A farmer from Gandepalli village, near Keesara in the NTR district, has been sued for damages and a perpetual injunction by an ethanol company for speaking to the media about the pollution allegedly caused by the company.

A suit was instituted against M. Muralidhar Reddy by Sentini BioProducts Pvt. Ltd. on July 6, 2026, with requests that the farmer be directed to issue a public apology, pay an amount of ₹1 crore to the company as compensation for loss of reputation, mental agony, and legal expenses incurred, and grant relief in the form of a perpetual injunction restraining the farmer from making any “misleading and malicious” statements in the future. The suit is in the pre-trial process as of Tuesday (September 22).

Stories about these protests have previously been published in .

In April of this year, a Telugu media channel also aired a story titled “Sentini Mantalu,” which focused on the alleged soil, water, and air pollution caused by the factory. The farmer appeared on the show and spoke about the problems faced by the villagers. This was not the first time Mr. Muralidhar Reddy had spoken to the media.

Farmers in Gandepalli have staged multiple protests against the factory, which has been producing ethanol and other by-products since it was established in 2008.

Based on complaints filed in 2013, the Lokayukta initiated an inquiry into the issue in February 2022 and found that effluents were being released into the Gandepalli-Nandaluru pumping irrigation canal without treatment, resulting in high soil salinity.

Based on these findings, the A.P. Pollution Control Board (APPCB) imposed a fine on the company and asked a professor from Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University to assess the crop damage caused by the industry. The professor told that the final report was submitted to the APPCB earlier this month.

The company in the suit said that the statements made by the farmer were false, misleading, and unverified, and that it complies with all applicable statutory requirements and holds valid licenses, approvals, and environmental clearances issued by the A.P. Pollution Control Board and other authorities.

The company also alleged that the defendant had earlier approached it regarding a proposed transaction concerning land situated adjacent to the company. Following the failure of the transaction, the farmer “developed hostility and pursued a sustained campaign of making false allegations,” the suit stated.