violated the guidelines set by the Supreme Court regarding environmental buffer zones. It has been argued that no project can be undertaken within one kilometer of national parks and wildlife sanctuaries without due process, including public consultation. The petitioners alleged that the work was initiated without a public hearing and ignoring directions given earlier by the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General A. Sudarshan Reddy admitted that the construction activity was continuing but stated that it was being carried out in accordance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in 2021 on a related matter. He sought time to obtain detailed instructions from the government. Severe traffic congestion around the park poses an environmental concern, he said.
Another advocate general, B. Narasimha Sharma, acting on behalf of the Union government, also sought time to record the Centre’s response. The boundaries of a buffer zone have reportedly been drawn and a public consultation process is underway, with an expert committee giving approval.
Referring to the material on record, the court stated that the photographs indicated pavement repair work and observed that such activity may not necessarily be objectionable. The court questioned whether there was any evidence of logging or harm to wildlife; to which petitioners’ counsel responded that there was no specific information.
The court emphasized that petitioners must present comprehensive and verified facts before invoking the jurisdiction of the court and observed that adequate basis must be provided before filing public interest litigation. The board, which announced that it would limit itself to relevant issues and would not proceed only with arrests, postponed the issue by giving time to both governments to submit their responses.
