Showing posts with label court cases. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court cases. Show all posts

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

{DUU-49} Delhi High Court Case 18-2-2009



Matu Win the case against MOEF

Reconstitute NEAA

Delhi High Court Case:- VIMALBHAI & ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Issue:-Constitution of the National Environment Appellate Authority {NEAA} according to High Court order.
Lawyers: Adv. Sanjay Parikh
Ritwick Dutta and Rahul Choudhary of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment

In a historical judgment delivered by Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar of Delhi High Court imposed Rs. 20,000 cost on MoEF for Non- compliance of order dated 29-9-2005. passed by High Court of Delhi
Following are the relevant extract from the Order/Judgement

……….
37. We are also not happy with the manner of appointment of Members of the NEAA. The present incumbents cannot be stated to be persons satisfying the requirements of possessing technical expertise in terms of Section 5(2} of the NEAA Act. Nevertheless we do not wish to disturb the tenure of the present incumbents since we are informed that they are likely to demit office sometime in March 2009. However, we direct that hereafter the Union of India shall appoint as Members of the NEAA only persons with special technical knowledge in the area concerning the environment as required by Section 5(2} NEAA Act. The appointment of retired bureaucrats of the MoEF, who do not satisfy this requirement, as Members of the NEAA will be contrary to the spirit of the Section 5 (2) NEAA Act and ought not to be countenanced.
44. It is accordingly directed that the Union of India shall grant to the Chairperson of the NEAA hereafter appointed the salary, allowances and other conditions of service as applicable to a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court. The Respondent Union of India will now proceed to take steps on this basis to fill up the post of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson of the NEAA and will complete the process within a period of 12 weeks from today. The necessary amendments to the NEAA Rules consistent with the above directions shall be carried out by the Union of India within the same time period. As regards the appointment of Members of the NEAA after the retirement of present incumbents, the Union of India will abide by the directions issued by this Court in para 37 of this judgment.
45. With the above directions, the application is disposed of. For not complying with the directions issued by this Court on September 29, 2005, which has necessitated the filing of this application, we direct the Respondent Union of India to pay the applicant costs of Rs.20,000 within four weeks.
Brief background of the case
• NEAA dismissed the appeal filed challenging the environment clearance granted to Loharinag-Pala HEP (600 MW) on the ground that Appeal was filed beyond stipulated period of 30 days and the delay was of 23 days. Although it was under the limit of 90 days with condonation of delay.

• Matu People's Organisation has challenged NEAA order dated 20 May 2005 before the Delhi High Court.
• On 29 Sept 2005 Delhi High Court passed an order
"Given regard to the importance of the Authority created under the National Environment Authority Act, it is appropriate to direct the Union of India and all its concerned functionaries to take requisite steps for clearing the proposals related to the appointment of the Chairman of the Appellate Authority and other Technical Members and reconstitute the Authority within 45 days.
The Registrar to fax this order to Secretary Ministry of Finance and Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest for compliance. The petition is disposed of."
BUT MOEF did not take any step to.
• On 7th February 2007 we filed an application on non-complies of above written order.
• After several dates MOEF did not wake-up. Excuses given by the govt. through Secretary MOEF, present in person in the Court on 20-10-2008.
• So after three year long battle in the court we are able to get this very important judgment which establishes the fact that MOEF’s intention is not to save environment and they also not want that their order should by challenged.
We are grateful to the Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar who considers all the issue raised by our Laywers Sanjay Parikh, Ritwik Dutta and Rahul Chowdhary.
We hope MOEF will obey this order and keep the letter and spirit of MOEF itself.

For full judgment pleas see http://www.ercindia.org/node/197

Vimalbhai

Tuesday, 20 December 2011

{DUU-40} Tehri Dam case 5-11-2007


“Status of R&R Works” filed in Supreme Court land slide can occur
On 23-10-2007 “Status of R&R Works” has been filed in supreme court in the main case of N.D. Jayal and Shekhar Singh vs. GOI and others on Tehri Dam by Govt. of Uttaranchal which said--During the inspection of joint survey team, cracks in village Nakot, Rolakot & Bhaldgoan were seen and it was observed that land slide can occur in these villages during impoundment upto RL 830.0 m.
It is very much clear from this, that most of the partially effected villages are under threat of landslide.
On 23 October,2007 after hearing Sanjay Parikh advocate for the petitioner Apex Court ordered authorities to file all the compliance reports within three weeks, related to what has been done by the authorities on rehabilitation part, on the reports of Geological Survey of India and on the reports of Survey of India. Including the report of District Judge (Retd.) appointed in Grievances Cell, in compliance of Apex Court order dated 24-4-07.
Blow is the article on the issue of land slides in the Tehri Dam reservoir and the report of GSI which has been published in November issue of Sopan Step, a bilingual monthly magazine.

Who will be responsible for the disaster?
VimalbhaiAnyone with a remote interest in hydro power will know that the controversial Tehri Dam in Uttarakhand is almost nearing completion, before it is fully commissioned. The Tehri Dam is a 260.5 M high structure and is being constructed to supply, 200q water to western UP and 300q to Delhi. It is being constructed on the Bhagirathi River It will also generate 1000MW electricity. However, what very few would know is that the dam is extremely unstable!
A detailed report filed by Geological Survey of India (GSI), dated 29-3-2007 present some very serious findings and expose the fact that government has been repeatedly ignoring these recommendations. This non adherence to caution can have serious repercussions on both people living around the rim area of the Dam and Reservoir and also the environment. The GSI findings clearly point to the instability of slopes above the rim of the Tehri reservoir, which has not been shared by the government or the project authorities, leave alone taken into consideration. Life and livelihoods are at severe stake.
What does the report say? The report points out:
  • Prima facie the slopes in and around Barola, Kangsali, Raulakot, Nakot, Talla Uppu, Bhald, Badhan and Hadiari villages in Bhagirathi valley are assessed
    as highly vulnerable and need immediate attention before the next filling in the reservoir.
  • Slopes below Sod Uppu, Baldogi and Muindra Sera in Bhagirathi valley are assessed as valnerable. In Bhilangana valley the slopes around Sandana, Amari
    Phadka and Myunda are also assessed as vulnerable.
  • As already recommended by GSI in 1989-90 and 1990-91, detail topographical maps on 1:5000/1:10,000 scale,based on actual ground survey, depicling all the
    details of topography, land use/land cover and drainage, may be provided immediately for geological studies.
  • Time lapse studies with the help of satellite imageries of hi9gh resolution of the reservoir area, along both the valleys as recommended in the GSI reports 1989-90, 1990-91.
  • Detail geological studies are immediately required at the areas assessed as highly vulnerable, so that the actual threat assessment can be made and slope treatment or rehabilitation, whichever is required, can be planned.
Following this, the GSI Director Mr. P.C. Nawani has clarified on 12-4-2007, that
there is no need to stop impoundment process of Tehri Dam Lake. To ascertain the impact on the rim of the lake it is essential to fill the reservoir up to RL 830.0 M and meticulous monitoring be done.
The Tehri Hydro Development Corporation informed that in coming monsoon Tehri Reservoir is to be filled up to RL 815.0 M.
Recent order of Supreme Court, dated 24-4-2007, in the main case of N.D. Jayal and Shekhar Singh vs. GOI and others on Tehri Dam.
in the post-impoundment stage, the fluctuations in the reservoir level between EL 740 0m. and EL 830. 0m (FRL) have direct bearing on the slope stability above the reservoir rim and this is the stage when detailed studies based n high-tech satellite imageries data and detailed ground surveys must be carried out to finally identify the critical or potential unstable slopes above the reservoir rim for making a detailed risk assessment report which will guide planning and implementation of preventive and corrective measures or even rehabilitation, as the case may be”. The state government will advert to this fact and take all remedial measures in this regard.
With the rehabilitation of the dam oustees still not complete, it would be a criminal offence to submerge the area before the completing the process and that to the satisfaction of the affected people.

Further, the GSI report clearly shows that the vulnerability of the identified slopes is
such that there is no guarantee that they would not slide into the reservoir, if left untreated till the next filling. Therefore, the approach suggested by Shri Nawani could well result in many of these slopes actually collapsing. This might give a retrospective confirmation to the predictions of the GSI but would not prevent the damage and disruption caused by such a collapse and increase the vulnerability.

What is most disturbing is the response of the government. Are they not aware that the impacts of land slides above a reservoir includes loss of life and destruction of property of the villages located on these unstable slopes. Also that huge increase in the silt level
of the reservoir leading to significant loss of life of the reservoir and destabilisation of the slopes underneath and around the unstable slopes, setting of a trigger effect?

Very critically, all this poses a great threat to the safety of the dam structure too. If significant land slides occur directly into the reservoir around the same time – for example during even a moderate earth quake – of which there are many in the Tehri region – or during heavy rainfall, the combined impact of these slides could create a wave in the reservoir that could over top the dam structure and cause dam failure
threatening the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. In fact, there have been such incidents in other parts of the world where the collapse of the hill side into the reservoir has caused extensive loss of life.

Well known and respected environmentalist Shri Sunderlal. Bahuguna, and pioneer in the Tehri Dam struggle has always warned about this affect, who cares?

The GSI report also points to the gaps in their being able to monitor because of the non-availability of the required data. They have stated that in 1989-90 and again in 1990-91, the GSI had recommended that maps on 1:5000 and 1:10,000 scale be provided to the
GSI for completing immediate geological studies. These have not yet been provided, despite a lapse of 17-18 years. Clearly, till all the slopes have been properly surveyed and the highly vulnerable slopes identified and treated, the filling of the reservoir cannot be allowed, given the risks that it represents. The relevant maps are critical for this identification.

It is important to note that the mandatory Catchment Area Treatment was not done properly. For instance one of the Project Level Monitoring Committee (PLMC) report clearly said in its conclusions.

Monitoring the Tehri Dam This committee was formed by the order of Supreme Court, dated 1-9-03, in the main case of N.D. Jayal and Shekhar Singh vs. GOI and others on Tehri Dam. MoEF
sated up a Project Level Monitoring Committee (PLMC) and an Inter-Ministerial Review Committee (IMRC). The last meeting of the IMRC was held on 24-10-05 and a report submitted to the honorable High Court. On the basis of this report, the honorable High court gave an order to close down the last diversion tunnel. This diversion tunnel was closed on 29-10-05, which has been challenged in the Supreme Court by N.D. Jayal and Shekhar Singh.

A committee was also formed under the chairmanship of Garwal commissioner to look into the rehabilitation work. State government changed the pattern in 2002, the irrigation minister of state becomes the chairman and all the MLA's of Tehri District become the
members. This committee held only one meeting and then after Hon'able Supreme Court order dated 1-9-2003 the then Chief Minister postponed the committee. Unfortunately the affected people don’t know about this committee and have no say in the process of rehabilitation. No monitoring of this process is also going on.

All this continues to be overlooked and the GSI report ignored. Who will take the responsibility for any disasters that strike in the form of landslides and siltation?
Nearly 100 K.M. above the Tehri Dam in Uttarkashi a huge hill VARUNAVAT got slides in 2004. Till date the treatment of the hill is on and the people have not been rehabilitated Such instances will happen repeatedly in the area as the Catchment Area Treatment of Tehri Dam Project has not been done properly along with the disregard to the cautions of the GSI report. For instance report of PLMC clearly said in its first conclusions, that the records of Forest Department show that our of 44160.10ha of area planted. 6289.87 ha have been reported to be a failure and 13454.39ha was just satisfactory. There is maximum failure of plantations near the Dam site.
Unfortunately, last time the Project Level Monitoring Committee (PLMC) visited the Tehri Dam area was on 30-9-05. There has been no monitoring of the project after the last tunnel was closed down. It appears from practice that the mandate of PLMC was only to give reports till the all diversion tunnel was to close down. But that is not true. The PMLC was required to monitor the project compliance with conditions of clearance and with the orders of the honorable court right till the completion of the project.
All these issues related to the construction of the Tehri Dam are serious business and need to be addressed before a human-induced disaster strikes!

{DUU-38} EC of Kotlibhel projects challanged in NEAA 26-10-07


Environment Clearances of Kotli-Bhel HEPs challenged in NEAA

In the month of September, 2007 the Environment clearances of all three Kotli-Bhel Hydro Electric Projects phase 1 A, 1B and phase 2 have been challenged in National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA). National Hydro Development Corporation is the project proponent of all these HEPs proposed in Uttarakhand. Although the past experience of other different cases filed in the NEAA is not so good but even then we gained something and made at least some pressure on the authorities. Most of you got the report of fake public hearings held for all these projects sent by us.
RITWICK DUTTA, RAHUL CHOUDHARY and PRIYABRATA SATAPATHY of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment are the advocates for the appellants.
Appellants of the appeal are:-
Kotli-Bhel HEP phase 1 A
1. Vimalbhai of MATU PEOPLES’ ORGANISATION
2. Rajendra Singh Negi of Gram Gorathi Khand
3. Trilok Singh Rawat of Village Nigar

Kotli-Bhel HEP phase 1 B
1. DR. BHARAT JHUNJHUNWALA of village LAKSHMOLI
2. VIMAL BHAI of MATU PEOPLES’ ORGANISATION
3. DEVKI DEVI of GRAM MALETHA
4. SUNDER SINGH NEGI of GRAM DIGOLI

Kotli-Bhel HEP phase 2
1. VIMAL BHAI of MATU PEOPLES’ ORGANISATION
2. GOVIND PRASAD of GRAM -SILSU
3. SAROJ RAWAT of GRAM NAUGOUN,

Mainly these are the prayers

  • Immediately stay the clearance granted to the project.
  • Stay on ongoing land acquisition process.
  • Stay on ongoing construction work till a fresh and complete Environment Impact Assessment of the
project is undertaken.
  • A proper EIA be done taking into account the all factors so that complete information is provided about
the nature of impacts due to the project and only after mitigative measures are taken should the clearance
to the project be considered.
  • Public hearing conducted pervious be declared null and void and a proper public hearing be conducted
after following all the prescribed procedures and specifically directing that all required information and
documents be made available in local language (Hindi) at all the designated places.

Kotli-Bhel Hydro Power Project some information



Heads
Kotali-Bhel-1 Part A

Kotali-Bhel-I Part B
Kotli-Bhel-II HEP

River Bhagirathi
Alaknanda
Ganga
Place
5 K.M. above Devprayag 2and ½ K. M. above Devprayag 30 K.M. down from Devprayag
Height of the Dam in Meters from the foundation 75-6 90 82
Length of the reservoir 18-4 K.M. 27-5 K.M.
29 K.M.

Land submerge 217-269 Hq. 502-347 Hq. 606-142 Hq.
Production Proposed 195 320 530
Environment Clearance
9-5-2007



Devprayag is the confluence of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda River. Only after this River name is Ganga.

Sunday, 18 December 2011

{DUU-33} Tehri Dam Case 10-4-07


Rehabilitation is not completed
Case adjourns for a week as Additional Solicitor General B. Dutta
was not able to argue because of his health.
Project Name: Tehri Dam Project (1000+1000+400 MW)
Rivers: Bhagirathi -Bhilangna
Agency: Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC)
Environmental Clearance granted on 19-7-1990

The Tehri Dam case of N. D. Jayal & another vs. Union of India & Others has been adjourning for a week as Additional Solicitor General B. Dutta was not able to argue because of his health.
Meanwhile an affidavit filed by the State of Uttarakhand. It is clearly mention in the affidavit that rehabilitation till 840Meter has not been achieved. They--
received complains that some of the families have been left out in the previous survey and in order to ensure that all such eligible persons also get rehabilitation benefits, a fresh survey is being undertaken by the Survey of India ……work likely to be completed and the report will submitted by 15th May, 2007………Hon’ble Court may be pleased to consider and grant further time to enable the authorities to complete and finalize all the R & R works.
And the situation of the people:-
That more then thousand villagers have not been given house plots;
Hundreds of villagers have not been given house construction assistance;
Village shopkeepers have not been given shop plots and other compensation to unable them for settle down somewhere;
Thousand of villagers did not get compensation for their left over assets;
More then hundred residents of Old Tehri force to live in Tin Shades as temporary shelters, which can be any time taken back by the administration.
Rural Rehabilitation & Resettlement sites are left without being given basic civic amenities.
And many villages above the reservoir are facing serious land slides. Which cause another big displacement.
Under this situation an independent committee required to consolidates these fact and bring to the notice of the newly form Uttarakhand Govt. and outside world.
Development for all. Not only for few.
Vimalbhai



{DUU-32} NAEE Case 04-04-07


Delhi High Court annoyed with MoEF for non constituting the NEAA

Case:- Vimalbhai Vs. Union of India
Filed on:- 9-12-2005
Issue:-Constitute the National Environment Applet Authority according to High Court order

The Delhi High Court today while hearing the application Vimalbhai vs. Union of India with respect to the Constitution of the National Environmental Appellate Authority directed the Ministry of Environment & Forest to either appoint the Chairman and Vice-Chairman or Present the bill relating to the National Environmental Tribunal at the earliest. The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Dr. M. K. Sharma expressed concern over the fact that social welfare legislation is not being properly implemented and therefore, the whole purpose of enactment of the law as well as formation of the authority gets defeated. The Court stated that it is unfortunate that the Ministry in so many years could not locate even a Single Judge or Chief Justice of the High Court for such an important post.
Counsel for the Petitioner Ritwick Dutta (From LIFE) pointed out there are only three technical members and that to former bureaucrats of which some were former officials of the Ministry of Environment & Forest and therefore, difficult to assume that it could render independent decisions. The Chief Justice remarked that this Tribunal has in fact become a post retirement place for bureaucrats.
The matter is listed for hearing on 16.05.2007.

Development for all, not only for few.
Vimalbhai
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
{DUU-31} NEAA order on Loharinag-Pala HEP 7-2-2007

NEAA Ordered:-MOEF monitor the project instead of NTPC
Project Name: Loharinag-Pala Hydroelectric Project (4x150 MW)

River: Bhagirathi
Agency: National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC)

Environmental Clearance granted on 8.2.2005

Case: challenging Environment Clearance of Loharinag-Pala HEP

In its order dated 7-2-2007 National Environment Appellate Authority gave some important directions to Ministry of Environment and Forest. After a long better in the NEAA we were able to get some amount of directions although this appeal has been dismissed. It is important that this is very first case which has been heard by NEAA on merits.


You may recall after giving notice by Adv. Prashant Bhushan when project got environment clearance one appeal has been filed by Matu Peoples' Organisation and two headman of affected villages. This appeal has not been heard on the basis of condonation of delay then we (Adv. Sanjay Parikh and Adv. Ritiwik Dutta) challenged this dismissal in Delhi High court. In September 2005 Delhi High court ordered to reconstitute NEAA with full bench and heard the case on merits. On 8-8-06 NEAA has begun the hearing.

Adv. Ritiwik Dutta and Rahul Chowdhary of LIFE argued well in the authority. We as Matu Peoples’ Organisation very thank full to them for working so hard.

Important directions of the order

During the course of hearing of the Appeal, certain important issues closely related to the problems of the affected people were raised by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. They are


(a) Need for improvement in the quality of Environment Impact Assessment Reports;

(b) Need for service of notice of Public Hearing on the Village level, Local Bodies like Gram Panchayat; and

(c) Need for an affective Multidisciplinary Monitoring Mechanism.



These three suggestions are dealt with and the decisions of the Authority are given below:

12.1 Multidisciplinary Monitoring Mechanism is at present monitoring the progress of various aspects including the R & R package of the Project. The Authority notes that this mechanism is under the control of the Project Proponent. Having examined the various inadequacies brought out during the course of Appeal, the Authority is convinced about the need for an effective Monitoring Mechanism to ensure timely implementation of all suggested environmental safeguards including the R & R package so as to repose the faith of the public in Government’s intentions and commitments to conservation and sustainable Development. Accordingly, the Appellants and the Respondents were asked to file their suggestions on composition of the Monitoring Committee and measures for qualitative improvement of Environment Impact Assessment Report and Environment Management Plan. The Authority has examined the various suggestions received on the aspects and is convinced of the need for reconstitution of Monitoring Committee so as to ensure strict implementation of various general and specific conditions imposed while granting Environment Clearance. Accordingly, this Authority directs (1) Constitution of a Multidisciplinary Monitoring Committee under the control of the Respondent No.1 instead of Project proponent, as given at para (vii) of General Conditions of the Environmental Clearance letter, to implementation of the Project and (2) Inclusion of Ecologists, Environmental scientist, Conservationists and experienced Administrators in that Committee so that the project leads to sustainable development with adequate protection to the Environment.

12.2 The Environment Impact Assessment Report and Environment Management Plan that are mandated for every developmental project of a certain size must be prepared scientifically, in an un-biased manner by Specialized Agencies and with enough autonomy. In order to improve the quality of the EIAs and EMPs the Authority feels that MoEF, GOI should consider appropriate mechanism for Empanelled of Suitable Specialised Agencies for preparation of EIA and EMP with a provision for enabling the project proponents to choose their own agency from out of the list of Agencies approved by MoEF, GOI.

12.3 As regards the much agitated issue of service of notice for Public Hearing the Local Gram Panchayat or any other Local Body, this Authority finds some force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Appellants, though we have not agreed with his contention that failure to service the notice for Public Hearing on the Gram Panchayat should vitiate the entire proceedings resulting in quashing of the Environment Clearance Order issued by the Respondent No. 1. The Authority notes that Schedule IV of Notification dated 10th April 1997 issued by the MoEF, GOI deals with the procedure for conduct of Public Hearing. While the said notification provides for access of the concerned persons to the Executive Summary of the Project at the Office of the Chief Executive Officers of Zila Parishad or Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation or Local Body, there is no such clear provision regarding service of notice for Public Hearing. The Authority is convinced that mere publication of notice in at least two newspapers widely circulated in the region, one of which shall be in local vernacular language is not adequate enough to meet the Principle of Natural Justice for the affected people, in view of the fact that considerable segment of rural population are still illiterate unable to read or write the local vernacular language. Further, the recent notification issued by the Respondent No.1 on 14th September 2006 does not make any provision in this regard. The Authority therefore directs that the notice for the Public Hearing should be exhibited in the office of the concerned Local Bodies of the area affected by the Project. The Respondent No. 1 is requested to take necessary action accordingly.

{DUU-30} NEAA Case 07-02-07


Delhi High Court ordered to MoEF
Filed the action taken report with in six weeks.
Case:- Vimalbhai Vs. Union of India
Issue:- Non-Constitute of National Environment Applet Authority
Today, Delhi High Court while hearing the case of Vimalbhai vs. Union of India directed the MoEF to file the action taken report with in six weeks. MoEF counsel informs the court that Govt. of India is bringing a bill in next session for constituting the a tribunal alternative to NEAA. Chief Justice said MoEF was supposed to bring the bill in the winter session now again you are saying MoEF will bring the bill in coming session. You have to file action taken report with in six weeks.
Adv. Ritiwik Dutta from LIFE was standing from the petitioner’s side.
Development for all, not only for few.
Vimalbhai

{DUU-29} Tehri Dam Case 06-02-07


Complete the rehabilitation till 31st March
Next hearing will be on10th April 2007.
Project Name: Tehri Dam Project (1000+1000+400 MW)
Rivers: Bhagirathi -Bhilangna
Agency: Tehri Hydro Development Corporation (THDC)
Environmental Clearance granted on 19-7-1990

The Tehri Dam case of N. D. Jayal & another vs. Union of India & Others where issues concerning environment and rehabilitation were considered by the Supreme Court came up before the bench consisting of the Chief Justice, Justice D.K. Jain and Justice Sirpurkar on 6-2-2007. After hearing arguments, the court directed the UOI, MOEF, THDC and the State of Uttarakhand to complete the rehabilitation of the oustees affected between EL-790 meters to 840 meters by 31st March 2007 and submits an affidavit before the Court. The court also gave an opportunity to the petitioner to put on record the facts indicating non rehabilitation of oustees between 760-790 meters against the claim of the State of Uttarakhand that all oustees between 760 to 790 meters have been rehabilitated. The Supreme Court will consider the rehabilitation and implementation of the environmental conditions on the next date of hearing i.e. 10th April 2007.
Arguments in the Supreme Court:-
Advocate Sanjay Parikh who is working on Tehri Case since 1992 put the history of the Tehri case in the court. He argued that in its order of 1-9-2003 the apex court said that prior to closing of diversion tunnels T1/T2 for impoundment of the reservoir, evacuation; resettlement and rehabilitation are completed in all respects.
It was never the question of completing the rehabilitation till 760M-790M of reservoir level. Total dam height is 840M from the sea level. Now the situation is that the ocean is ahead and the affected person has to run away. The pari-pasu term was related with the engineering work of the dam not with the filling of reservoir as it was wrongly defined by the Uttarakhand High Court in its order dated 29-10-2005. And that is why we challenged the High Court order in the Apex Court.
It is in the Sardar Sarovar of Narmada where authorities have to complete rehabilitation and environment condition before taking permission to raise the height of the dam wall. Where in Tehri Dam there was no Environmental Impact Assessment, it is rock fill dam and dam work has been completed earlier.
The aim of environment conditional clearance was to save the hardship of the affected people and to take necessary action for protecting environment but it is not followed. Since 2002 govt. is filing affidavits that they will complete the bridge before submergence and still they are saying same after the submergence. Grievance Redressal machinery is not functioning. No command area operational.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who was arguing Kishor Upadhayay Vs. GOI and another elegits the authorities that he gave a list of problems to the authorities after doing village by village survey but answer is only—under consideration, we will do, money has been sanction etc. not the real benefits given to the affected persons of this list.
Central Monitoring Committing only visited 4 villages till now.
Additional Solicitor General B. Dutta we have done the rehabilitation till 790 M.
Development for all. Not only for few.
Vimalbhai