Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Between vs S. Siva on 23 March, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVA (SPECIAL GRIGINAL JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX ?PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO AUNCHEAM | WRIT PETITION NO: 7F28 OF 20238 Between: M/s. Aods Energy Ventures india Private Laniied, (Through its Authorized Representative Mr A W Siddigqut) - Level 6, Wing -2, Block D. Cyber Gateway, Hitech City, Medhanur, Hyderabad - 800081, Telagana. . Petitioner AND *. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Represented by the Chief Secretary) ALP. Secretariat, Velagapudl, Andhra Pradesh - S25 503 &@. New and Renewable & nergy Development Corogoration of AP W Eines, (Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director) 12-464/8/4, River Oaks Apartment, CSR Kalyana Mandapam Road Tacepalll, 3. SW Renewable Energy (Cement Liriiied, (Represented i its authorized signatary) JSVW Cenire, Sandra Kurla Com ies Bandra (ast) Mumbai City, Maharashtra India 40005 Respondents Petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of india praying that in the clroumstances stated in the affidavit fled therawit th, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ more specifically in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order, direction' a. Declare that ihe inaction of the Respondent authorities In failing to consider and act upon the Petitioners representations: dated 09.07.2026, 12.07.2028 and 21.01.5098 as arbirary, Negal and vindative of Arficles 14 and 21 of the Ganstiution of India b. Declare that the Fettioner had a legitimate expectation that Respondent autharities would enforce anolicable PFOVISIONS uriformiy and remove unauthorized encroachments, and that failure to de so is arbifrary and unsustainable in law cs. Declare that the failure of Reegiondent No.g - NREDCAP fo remove the egal canstruction made 'by Respondent No.3 within the project boundary demarcated In favour of the Petificner, despite repeaiad representations dated USOT 2026, 12.07.2026 and 21.04.2026. fs arbitrary, legal, unreasonable | ee ws and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of indie d. Direct NREOCAP forthwith discharge their dufies and infuaie proceedings in accordance with law for removal of the flegal construction made by Resrondent no. 2 on landsfareas demarcated in favour of the Peliianer a. Clrect NRECRTAP to act fairy, Yansparently, and consistently in accordance with their declared polley * and order removal of ene! roacivrienis/construction by Respondent No. Sh woh oe we B area demarcated for the . Petitioner and remove all encumbrances created by the Respondent No. 3 in the area demarcated for the Petitioner. IANO: TOE 2026 Petition under Section 151. of GRO is fled oraying that in the cyoumstances stated in the affidavil fled in support of the petition, the High Court may be oleased to direct ressondent Nog fo ensure that ac constructan is undertaken by respondent No.3 in the demarcated area sanctioned in favor of the. peti Honer, Pending disposal of WP 728 of 2098, orf the fle of the High Court iA NO: 2 OF 2028 circumstances stated in the affidavit fled in support of the pelition, the High (ourt ray be pleased fo Direct ressondent no. 3 to stoop further construction' Wh reapect to the land within the demarcated Froject boundaries of the Petitioner, Pending disposal of WP 7728 of 2028, on the file of the High Court. LA NO: 3 OF saa6 Petition under Section 153 of CRC is fled praying that in the crroumsiances Stated in the affidavit fled in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Direct and Restrain Respondent no. 3 from raising any construction in the demarcated area sanctioned in favor of the petitioner which would Impact the project approval accorded to the Petitioner, Pending disposal of WP 7728 of 2028, on the file of the High Court. , IA NO: 4 OF 2026 Petition under Section 157 of CPC is filed praying thet in the clroumstances stated in the affidavit fled in support of the pelfion, the High Court may be pleased to Mitr: rect and Restrain Respondent no. 3 from acting in violation of the MNRE Amended "Guidelines for Development of Onshore Wing Power Projects" dated 04.07.2024 and Capacity Sanction Agreemen ws, Pending disposal of WE 7728 0 f 2026, an the fle of the High Court. : The Petiion coming on for hearing, upon serusing the Pefifion and the affidavit fled in support thereof and upon hearing the arquments of SR! TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Advocate for the Petitioner, and of GP FOR GENERAL ADMINIST RATION, for the Respondent No.1, and of SRI K VOM. DHIRANJEEV!, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and of SRIS.VS.S. SIVA RAM, Advocate for the Respondent No.3, the Court made the following | ORDER:
Heard Sri O.Marichar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Tagore Yaday Yaragaria, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri KV A Chiranieevi, learned counsel fakes notice an behalf of respondent No.3.
| Sr S.VS.8.Sivaram, learned counse! takes notice an behall of respondent Nog, | | | sr O. Manohar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel submits that consequent fo the petitioner's representation, the 2° respondent authority issued a Notice vide Rei NREDCAPY WE/JSW/SShRAT2026 dated 19.04.2028 to the 3" rassondent, requesting him te restrict to the boundary demarcated to their boundary by duly following the MNRE NONS.
Consequently, Sri S.V.8.S.Sivaram, learned counsel appearing for the 8° respondent submits that they submitted an Explanation to the 3"
respondent on 23.01.2026 itself', but as of today, they have not received any orders from the 2 respondent authority. Ne further submits that the 3° respondent has' constructed Wind Turbine Generator in the allotted land only. a 3 : On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel! disputed the same and submits that, the 3°8 respondent is encroaching upon the petitioner's giot, which causes: prejudice to the petitioner and it is in violation of NINRE norms.
in those circumstances, both the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo in respect of construction of Wind Turbine Generators vids WTGO? and WTGO8 In the demarcated area, obtaining as on today, for a neriod of two (02) weeks.
Fost after fwo {02} weeks. -
x comprehensive pleadings, f any.
Neediess fo state that the duty resis upon the 2" respondent authority to take all the measures to resolve the dispute amicably by giving due notice to both the parties. Te, Sd/-U SRIDEVI NEPUTY REGISTRAR TRUE COPY! SECTION OFFICER For
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, (Represented by the Chief Secretary) E54 oe) 4 BSE AP. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Andhra Pradash - 522 503 (by Special Messenger} New and Renewable Energy Oevelonment Corporation of A.P. Limited River Oaks Apartment, CSR Kalyana Mandaparm Road, Tad jepail, Guntur district - 522 504 JS Renewable Energy '{CGeament) Limited, (Represented by ifs authorized signatory} JSW Centre, Bandra Kurla Gormplexs Bandra :
(East! Murmbal City, Maharashtra india 40006 (Addresseas 2 & 3 by RP AD) | One CC fo SRE TAGORE YADAV YARAGORLA Advocate [OPUC] Two OCs fo GP FOR GENERAL AOMINISTRATION .High Court Of Andie Fradesh. [OUT]
3. Gne GC to SREKR VOM, CHIRANJEEVI], Advocate [OPUC] One OO to SRI SAL S.S.SIVA RAM, Advocate [(OPUC] Ome spare copy. | HIGH COURT -- me MRK.
DATED SN02/2028
MOTE: Post ater two (02) weeks.
ORDER WP No ?728 of 2028 SPATUS QUO