The Telangana High Court Tuesday refused to grant any stay on the ongoing works around KBR National Park in Hyderabad and asked the state government and the Centre to explain their stand on the activities undertaken by the municipal authorities.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice G M Mohiuddin was dealing with a batch of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) petitions challenging the felling of trees for the construction of multilayer flyovers around KBR National Park.

The bench directed Advocate General A Sudarshan Reddy and Assistant Solicitor General of India B Narasimha Reddy to file additional affidavits if required and adjourned the matter for further hearing on May 5.

P Sree Ramya, counsel in one of the PILs, informed the court that the work was progressing in violation of Supreme Court guidelines on eco-sensitive zones. She said this was being done without a public hearing, an environmental impact assessment, or a pollution study, despite a clear high court direction issued in August 2021.

Sree Ramya said she was challenging the 2020 eco-sensitive zone notification of the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change through her petition and had submitted the latest photographs of the works in progress on the pavements of KBR Park.

Meanwhile, Sudarshan Reddy submitted that works were progressing in pursuance of the high court’s orders, and the municipal corporation had not touched a tree in the eco-sensitive zone of the national park. Reddy and ASGI Sharma sought time to get a response from the State and Central governments.

The bench sought to know whether the works taken up near KBR Park are prohibited activities, such as mining or the construction of reservoirs, or are they regulated works, such as the construction of roads or pavements, which are permissible. “The photos submitted show pavement works, which could be a permissible activity. If such structures are not repaired, people will fall and get injured. It will be difficult to commute,” noted the bench.

The bench further asked the petitioner’s counsel, Sree Ramya, whether any trees had been felled. She replied that she was not aware if trees had been cut, but added that construction work was underway and significant funds had been allocated. She also urged the court to grant the status quo on the works.

The bench also directed the petitioner’s counsel to do homework and research on the different nature of activities which are either prohibited, regulated or otherwise can be carried out without any restrictions in the buffer zone of the Eco-Sensitive Zone.

Refusing to grant the status quo, the bench noted that it would not indulge in unnecessary apprehensions and adjourned the matter.