Chief Justice: environmental clearance for the Vizag hyperscale park cannot be given a go-by. Posted next week — not a stay.

The Chief Justice did not write a stay. She wrote that environmental clearance cannot be given a go-by.

On Monday, 24 August 2026, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court headed by Chief Justice Lisa Gill heard a public interest litigation on the Vizag hyperscale data-centre park. The Bench observed that the prescribed environmental-clearance process could not be given a go-by. That is the court line this card will keep. The matter was posted to next week for all parties to file counters and for the Advocate-General to clarify the State government’s position. Next week is a listing. It is not a stay order on this filing.

The petition was filed by Jal Biradari national convener Bolisetty Satyanarayana. It alleges violations in the grant of various permissions to the Google-owned data centre. The Bench took note of the allegation that land was alienated to Vizag Hyperscale Data Center Park Limited, and that environmental clearances were granted and various facilitation measures were extended by State departments in an allegedly illegal and opaque manner and on misleading grounds. Those are allegations in the petition. They are not findings of the Bench.

The Bench said necessary steps would be taken if it was found that the established parameters had been overstepped. The Advocate-General was asked to clarify the government’s position. The Advocate-General is not named on this card. This desk will not invent a name.

Justice Lisa Gill said protection of the environment was a responsibility entrusted to the State government, and that responsibility would be fixed on the officers involved once their names were furnished. Fixing responsibility after names are furnished is a future step. It is not a penalty order dated Monday.

Petitioner’s advocate Virag Gupta told the Bench there was essentially no data localisation as required under the Enforcement of Public Records Act. A wrong impression had been created, he said, that the data centre would contribute to the digital economy, whereas no Indian data would be stored there. Gupta also said Google’s name was not explicitly mentioned in the Environment Impact Assessment records. Those are the petitioner’s contentions. They are not court findings.

Gupta further contended that the 160-acre land parcel in Adavivaram and Mudasarlova villages in Visakhapatnam Rural mandal could not have been transferred to Vizag Hyperscale Data Center Park Limited because it belonged to the Simhachalam Devasthanam. He said the site was barely a kilometre from the eco-sensitive zone of the Kambalakonda Reserve Forest, making it a Category-A project requiring Central-government scrutiny. The environmental-clearance application, on his account, was limited to construction of the building and contained no details of the proposed activity, and there was no clarity on large-scale water and electricity requirement. One hundred and sixty acres, and the one-kilometre distance from Kambalakonda, are petitioner contentions on this card. This desk will not convert them into a surveyed gazette.

Government counsel said necessary steps were being taken to comply with all relevant statutes. A consolidated response would be filed on the lease or transfer of the temple land. Nine departments had been made parties. Nine is the government-counsel count of parties. It is not a finding that nine departments granted illegal clearances.

What this card will not print as the court line must be said plainly. Some other public desks reported that the court refused to stay construction or did not grant status quo. The card this desk follows does not carry a stay-refused sentence. This desk will not print “stay refused” as the High Court’s Monday order. The Monday lock is the Chief Justice’s observation that environmental clearance cannot be given a go-by, and a posting to next week.

This card will also not import incentive crore figures or a dollar investment total that are not on the Monday High Court filing. Separate 21 August Information Technology, Electronics and Communications land-incentive government orders for other data-centre projects are not this public interest litigation. They are not reprinted here as if the Bench had heard them.

Amaravati holds the High Court. Adavivaram and Mudasarlova in Visakhapatnam Rural mandal hold the site named in the petition. Form B and any poll date are not notified on this file.

Until counters are filed and the Advocate-General clarifies, the public ledger is a Monday observation by Chief Justice Lisa Gill that the environmental-clearance process cannot be given a go-by; a public interest litigation by Bolisetty Satyanarayana; petitioner lines on 160 acres of Simhachalam Devasthanam land, a one-kilometre distance from the Kambalakonda eco-sensitive zone, missing data-localisation and an Environment Impact Assessment that does not name Google; a government assurance of statutory compliance and a consolidated reply on temple land, with nine departments as parties; and a listing next week. That listing is not a stay.