Case Name: Karimajji Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4618 of 2026
Date: 24th Day of June 2026
Court: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati
Quorum: Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy
FACTS
Petitioners from Nagarapalem village in Srikakulam district filed a writ petition against the State of Andhra Pradesh and others, including M/s Ravikiran Beverages. The respondents had planned to set up an establishment for producing beverages on Survey Nos.-293/1 to 293/7 of the village.
It was contended by the petitioners that the respondents had demolished and filled up the public water tank called Gedda, which had resulted in loss of irrigation facilities and agriculture in the nearby lands. It was also argued that the respondents had dug borewells to such a depth that the underground water resources were affected. As per their claim, the factory was established without going through the proper legal process.
They contended that these acts constituted an infringement of their fundamental rights and the Public Trust Doctrine, and requested that directions be issued to prohibit these activities and to put the water body back into its original state.
But the Gram Panchayat and the Company have denied these charges. The Company has got all the required clearances from the respective authorities like Pollution Control Board, Ground Water Department, Factories Department, Revenue Department, and Fire Services Department.
ISSUES
- Whether the setting up of the beverage unit constituted a violation of the rights of the petitioners, as it interferes with the public waterway and groundwater resources?
- Did the company have all the necessary statutory permissions for the setting up of the industry?
- Should the High Court intervene in the setting up of the industrial unit as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Constitution of India – Article 226: Power of High Courts to issue writs: Allows the issuance of directions, orders and writs by High Courts for the enforcement of fundamental rights and other legal purposes.
- Constitution of India – Article 14: Right to Equality: Safeguards citizens from unreasonable and arbitrary actions of the state.
- Constitution of India – Article 21: Right to Life: Contains the right to live in a clean and healthy environment.
- Constitution of India – Article 300-A: Right to Property: States that no person can be deprived of their property without following the provisions of law.
- Public Trust Doctrine: Mandates the state to preserve natural assets like rivers, lakes, etc. for the use and enjoyment of the general public. No resource may be misused by the state or private individuals for their own benefit.
- Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Acknowledges the inherent powers of the civil court for making orders which are essential for doing complete justice. The petition had sought an interim order under this section as well.
ARGUMENTS
PETITIONERS – The petitioners pleaded that the company had trespassed upon and filled up a public water body (Gedda), leading to alteration of the natural course of flow and irrigation facilities. They further said that the drilling of groundwater through deep bore wells would result in environmental pollution and would adversely affect the living of villagers. It was argued that the relevant authorities had accorded permissions without conducting inspections and taking into account the objections raised by the villagers. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388; Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi, (2001) 6 SCC 496; Intellectuals Forum, Tirupathi v. State of A.P., (2006) 3 SCC 549; and Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 were cited in support.
RESPONDENTS – The case presented by the State government was that all requisite permissions were given following verification by the respective departments. The Gram Panchayat contended that it had given its No Objection Certificate only after verifying all necessary approvals. In addition, the company contended that there is no public water body on its land and that there is already a Gram Panchayat Road in the area. They also contended that permission had been given for extraction of groundwater with conditions attached and that the construction is nearly complete.
ANALYSIS
The Court perused the documentation and permissions acquired by the company, which included pollution control board consent, permission for groundwater, factory permission, land conversion permission, building permission, and Gram Panchayat NOC.
The Court found that judicial review under Article 226 was a scrutiny of the decision-making process and not an attempt to make decisions for expert bodies themselves. Further, the Court pointed out that no authentic revenue document, village map, or any other documentary evidence was filed by the petitioners to establish the existence of a public water body on the disputed site.
Even when the Court recognised that the public trust doctrine applied to water bodies, it still stated that the petitioners had not proved the factual elements required for encroachment. Additionally, the Court realised that the competent authorities would have done something if the company had contravened the terms of the permissions.
JUDGMENT
The petition was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 24 June 2026 because, according to the Court, the petitioners did not make out any case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court held that the company had all the statutory clearances and there was no proof whatsoever that the permissions had been issued to the company illegally or through any fraudulent means.
CONCLUSION
In this case, the need for documentation to prove the encroachment of public water bodies and environmental destruction has been pointed out. The ruling further makes it clear that High Courts do not interfere with matters of technicality of experts unless it is illegal and arbitrary or there is a statutory violation. However, the judgment also acknowledges the duty of the State to safeguard public water resources in line with the Public Trust Doctrine.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: DEBARATI CHATTERJEE
Karimajji Ramakrishna and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others
