The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Monday directed the state government to ensure that work on the proposed $15-billion Google-Adani data-centre project in Visakhapatnam is carried out with the required legal and environmental permissions.
“Environmental clearances cannot be given a go by,” the court said, directing authorities to ensure that work at the site is carried out with the necessary permissions.
A bench led by Chief Justice Lisa Gill made the observations after being told that work at the site had already begun.
Petitioner Bolisetty Satyanarayana, who filed the plea challenging the project approvals, sought an interim status quo order. “My request is… interim prayer for the status quo till the time matter is heard,” said Virag Gupta, counsel for Satyanarayana.
The court did not grant the status quo request. It instead directed the state to ensure that work at the site has the required permissions.
The court also asked the government to file a consolidated response from the departments involved in the project's approvals. The matter will be heard next week.
The plea raises concerns over 160 acres of Simhachalam Devasthanam land, the project's proximity to a protected area, environmental clearances, and water and electricity requirements.
Gupta argued that the environmental clearance covered the construction of the building but not the data-centre operations.
“The environment clearance is only for the building. It’s not for the data centre,” he told the court.
He also argued that the 160 acres of temple land could not be alienated without the High Court's permission, citing an earlier order. Gupta further questioned the approvals granted after Google announced the project, saying Google's name did not appear in the clearances.
“Not even a single page name of the Google has come in the whole, these clearances,” he told the court.
The state disputed the petitioner's claim over the temple land. Its counsel said the land had not been transferred but leased by the temple authorities to the Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation (APIIC). The state said the arrangement would give the temple about ₹26 crore a year.
“It is not at all a transfer. It was only a lease given by the temple authorities, by the commissioner, to the APIIC… By virtue of such a lease, the temple is gaining an amount of ₹26 crores and odd per annum,” the state's counsel told the court.
The petitioner also argued that the project site is about 0.86 km from the protected area and could require Category A treatment under environmental rules, bringing it under central-level scrutiny.
Water and electricity requirements were also raised. The petitioner pointed to a nearby reservoir and questioned whether the project's resource requirements had been properly assessed.
