Staff Reporter

Accuse promoters of star hotel of intimidation

Opponents get favourable verdict in four cases

Enforce CRZ notification: FBV coordinator

VISAKHAPATNAM: Social activists T. Shankar, Alisha and Arjili Dasu, whose petition against construction of a star hotel on the beachside is pending in the High Court, on Wednesday asked Commissioner of Police N. Sambasiva Rao to provide them protection from the promoters of the project.

The activists held a press conference and alleged that some people representing Sea Valley Resorts, which is constructing a five star hotel at RK beach, tried to lure them with cars and cash and later warned of dire consequences if they did not withdraw the public interest litigation.


They said that the persons who met them claimed close access to IAS and IPS officers and tried to buy them with inducements. “We have filed eight petitions in the High Court against violation of Coastal Zone Regulation (CRZ) and in four cases, we obtained favourable judgment and four are pending in court.”

Meanwhile, Forum for Better Visakha coordinator and retired IAS officer E.A.S. Sarma condemned the “intimidation tactics” adopted by the promoters of the hotel and the multiplex.

He said the municipal corporation and other authorities should enforce the CRZ notification and alleged that even some Government agencies had violated the notification.

He said in petition numbered 8177/2007 filed by Mr. Shankar and others recently, the High Court ordered demolition of some structures at Rushikonda and directed the District Collector to submit an action taken report in two and half months.

Mr. Sarma said the authorities should take steps to stop ‘undesirable acts of violence’ and other ‘unethical acts.’

HRF joins chorus

In a release, the Human Rights Forum (HRF) also backed the demand for protection to three activists who had received threats allegedly from the promoter of a star hotel. HRF State secretary V.S. Krishna said CRZ notification was a significant legislation brought forth in 1991 using provisions contained in the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and stated that the petitioners had raised issues relating to violation of CRZ notification on several occasions.