APHC010374272025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WP(PIL) NO: 127 of 2025 [3483] Telagani Satyavardhana Rao, and Others ...Petitioner(s) Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...Respondent(s) ********** Advocate for Petitioner: K S Murthy Associates Advocate(s) for Respondent(s): Mrs. S. Pranathi, Spcl. Govt. Pleader CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI DATE : 23rd July 2025 P C : The issues raised in the present petition were also the issues raised in W.P.(PIL) No.99 of 2023. The case of the petitioners is that the Puducherry Government has approached the Andhra Pradesh Government for an NOC with regard to erection of a retaining wall on the Yanam side of Union Territory of Puducherry with a view to secure their side of the territory from floods. It is not out of place here to mention that the river Godavari enters into Andhra Pradesh at Dhavaleswaram and from there, it divides into 2 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_127 _2025 two main branches. The left branch is called Gowthami Godavari and the right branch is called Vasishta Godavari. The left branch Gowthami Godavari passes through Yanam, Puducherry, which acts as a natural boundary between Andhra Pradesh and Yanam. The left flood bank is on the Yanam side while the right flood bank is on the Andhra side. Both sides are protected by bunds using earth material. 2. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court that the Puducherry Government had approached the Andhra Pradesh Government for NOC with regard to erection of a retaining wall on the Yanam side of Union Territory of Puducherry with a view to secure their side of the territory from floods. The Executive Engineer, Godavari Head works Division, by virtue of communication, dated 23.01.2021, granted an NOC with a condition that the construction would be undertaken only in the territory of Yanam and not on the land which falls in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners’ case in W.P. (PIL) No.99 of 2023 was that such an NOC could not have been given in view of the fact that the earlier view of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, as expressed vide communication, dated 13.04.2018, was that the construction undertaken by the Puducherry Government could obstruct the free flow of water in 3 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_127 _2025 the river and would aggravate erosion on the Andhra side of the Gowthami river. 3. This Court by virtue of the judgment and order, dated 11.09.2024, was of the opinion that the issues raised were required to be settled at the level of Government and that it was for the petitioners to approach the Government and it was for the Government to take a decision based upon the material which was placed on record. No directions were issued as were prayed in the said petition. Be that as it may, the issue appears to have been considered by the Government, which led to issuance of letter, dated 19.03.2025, whereby NOC that was issued was kept in abeyance. The Government considering the fact that the issue involved an inter-state issue envisaged the constitution of a High-Level Departmental Committee to review the NOC issued afresh. 4. In the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that although it was envisaged that a High-Level Departmental Committee would consider and review the NOC issued afresh, no such Committee was constituted and therefore, a direction is sought in that regard. 4 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_127 _2025 5. We continue to hold the opinion that the issue which is sought to be highlighted in fact is an inter-state issue, which requires to be settled between the two Governments for which the Government of Andhra Pradesh has already envisaged consideration of a High-Level Committee for the time being. We feel that in any case, the NOC, which would have given the right to the Puducherry Government to start construction on the Yanam side has since been suspended, there was no urgency in the matter as no construction was being undertaken despite suspension of the NOC in question. Even otherwise, being an inter-state issue, this Court would have no jurisdiction to pass orders in that regard. We find no merit in the present petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ. RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J. akn 5 HCJ & RC, J WP(PIL)_127 _2025 260 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI W.P.(PIL) No.127 of 2025 Dt:23.07.2025 akn