प्रैस विज्ञप्ति 27 फरवरी, 2016

प्रैस विज्ञप्ति            27 फरवरी, 2016

उच्चतम् न्यायालय ने अपने कंधों का भार उतारा

Please see English translation after Hindi

परियोजना का नामः टिहरी बांध जलविद्युत परियोजना {1000+1000+400}; नदीः भागीरथी गंगा व भिलंगना नदी; बांध कंपनीः टिहरी जलविकास निगम; पर्यावरण स्वीकृतिः 19-7-1990; बांध का उद्घाटनः 2006 माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय में टिहरी बांध केसः एन0 डी0 जयाल व शेखर सिंह बनाम भारत सरकार व अन्य (SLP (c) No. 22894 of 2005)
लगभग 11 साल चलने के बाद माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय ने टिहरी बांध विस्थापितों के पुनर्वास के मुद्दे को वापिस नैनीताल उच्चन्यालय भेजा दिया। टिहरी बांध के विस्थापितों के लिए यह कोई अच्छी खबर नहीं है। उच्चतम् न्यायालय ने कहा कि दस साल से यहंा क्यों है? जबकि अपेक्षा थी की उच्चतम् न्यायालय सरकार व टिहरी बांध बनाने वाली कंपनी, टिहरी जल विकास निगम से पूछता की उन्होनें पुनर्वास क्यों नही किया? जिन मुद्दों को पिछले दस सालो से उच्चतम् न्यायालय देख रहा था उन सब  को एक ही झटके में नकार कर सिर्फ ‘‘उच्चतम् न्यायालय में दस साल से केस क्यों लंबित है?‘‘ इस पर ही चिंतित होकर विस्थापितों व पर्यावरण के गंभीर प्रश्नों से मुंह फेर लिया है। आखिर किस बात की जल्दी है माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय को? पिछले दस सालांे में उच्चतम् न्यायालय के कारण पुनर्वास के अनेक काम हो पाये थे। 11 साल में यह महत्व का है कि पिछले लगभग डेढ़ साल से  केस की तारिख बिना कारण आगे बढ़ती जा रही थी। यानि माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय ही न्याय में देर करता रहा। और अंत में केस ही वापिस किया उन्ही के पास जिनके निर्णय के खिलाफ वादी माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय आये थे।

उच्चतम् न्यायालय के कारण क्या हो पाया?

ऽ    टिहरी बांध बनने के बाद भी सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया के सर्वे ने, जो टिहरी बांध जलाशय की गलत सर्वे लाइन के कारण 1000 विस्थापित पुनर्वास से वंचित थे, उनको पुनर्वास योग्य पाया गया। अभी उन सबका पुनर्वास बाकी है।
ऽ    नवम्बर 2011 में 103 करोड़ उच्चतम् न्यायालय के आदेश पर टीएचडीसी ने उत्तराखंड सरकार को टिहरी बांध विस्थापितों के पुनर्वास के लिये दिये।
ऽ    अदालत के दवाब पर ही, 2010 में टिहरी झील भरने के कारण झील के किनारे के जो लगभग 45 गांव धसने लगे थे उनके लिये एक सम्पाशर्विक नीति बनाने के लिये सरकारें मजबूर हुई।
ऽ    इतने सालों में ग्रामीण विस्थापन से लेकर शहरी विस्थापन तक, कही पर भी पुनर्वास की सुविधाएं पूरी नही मिल पाई हैं। बल्कि नयी समस्याएं सामने आई है।
ऽ    हम नैनीताल उच्च न्यायालय में पूरी आस्था रखते हुये यह मानते है कि उच्चतम् न्यायालय के कारण ही सरकार व बांध कंपनी पुनर्वास के मामले पर कुछ सजग रही।

अभी भी बाकि हैः-
ऽ    जहाँ पर आज 36 साल बाद भी लोगो को पुनर्वास की समुचित सुविधायें नहीं मिल पाई है, भूमिधर अधिकार नहीं मिल पाया है।
ऽ    पुनर्वास की समस्याआंे को हल करने के लिए जो तंत्र बनाए गए वे भी काफी हद तक नाकामयाब रहे है।
ऽ    शिकायत विभाग ने जितनी भी उनके पास शिकायते आई उनको निरस्त कर दिया गया। क्यों निरस्त किया यह जानकारी भी लोगो को सीधी नहीं मिल पाई?
ऽ    ग्रामीण पुनर्वास स्थल में काफी लोगो ने अपनी ज़मीन इसीलिए बेचीं दी क्यूंकि वहाँ पर पानी एवं अन्य सुविधाएं नहीं थी।
ऽ    29 जुलाई 2005 में जब बाँध कमीशन हुआ था। और 2008 में तत्कालीन उर्जा मंत्री ने घोषणा की थी 1 प्रतिशत लाभ स्थानीय विकास कोष में दिया जाएगा। इस नीति पर कोई काम नही हुआ है।
ऽ    तत्कालीन उर्जा मंत्री ने यह भी घोषणा की थी कि बाँध विस्थापितों को 100 यूनिट बिजली मुफ्त मिलेगी। इस नीति पर कोई काम नही हुआ है।
ऽ    बाँध की झील भरने के साथ 2010 में लगभग 45 गाँव धसक कर नीचे आ रहे है उनके लिए सम्पाशर्विक नीति बनी। माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय में अभी उस नीति पर चर्चा ही चल रही थी।
ऽ    माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय अभी यह निर्णय नही कर पाया था नये विस्थापितों को ज़मीन नीचे हरिद्वार जिले में दी जाए या फिर झील के आस-पास दी जाए?
ऽ    टिहरी बांध शिकायत निवारण सेल के अध्यक्ष श्री इंद्रजीत मलहौत्रा ने उच्चतम् न्यायालय को भेजी अपनी अंतिम रिर्पोट में पुनर्वास निदेशालय के कामकाज पर पूरी तरह असंतोष जताते हुये कहा है कि पर्यावरण का विनाश और टिहरी बांध विस्थापितों का शोषण हो रहा है।
ऽ    केंद्रीय वन, पर्यावरण एंव जलवायु परिवर्तन मंत्रालय ने 2003 के बाद से टिहरी बांध क्षेत्र के पर्यावरण व पुनर्वास के मुद्दों की कोई निगरानी की है। 
ऽ    जलसंग्रहण उपचार योजना का काम सही नही हुआ है या योजना सही नही थी। इसका नतीजा है टिहरी बांध जलाशय के किनारे के गांव नीचे धसक रहे है।
ऽ    भारतीय भूसर्वेक्षण की रिर्पोटो पर भी ध्यान नही दिया।

इस पूरी परिस्थिति में आज उच्चतम् न्यायालय ने वापिस उच्च न्यायालय को ज़िम्मेदार बनाया है की अगर प्रभावितों की कोई शिकायत होती है तो उसमे जा सकते है। उच्चतम् न्यायालय का ये भी मानना रहा की विभिन्न तरह के जो भी तंत्र है यानि जिलाधिकारी, पुनर्वास कार्यालय से लेकर शिकायत विभाग तक। वो अपना काम करें और फिर यदि प्रभावितों को अगर कोई समस्या हो तो वो उच्चन्यायालय भी जा सकते है।

अब प्रश्न है कि आखिर कितने लोग वहंा जा सकते है? कितनों के पास उतने संसाधन होंगे?
ज्ञातव्य है की अभी तक राज्य सरकार ने बाँध की झील पूरा भरने की इजाज़त नहीं दी है। क्यूंकि राज्य सरकार पर पुनर्वास देख रही है पिछले कई वर्षाे से यह लगातार हो रहा है कि पुनर्वास कार्यालय पैसे की तंगी से जूझ रहा है पुनर्वास के लिए पैसा टीएचडीसी है। मगर टीएचडीसी मानती है कि पुनर्वास पूरा हो गया है। इसलिये अब पुनर्वास के लिये पैसा नहीं दे रही है। विस्थापित टीएचडीसी व पुनर्वास कार्यालय के बीच झूल रहा है।

सबसे बड़ी बात यह है एक तरफ बांध से उत्पादित बिजली में राज्य सरकार जो 12 प्रतिशत का हिस्सा मिलता है। राज्य सरकार उसका क्या कर रही है? उसका भी कोई पता नही। ऐसे तमाम प्रश्न रहे है जिनको उच्चतम् न्यायालय उठाया जा रहा था। 29 अक्तूबर, 2005 में जब नैनीताल उच्च न्यायालय ने बाँध की झील भरने की इजाज़त दी तो उसके अगले ही दिन सुप्रीम कोर्ट में एन. डी. जयाल व शेखर सिंह तथा किशोर उपाध्याय व अन्य ने इस अन्यायी निर्णय को उच्चतम् न्यायालय में चुनौति दी। इसमें बड़ी भूमिका वकील श्री संजय पारिख जी की रही जो 1992 से इस केस में वादियों की पैरवी कर रहे है।

लोगो की अपेक्षा इस कारण से भी उभरी थी माननीय उच्चतम् न्यायालय के दबाव के कारण से बांध कंपनी और सरकार कुछ-कुछ कामों को आगे बढ़ा रही थी मगर अब वो आशा धूमिल दिखती है मगर फिर भी हमारी अपेक्षा है की नैनीताल उच्च न्यायालय इन बातों पर निगाह रखेगा और जिलाधिकारी, पुनर्वास कार्यालय से लेकर के शिकायत विभाग व सरकार के अंतिम अधिकारी तक इस बात की कोशिश करेगे की उत्तराखंड का सिरताज  बताये जाने वाले टिहरी बाँध से जो विस्थापन हुआ है उन विस्थापितों को उनका जायज़ हक मिले और पर्यावरण की जो क्षति हुई है उसकी भरपाई हो।

इस निर्णय से ये भी संकेत मिलता है कि ये मामले सिर्फ अदालतंे ही तय नहीं कर सकती है। ये राज्य और केंद्र सरकार के उर्जा एवं पर्यावरण मंत्रालय की भी ज़िम्मेदारी है। आज जल संसाधन मंत्रालय जिसमें गंगा पुनर्जीवन शब्द भी जोड़ा गया है। वो भी गंगा की सफाई से उपर उठकर गंगा के बांधों से हो रही गंगा व स्थानीय लोगो की तबाही पर ध्यान दें।

लोगो के पास संघर्ष का विकल्प हमेशा है ही!
विमलभाई
------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          HON'BLE SUPREME COURT SHRUGGED OF THE CASE

 Name of the Project: Tehri Dam {1000+1000+400}: River: Bhagirathi and Bhilangana; Dam Company : Tehri Hydro Development Corporation; Environment Clearance: 19-7-1990; Dam commission: July 2006; Case in Supreme Court: N. D. July and Shakher Singh Vs. GOI and others (SLP (c) No. 22894 of 2005)

After decades Hon'ble supreme court reversed back the Tehri dam displacement case to Nanital high court which is a setback for the people displaced due to Tehri Dam. Hon'ble Supreme Court commented why this case is here since last 10 years? It was expected from the Hon'ble supreme court that court will ask to the government and Tehri hydro development corporation (THDC), why the rehabilitation has not been done? Overlooking all the important aspects of the case like environmental hazards due to Tehri dam and the rehabilitation of the displaced people, court only focused on the question that why the case is in supreme court since last 10 years. Why is the Supreme court in such a hurry? It must be noted that the SC has been rescheduling and postponing the dates of hearing since one and half year. Its means Hon'ble supreme court delayed the justice and in the end reversed the case to high court against whom order the appellant had challenged in Hon'ble supreme court. It important to mention here that it is only because of the supreme court many rehabilitation works were done in last 11 years.

WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BECAUSE OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT?

• As in Tehri dam, because of the faulty survey 1000 people were struck out of the rehabilitation process. They were later found eligible for rehabilitation by the Survey of India, due to the efforts of SC but still the rehabilitation has not been done. 
• By the order of the SC, in November 2011 THDC gave 103 rore rupees to Uttarakhand government for the rehabilitation purpose.
• In 2010, due to the filling of the Tehri reservoir, around 45 villages on the periphery started to sink in. due to the pressure of the SC the government was compelled to frame collateral policy.

STILL LEFT:

• So far the rehabilitation facilities have yet to be completed rather many new problems have surfaced out.
• Even after 36 Years people have not been provided with the basic facilities and land rights.
• The mechanism built for the rehabilitation process has failed to a larger extent.
• GRA dismissed all the complaints without giving proper reason of dismissal.
• people were forced to sell out their land because they had no water and other basic facilities.
• On 29^th July 2005, dam was commissioned. In 2008 the then power minister announced 1% of profit will be given to “Local Area Development Fund” and it is yet to be done.
• The then power minister also announced to provide free 100-unit electricity to dam displaced people. Nothing has been done on this policy also.
• In 2010 dam reservoir was filled which led to sink around 45 villages and for them collateral policy was framed and discussion was going on in SC.
• SC is still in a dilemma whether to provide land to the new oustees, on the periphery of the lake or in the Haridwar district.
• The chairperson of Tehri Dam GRA Mr. Indrajeet Malhotra submitted the final report to Hon'ble supreme court showed dissatisfaction towards the rehabilitation directorate work and commented in the report about environmental damage and the exploitation of the Tehri dam displaced people.
• After 2003 Ministry of environment, forest & climate change (MoEFCC) didn't do inspection on any issues related to environment and rehabilitation in Tehri dam affected area.
• Catchment area treatment plan or work was not in right direction. it resulted in sinking of the villages near by Tehri reservoir.
• Reports of the Geological survey of India were not taken into consideration.

Considering the whole circumstances, Hon'ble supreme court has shifted the responsibility to Nainital High Court and said if the affected people have any complain they can appeal to the Nainital High Court. Hon'ble supreme court also believes that all the administrative bodies, be the District Magistrate, Rehabilitation directorate and GRA work properly and if then the affected people have any problem they can approach to the Nanital High Court.

NOW THE QUESTION IS HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE THE CAPABLITY AND RESOURCES TO APPROACH HIGH COURT?

Uttarakhand state government has not given permission to fill the reservoir fully. State government is taking care of the rehabilitation. Rehabilitation directorate is short of funds,  monetary funds were provided by the THDC but now THDC believes that rehabilitation is complete and that’s why THDC is not giving funds anymore. So displaced people are hanging in between the THDC and rehabilitation directorate.

The question is about the 12 % share of electricity generated by Tehri dam, that government gets from the Tehri dam company? what the government is doing with it? All these questions have been raised in Hon'ble supreme court. On 29 October, 2005 Nainital high court ordered to fill up the reservoir. Next day it was challenged in Hon'ble supreme court in the case of N. D. Jayal and Shekher Singh also by Kishore Uppadhay and others. Advocate Sanjay Parikh played an important role who has been favoring appellant since 1992.

People’s expectations were increased because in the pressure of Hon'ble supreme court, the government and dam companies did some work on the issue of rehabilitation. Now it seems muddled but we hope that the Nainital High court will keep its eye on it and the district administration and rehabilitation directorate will try that affected people get proper compensation and the environmental damage will be taken care.

This order also indicated that only the courts cannot finalize the issues like this. This is also the responsibility of the center and state, Power Ministry and MoEFCC. Nowadays word Ganga rejuvenation is added to ministry of water resources, so the ministry should work for the protection of the National River Ganga in upper reaches and its people and it should be beyond the cleanliness of National River Ganga.

PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF STRUGGLE.

Vimalbhai

Press Note : देवसारी बांध को अभी स्वीकृति नही

Confluence of Five 
Rivers called
 Panchpryag at 
River Pinder














Women-
in-solidarity: 
Propitiating 
Panchpryag

                                                                                   

 Meeting at Panchpryag

No Dam on Pinder River












Let Pinder flow free

We will not allow dam on Pinder

देवसारी बांध को अभी स्वीकृति नही

मकर संक्राति पर पिंडरगंगा के पंचप्रयाग पर पूजा व संघर्ष 

की शपथ

{English translation given below}

पिंडर को अविरल बहने दो! हमें सुरक्षित रहने दो!! के नारों से पिंडर गंगा का पंच प्रयाग गूंज गया। सैंकड़ो की संख्या में विभिन्न गांवों से आये ग्रामीणों ने मकर संक्राति पर पिंडरगंगा के पंचप्रयाग पर पूजा की और पिंडरगंगा पर बांध रोकने के लिये संघर्ष के अगले कदम की शपथ ली। ज्ञातव्य है कि उत्तराखंड की चमोली जिले में अबतक अनछुयी पिंडर नदी पर 252 मेगावाट का बांध प्रस्तावित है। अलकनंदा को कर्णप्रयाग में मिलने वाली पिंडर, गंगा की एक प्रमुख सहयोगिनी नदी है।

पंचप्रयाग पर स्नान के बाद ग्रामीणों ने सभा की जिसमें पंचप्रयाग के महत्व के बारे में चर्चा हुई और बांध विरोध के संघर्ष को आगे बढ़ाने की जोरदार तैयारी की बात हुई। सभा में तलोर गांव के बलवंत आगरी जी ने कहा की पंच प्रयाग सदियों से यहंा मौजूद है। हम इसकी पूजा करते है। बांध से इसे डूबने नही देंगे। हाट गांव के दिनेश मिश्रा जी पंचप्रयाग का महत्व बताते हुये कहा की बांध कंपनी अपने कागजों में नही बताया है कि यहंा पंचप्रयाग है। हम हर साल यहंा स्नानपर्व मनाते है। अपनी पहचान को डूबने नही देंगे। देवाल बाजार व्यापार संघ के पूर्व अध्यक्ष श्री आलमसिंह ने कहा की बद्रीनाथ जी के बाद इस पंचप्रयाग का महत्व सर्वोपरि है।

विमलभाई ने बताया कि अभी तक पर्यावरण, वन एंव जलवायु परिवर्तन मंत्रालय ने पर्यावरण व वन स्वीकृति नही दी है। 31 दिसंबर को संपन्न वन सलाहकार समिति ने भी अभी बांध कंपनी से और जानकारियंा मांगी है।उन्होंने आगे की पिंडरगंगा घाटी में रहने वालो के संघर्ष ने 6 सालों से ज्यादा बांध रोक रखा है। 2009 से हुई जनसुनवाईयंा लोगो के विरोध के कारण नही हो पाई। बाद 20 जनवरी 2011 में प्रशासन की मिलीभगत से धोखे से जनसुनवाई करके बांध कंपनी ने अपनी कागजी कार्यवाही पूरी कर ली। किन्तु 3 अपैल 2011 में पिंडर घाटी के लोगों ने माटू जनसंगठन व भू-स्वामी संघर्ष समिति द्वारा आयोजित जनसुनवाई में हजारों की संख्या में आकर बाँध का जबरदस्त विरोध कर के यह सिद्ध कर दिया कि सरकारी झूठ के सामने वे बाँध विरोध में मजबूती से खड़े हैं।

2013 में आई प्राकृतिक व बांध आपदा ने यह सिद्ध कर दिया है कि बांध स्थानीय पर्यावरण व रहनेवालो के लिये जानलेवा ही सिद्ध होगे। जून 2013 की आपदा में अलकनंदागंगा व निकट के गांवों की तबाही विष्णुप्रयाग व श्रीनगर बांधों के कारण हुई। इन सबके कारण सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने भी अगस्त 2013 से उत्तराखंड की किसी भी जलविद्युत परियोजना पर किसी भी तरह की स्वीकृति पर पांबदी लगा रखी है। सर्वाेच्च न्यायालय के आदेश के कारण बनी रवि चोपड़ा समिति ने भी अपनी रिर्पोट में कहा है की जून 2013 की बाढ़ में बांध परियोजना की लगभग 30 प्रतिशत ‘‘हिस्सेदारी‘‘ है। पिंडर ने भी 2013 में अपना रौद्र रुप दिखा कर सिद्ध कर दिया था कि उसे कोई रुकावट स्वीकार नही।

हमारा आंदोलन जारी रहेगा।

पिंडरनदी के बांधों से मुक्त होने तक..........................

महीपत सिंह 

No clearance to Devsari Dam till date

 

Himalayan villagers mark Makar Sankranti at

 Paindarganga-Panchprayag Confluence with 

resolve to intensify struggle against mega-dams

Let Pindar flow freely ! Let us live fearlessly ! were the slogans that reverberated the hills of the Pindarganga valley, situated in the lap of the Himalayas. Hundreds of villagers from different villages marked Makar Sankranti this year by assembling at the confluence of five rivers at Panchprayag and resolved to leapfrog to the next phase of the struggle against mega dams in the region. The immediate challenge is the struggle against the 252 MW Hydro-Electric Dam proposed on the Pindar river in the Chameli District of Uttarakhand. Pindar is a significant tributary of Ganga, which meets Alaknanada at the Karnprayag confluence.

The day began with a ritualistic dip in the Pindar followed by a public conversation, wherein the locals highlighted the cultural significance of Panchprayag and also discussed strategies to take forward the struggle to keep Pindar alive and free of dams. Balwant Agri of Talor village stated that Panchprayag has been in existence for centuries. It is not just a cultural hallmark, but part of people’s lives and we shall not let it be damned. Dinesh Mishra of Haat village questioned the credibility of the dam building companies that have concealed the crucial fact in the project documents that there is a Panchprayag (confluence of 5 rivers) in the area. “We will not let our identities to be drowned”, he said. Former President of the Deval Market Dealers Association stated that Panchprayag is only next to Badrinath in significance and it should not be damned.

Environmental Activist and NAPM Convenor, Vimalbhai informed the gathering that till date the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change has not granted clearance to the Dam. The Forest Advisory Committee has infact directed the project authorities to furnish further documents and information, he said. It is indeed notable that the struggle of the people of the Pindar valley has ensured that the Dam could not be built for the past 6 years. The sham official ‘public hearings’ to push the project could not go ahead since 2009, due to popular protests.

Notwithstanding the fact that the project authorities hands-in-glove with the administration tried to conclude the ‘paper formalities’ by conducting a fake ‘public hearing’ on 20^th January, 2011, thousands of people participated in an actual People’s Hearing organized by Matu Jan Sangathan and Bhu-Swami Sangharsh Samiti on 23^rd April, 2011 and vocally protested against the Dam, exposing the falsity of the government ‘hearing’, as well as asserting the strength of the people of the region.

The country still remembers Uttarakhand and the dams-induced havoc caused in 2013 is fresh in the minds of the local residents, who know for sure that more damning of the Himalayan rivers would prove to be a monumental disaster and death-noose for the environment and people of the region. The destruction caused in June, 2013 in the villages in and around Alaknanda-Ganga was due to Vishnuprayag and Srinagar dams.

A disaster of this scale compelled the Hon’ble Supreme Court to take a serious cognizance of the deleterious impacts of dams and directed that no fresh clearances would be given to hydro-electric projects in the region. The Ravi Chopra Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court also concluded in its Report that the dams in the region have at least a “30% share” in the June, 2013 Uttarakhand disaster. Pindar herself showed her furious form in 2013 and has conveyed the message that she will not brook any damning. Is the government listening?

Not sure. But the people of the region certainly are. Aware. And that is why, as the meeting concluded, they all resolved in a united voice”

Our struggle shall not only continue but even intensify until Pinder river is liberated from the dams “!!

Mahipat Singh

 

PRESS NOTE: 23-11-2015

Tehri Dam affected village get revenue status after 3 decades

 

On 16^th November 2015, The State Government of Uttarakhand recognized Pathri Part-2, Pathri Part-3 and Pathri Part-4 as revenue village renamed as Tehri Bhagirathi Nagar, Ghonti Village, and Chhaam respectively after the proposal by District Magistrate. We congratulate State Government of Uttarakhand, fellows of Matu Jansanghtan and others organizations on this gleeful event.

Since many years, the oustees of Tehri dam are left out from their land rights. Many Project Affected People have been rehabilitated in Pathri Part -1, 2, 3 and 4. In this regard, the issue has been seriously raised many times in petitions pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

We also extend gratitude to the administrative officers after the accomplishment. Since last two – three years, Matu Jansanghthan and other organizations has work with an understanding and pushed the files ahead which resulted in recognition of these rehabilitation sites into revenue villages. In addition, we are also hoping that in the same manner, Uttarakhand Government will soon declare the left out villages such as Pashulok, and Parts of Pathri as revenue villages. The process of giving land rights to displaced people will only complete after recognition of rehabilitation sites as revenue villages.

On this occasion, the displaced people felt it like a relief but at the same time, we also want to bring it to notice that these rights should have been given to them right during the displacement. A whole generation has suffered in the absence of land rights. They have also been through the process when Haridwar District Administration has abandoned them and refused to recognize them as their citizens. This shows the sadistic attitude of the government towards their own people. It also exposed the idea of development by Dams where the oustees are deprived from their basic rights for decades.

We hope, Government will soon complete the rest issues like:

• Since the year of 1978, The Tehri Dam affected people are struggling for the very basic amenities like electricity, water, health services, educational institutions, bank, post offices and also the fencing which can protect the agricultural crops from animals.
• The issue of Landslide across the 40 villages situated on the bank of Tehri Dam reservoir.
• Pending rehabilitation of oustees came out in new survey done in Tehri dam affected areas.
• Make sure for rightful and transparent working of Grievance Redressal Authority.

All these issues along with left rehabilitation work should be accomplished with broader and responsible way with keeping humanitarian values intact.

Vimal bhai and Puran Singh Rana

3 दशकों बाद मिला टिहरी बांध प्रभावित गांवों को राजस्व गांव का दर्जा

उत्तराखंड राज्य सरकार ने 16 नवंबर को जिलाधिकारी के प्रस्ताव पर हरिद्वार के अंर्तगत पथरी भाग दो को टिहरी भागीरथी नगर, पथरी भाग तीन को ग्राम घोंटी व भाग पथरी भाग चार को छाम के नाम से अलग अलग राजस्व ग्राम का दर्जा प्रदान कर दिया है। हम इस महत्ती कार्य के पूर्ण होने पर राज्य सरकार, माटू संगठन सहित विभिन्न संगठनों के कार्यकर्ताओं को बधाई देते है।

बरसो से टिहरी बांध से विस्थापित लोग भूमिधर अधिकार से वंचित रहे है। प्रभावित इलाकों से सब से ज्यादा लोग हरिद्वार के पथरी भाग 1,2,3 व 4 ग्रामीण इलाकों में पुनर्वसित हुए। इस संदर्भ में उच्चतम न्यायालय में चल रहे मुकद्दमों में ये मुद्दा गंभीरता से बार-बार उठाया गया है।

हम इस महत्वपूर्ण कार्य को पूर्ण करने के लिए राज्य सरकार के कर्मचारियों को भी बधाई देते है। लगभग पिछले दो-तीन वर्षाे से अन्य संगठनों व माटू जनसंगठन के साथी राज्य कर्मचारियों के साथ तालमेल बिठाने व संबधित फाइलों को आगे बढ़ाने का काम करते रहे है जिसका नतीजा है की आज ये क्षेत्र राजस्व ग्राम बन पाये है। हमारी अपेक्षा है की सरकार जल्द ही छूटे हुए इलाकों जैसे पशुलोक व पथरी के कुछ इलाकों को भी राजस्व ग्राम घोषित करेगी। राजस्व ग्राम बनने के बाद ही विस्थापितों को भूमिधर अधिकार मिलने की प्रक्रिया पूरी हो पायेगी।

इस ख़ुशी के साथ की विस्थापितों को एक बड़ी राहत मिली है हम यहाँ यह महत्पूर्ण बात भी कहना चाहेंगे की ये अधिकार उन्हें विस्थापन के साथ-साथ मिल जाना चाहिये था। एक पूरी पीढ़ी ने बिना भूमिधर अधिकार के बिना बहुत परेशानियों में समय बिताया है। बरसों तक लोगों ने एक ऐसी स्थिति झेली है जिनमे हरिद्वार जिला प्रशासन ने उनको नागरिक मानने तक से इनकार कर दिया था। एक प्रकार से ये सरकारी उदासीनता का प्रतीक है। साथ ही बांध से विकास के दावे की पोल खोलता है। जहंा लोगो को कई दशकों अपने मूलभूत अधिकारों से वंचित रहना पड़ा है।

हमारी अपेक्षा है की सरकार टिहरी बांध से विस्थापितों के अन्य मुद्दोंः-

• विस्थापित क्षेत्रों में बिजली, पानी, स्वास्थय सेवाएं, शिक्षा व्यवस्था, बैंक, पोस्ट ऑफिस और जानवरों से खेती की सुरक्षा के लिए ताड़-बाड़ जैसी मूलभूत समस्याओं के लिए जिनके लिये विस्थापित 1978 से संघर्ष कर रहे है।
• टिहरी बांध जलाशय के किनारें के लगभग 40 गांवों में भूस्खलन व धसकने की समस्या।
• टिहरी बांध से प्रभावित क्षेत्र के नये सर्वे के बाद जो विस्थापित सामने आये है उनका पुर्नवास।
• शिकायत निवारण प्रकोष्ठ का सही रुप में कार्य होना

इन सब समस्याओं पर अधिक व्यापकता व ज़िम्मेदारी से माननीय दृष्टीकोण रखते हुए छूटे हुए पुर्नवास कार्यों को पूरा करेगी।

विमलभाई व पूरण सिंह राणा

PRESS NOTE 6 November, 2015

 

MATU JANSANGHTHAN ALONG WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015

ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANISATIONS, LEGAL INITIATIVE FOR FOREST & ENVIRONMENT, SOUTH ASIA NETWORK ON DAM, RIVER & PEOPLE, MATU JANSANGHTHAN and other environmental organisations sent a letter to Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climet Change (MoEFCC) regarding the concerns of the Draft Environmental Laws (amendment) Bill, 2015.

The concerned of the environmental organisations that registered to the MoEF in the letter, that 15 days is not enough for this kind of critical amendment in environment laws. The effected community does not have way to access your notification and neither aware about it. It is a totally unjust with them. Rather providing the notification on internet, it could be better that MoEFCC make it more publically through newspaper, District magistrate offices till block level and other sources.

There are the few point that environmental organisations concerned and requested to recommend it by the MoEF in the letter

1. An amendment of such magnitude the time period of 15 days is a very short period. It should have been a minimum of 90 days. There should be comprehensive discussions and consultations with a cross section of society.

2. The Bill in its present form also violates India’s international commitment under the Rio Declaration, 1992, specifically Principle 10.

3. The Ministry should have followed at least some of the processes it lays down for public participation, including announcements in newspapers. Citizens of India are affected and they have a right to know and participate.
4. The Bill in its present form does not achieve the stated Objective to provide for “effective deterrent penal provisions and introducing the concept of monetary penalty for violation and contraventions”. The maximum penalty of Rs. 20 crores irrespective of the nature of industry and offence cannot act as a comprehensive deterrent.
5. While the party against whom a penalty is imposed by the Adjudicating Authority can directly approach the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the affected citizens have to go through a process which is complicated if the penalised party fails to pay the penalty. By doing so, the Bill favours the guilty over those affected by the offense.
6. The Bill curtails the powers of the NGT to award compensation and damages and the NGT will be made accessible only for polluting units for redressal of their grievances and not for affected people. The Bill favours the guilty over those affected by the offense.
7. The proposed Adjudicating Authority is only an executive body which is neither independent nor capable of being independent. It lacks the required qualifications of judicial and technical experts of the NGT.
8. The Central Government has not shown that it has the required administrative will and willingness to provide resources for setting up the Authorities in various States. The 186th Report of the Law Commission has also raised serious concerns with respect to the manner in Authorities under various environmental statutes are functioning. Under the circumstance, no further Authorities should be constituted without further serious deliberations.
9. The Adjudicating Authority is to have a person who is “qualified to be” a District Judge. Qualification to be a District Judge cannot substitute experience of a District Judge. The Supreme Court has opined that all appellate authorities and tribunals should be headed by a retired High Court judge.
10. There is no scientific and legal basis for categorising offences as “substantial”, “non substantial” and “minor”. For certain categories of industries the damage near the project site can be more than the damage beyond 5 kms. Yet the penalty is the least for damages within 5 kms. Also, there is no basis for deciding on 5 kms.
11. The Bill suffers from excessive delegation as the definition of the terms “substantial”, “non substantial” and “minor” are to be defined by the executive. They should be defined in the statute.

In the letter the environmental organisations concerned about a serious limitations and problems with the current Bill. Environmental organisations requested to Ministry of environment, forest and climate change to conduct wide, public oriented consultations on the Bill and transparently address the objections received. This entire process was missing even while drafting the High Level Subramanian Committee dated 29^th August 2014, Report, which resulted in a seriously flawed and problematic report.

It’s a hard concerned that how the ministry involved in the flaws and making the policies that favour the project proponents. It’s to be remembered that MoEFCC was sated up with the aim to make a critical eye on the environment condition but it’s seem that the ministry plays a vice-versa role, and its not be accepted. Policy makers must understand that environment safe guard policies very much associated with economic policies. We cannot forget that environmental hazards reimburse by a huge amount of money and the recent example is Uttrakhand June 2013 calamity in which dam played a big role.

Vimalbhai and Puran Singh Rana

Press Note:19-10-15 “Environmental violations” by World Bank and NTPC Hydro Power Projects

“Environmental violations” by World Bank and NTPC Hydro Power Projects

  
 At one point government is building dam on Ganga in upper valley at the same time environment violation in these dams continues. Now a days central government is holding a banner of clean Ganga and launching various programmes on clean Ganga. The government is exaggerating their efforts  but on the ground the reality is entirely different. 

 Muck directly in Alaknandaganga by World Bank funded Vishnugad-Peepalkoti HEP(444MW) ---1

Muck-Debris directly in Alaknandaganga by World Bank funded Vishnugad-Peepalkoti HEP(444MW)

 In Uttarakhand there are many reports based on ground reality showing the multiple violations of the environment conditions by the Hydro Electric Power {HEP} companies on Alaknandaganga in last many months. There are news that World Bank funded HEP under construction Vishnugad-Peepalkoti HEP (444 MW) on river Alaknandaganga, District Chamoli of Uttarakhand & National Thermal Power Corporation project Tapovan-Vishnugad HEP (520 MW) on River Dhauliganga, District Chamoli of Uttarakhand, two big Dam company are violating the environment conditions. These companies are dumping the mucks and debris on the river bed of Alaknandaganga & Dhauliganga. The irresponsible administration only fined the companies and fulfilled its duties and not more than it. The companies are not having any issue with paying the fines and its became there habit. Dumping muck and debris in the river are damaging the aquatic ecology and the health of the river negatively. The Muck & debris also flows downstream with water and disturbing the locale making them inaccessible to the safe water sources.

A stone crusher of Tapovan-Vishnugad HEP (520 MW) directly draining the polluted water into the river Dhauliganga. The polluted water from stone crusher installed by the “NAV RATAN” company NTPC can be seen as how it is polluting the river in the attached picture and is going on continuously. 

 

A big water leakage started when tunnel digging started some years back, which continue till now. Interested thing is that the Tunnel Boaring Machine has got stuck in the tunnel. According to received information the Tunnel Boaring Machine has still not taken out of the tunnel. 

But Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change {MoEFCC} did not take any step on these serious environmental violations. It is a serious question that why MoEFCC not evolving a monitoring system to keep a critical eye on environmental violations and other activities by the projects. MoEFCC always rely only on project proponent's reports, which is only an eye wash. In this critical environment problem, Matu Jansangathan demands from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change {MoEFCC} to cancel the Environment Clearance (EC) of Tapovan-Vishnugad HEP (520 MW) and World Bank funded HEP under construction Vishnugad-Peepalkoti HEP (444 MW). 

MoEFCC has a duty to take a serious note on these issues. Even MoEFCC has the required power to revoke the EC. Environment Clearance letter dated February 8, 2005 and 22 August, 2007 in point number 7 says “The Ministry the right to add additional safeguard measures subsequently, if found necessary and to take action including revoking of the clearance under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensure effective implementation of the suggested safeguard measures in a time bound and satisfactory manner.”

Violation of the EC has been taking place. MoEFCC has to take immediate actions on it. Matu Jansangathan demands from MoEFCC to take immediate actions.

•   5 years valid period of Tapovan-Vishnugad HEP (520 MW) Environment Clearance has been past so the Environment Clearance has been automatic cancelled, so the project work should be stopped immediately.
•  To revoke the Environment Clearance of both of the projects because according to EC letter of these projects violation of the EC has been taking place. MoEFCC has to take an immediate action on it.
• To take immediate action to revoke the dumping of muck & debris in the river Alaknandaganga and Dholiganga through both projects.
•  To penalise the project proponents involved in it.
•  To safeguard the environment against devastation.
• MoEFCC must evolve a monitoring system to keep a critical eye on environment violation activities by the projects. MoEFCC should not rely on project proponent's reports.

Vimalbhai,                 Ramlal,                       Dinesh Panwar,                   Narendra Pokhriya   

PRESS NOTE: 9-10-2015

PRESS NOTE:   9-10-2015

Matu demands to Indian Banks to Make Safeguard policies

Matu Jansangathan, demands to Indian Banker Association to make Rehabilitation/ Resttalment and Environment safeguard policies before funding any Hydro Electric Projects.

Matu said that most of the dam companies taking loan from different Indian and Foreign agencies like World Bank,{http://web.worldbank.org} Asian Development Bank {www.adb.org}, Japan Bank of International Corporation {www.jbic.go.jp}, HDFC, Panjab National Bank, State Bank of India etc.Most of the foreign agencies have there own Rehabilitation/ Resttalment and Environment safeguard policies apart of Indian Government policies for project affected people and locale. But unfortunately Indian Banks do not have any such policies. Project proponent use this lacuna to skirt issues related with Rehabilitation/ Resttalment and Environment. To support the argument Matu also given few examples like...

• In Alaknanda River Japee Group's HEP Vishnu Prayag HEP is responsible for the destruction which occurred in the downstream area and villages namely Lambagarh, Vinayak Chatti, Pandukeshwar, Govindghat, Pinola ghat etc. Because Vishnu Prayag HEP proponent did not opened the gates of the dam when heavy amount of water came due to heavy rainfall happened in upper stream of Vishnu Prayag HEP on 16-17 June, 2013.
• On the same river downstream Srinagar Hydro Power Project of GVK is responsible for the destruction because the dumping of “muck” on three banks of Alakhnanda River is flagrant violation of environmental norms. No walls were deliberately constructed to avoid flowing of “muck” in the river here.

Matu given the reference of Ravi Chopra Committee seted by the Ministery of Environment, Forest & climate Change on order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated

13/8/2013 that Dam had played a big role in June, 2013 Uttarakhand calamity.

Matu also mentioned that when in the current scenario Indian Banks are giving funds to various Hydro Electric Projects, it is their responsibility to make Rehabilitation/ Resttalment and Environment safeguard policies and also expect them to take up this very issue in immediate consideration.

Vimalbhai       and     Puran Singh Rana