Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1081 (HP)

BARANG SAIN v. UNION OF INDIA

2009-11-18

R.B.MISRA, RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.-Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all the petitions, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity of facts, the facts of CWP No.1293/2009 have been dealt with extensively. 2. Brief facts necessaryfor the adjudication of these petitions are that the project called “Karchham Wangtoo Hydro Electric Power Project” is being executed by respondent No.12. The petitioners are the residents of District Kinnaur. Their primary grievance is that the project is not being executed in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate has vehemently argued that the environmental clearance has not been accorded to the petitioner as per notification dated 27.1.1994. He has further contended that the forest clearance has been accorded to respondent No.12 by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry without taking into consideration the parameters and the guidelines prescribed under law. According to him, stone crusher and hot mix plant set up by respondent No.12 does not conform to environmental norms and the notifications issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh from time to time. According to him, respondent No.12 is excavating the tunnel below the land of the petitioners without paying any compensation to them. He then contended that the State Government be directed to take action against respondent No.12 for carrying out illegal mining. The direction has also been sought for taking action against the respondent No.12 under the environmental law while executing the project. The petitioners have also sought direction to the respondents to take necessary action against respondent No.12-company for violating the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1968. Mr. Kaushal has finally contended that respondent No.12 be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners for violating the environment and ecology of the area and divesting his clients of valuable grazing rights and minerals being excavated from the tunnel. 4. Mr. S.B. Upadhaya, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.12 has repelled the contentions raised by Mr. Deepak Kaushal. According to Mr. Upadhaya, the necessary clearance was obtained by the respondent-company on 9.11.2005 and the diversion of the forest land was permitted on 17.11.2005. 4. Mr. S.B. Upadhaya, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.12 has repelled the contentions raised by Mr. Deepak Kaushal. According to Mr. Upadhaya, the necessary clearance was obtained by the respondent-company on 9.11.2005 and the diversion of the forest land was permitted on 17.11.2005. He then contended that the permission to use the land in question being utilized by respondent No.12-company has been obtained in accordance with law and there is no violation of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation), 1968. He then contended that the stone crusher and hot mix plant have been set up in accordance with law and the muck generated is being dumped on the approved sites. He finally contended that there is no violation of any environment and forest laws and the notifications issued by the State Government from time to time. 5. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General has adopted the arguments of Mr. Upadhaya, Senior Advocate. 6. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 has submitted that the necessary clearance has been accorded as per the notification dated 27.1.1994 and the affected parties were heard. He then contended that the forest clearance has been granted by the Ministry according to the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 7. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.10 has submitted that the notices have been issued to respondent No.12-Company from time to time to conform to the norms prescribed. According to him, the Board had been monitoring the progress of the project and the corrective measures are being carried out by the company on the basis of their presentation. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. 9. The agreement was executed between respondent No.12 and the State Government on 18.11.1999. The environmental clearance has been accorded in favour of respondent No.12-company on 9.11.2005. The petitioners have failed to substantiate any illegality in the issuance of environment clearance. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has vehemently argued that the environmental clearance has not been issued in accordance with the notification dated 27.1.1994. It has come in the reply filed by the respondents that public hearing was given to the persons likely to be affected before finalizing the environmental clearance as per notification dated 27.1.1994. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has vehemently argued that the environmental clearance has not been issued in accordance with the notification dated 27.1.1994. It has come in the reply filed by the respondents that public hearing was given to the persons likely to be affected before finalizing the environmental clearance as per notification dated 27.1.1994. The diversion of forest land was accorded in favour of respondent No.12-company on 17.11.2005. The petitioners have not produced any tangible material on record to suggest that the permission for diversion of forest land has violated any law. In fact, after the first EIA was carried in the month of August, 2004, the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute has prepared the report. 10. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has submitted that respondent No.12-company has violated notifications dated 29.4.2003, 10.9.2004, 11.8.2004 and river bed mining dated 28.2.2004 while setting up of stone crusher and hot mix plant. He has also strongly relied upon letter dated 31.7.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur. According to Mr. Kaushal, Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur has recommended the closure of the unit for non-implementation of various provisions of the agreement entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12-company. The Deputy Commissioner has no authority under law to recommend the closure of the project. Agreement has been entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12-company. The Deputy Commissioner was not competent to recommend the closure of the unit. In case there were certain shortcomings, as noticed by him, while implementing the project, he could bring them to the notice of the concerned quarters alone. This Court has taken a cognizance of letter dated 31.7.2008 while disposing of CMP No.2372 on 5.6.2009. The Court after considering letter dated 31.7.2008 has passed interim order on 27.4.2009 directing the respondents not to operate the stone crusher at Baltrang and also to ensure that the excavated material is dumped only at the approved sites. By the same order, this Court ordered the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur (respondent No.9) and State Geologist (respondent No.4) to inspect the site of the crusher and dumping sites along with other concerned officials and to submit inspection report to the Court. The committee submitted its report dated 29.5.2009. The petitioners have filed objections to the same. By the same order, this Court ordered the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur (respondent No.9) and State Geologist (respondent No.4) to inspect the site of the crusher and dumping sites along with other concerned officials and to submit inspection report to the Court. The committee submitted its report dated 29.5.2009. The petitioners have filed objections to the same. This Court after considering the conclusions of the report and recommendations found respondent No.12 faltering in respect of following aspects: (a) Stone-crusher is being operated without obtaining permanent registration from the Pollution Control Board. (b) At some dumping sites, there was over-dumping, which led to spilling over of muck. (c) Muck has been dumped at some non-approved sites, including some parts of government forests, causing damage to the forest land and forest nursery. (d) Muck had been dumped on a portion of private land near village Tapri also. (e) Some muck had been stacked by the side of the National Highway, but the same was being used for making retaining walls or as raw-material for the stone crusher. 11. Consequently, this Court vacated the interim order dated 27.4.2009 by imposing the following conditions: (a) Stone-crusher shall be operated strictly in accordance with the norms issued by the State Pollution Control Board and Regional Officer, Rampur, of State Pollution Control Board, shall monitor the operation of the crusher, on day-to-day basis, to ensure that the norms are not violated. (b) Only the muck generated in the course of excavation of tunnels or otherwise shall be used as raw-material for the stone-crusher. (c) No muck shall be dumped at any site, except the approved sites, and also there shall be no over-dumping of muck even at the approved sites to avoid spilling over. (d) Chief Executive of the Project (the present incumbent is Mr. K.K. Sood, Senior Vice-President of respondent No. 12) shall be personally responsible to ensure that the aforesaid conditions (a), (b) and (c) are strictly observed and in case any violation of the aforesaid conditions or the norms, fixed by the State Pollution Control Board, is reported, he shall be personally liable for contempt of Court, as also under the provisions of other laws, pertaining to protection of environment. 12. The order dated 5.6.2009 has considered the entire gamut of setting up of stone crusher by respondent No.12 as well as dumping of muck. 12. The order dated 5.6.2009 has considered the entire gamut of setting up of stone crusher by respondent No.12 as well as dumping of muck. In view of these directions, no further notifications are required to be issued. 13. Mr. Kaushal has placed reliance upon the notices issued to respondent No.12-company by respondent No.10 dated 2.8.2008 and 5.12.2008 to substantiate that there was flagrant violation of the environmental clearance and notifications issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh. 14. Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate has submitted that the notices were issued to respondent No.12-company and the project was being monitored regularly. According to him, as and when the notices were issued, respondent No.12-company has presented its case before the officers of the Pollution Control Board and consequently directions were issued from time to time. He has assured the Court that as and when any shortcomings are found in the operation being carried by respondent No.12-company, action in accordance with law will be taken against it. He has also submitted that public hearing was held on 18.6.2003 and 7.10.2003. 15. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has further argued that respondent No.12-company though is extracting minerals while excavating the tunnel but no compensation has been paid to his clients. Mr. Upadhaya has submitted that the depth of the tunnel is 300 meters from the surface of the land owned by the petitioners. Mr. R.K. Bawa, learned Advocate General on the basis of the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 has submitted that the grit and muck generated from tunnel process cannot be termed as mining activities. According to him, royalty is being charged by the State Government for the quantity of muck used in stone crusher by way of grit. He further submitted that as and when there is violation by respondent No.12-company while undertaking mining operation fine has been imposed upon it. We are not impressed with the submission of Mr. Kaushal that his clients are entitled to get compensation for the excavation of tunnel at the depth of more than 300 meters below the land of the petitioners as per the details of the revenue record cited in para 75 of the petition. In view of this the judgment the Anant Mills Company Limited versus State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1234 cited by Mr. Kaushal is not applicable in the present case. 16. Mr. In view of this the judgment the Anant Mills Company Limited versus State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1234 cited by Mr. Kaushal is not applicable in the present case. 16. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has also argued that respondent No.12-company has violated the provisions of the forest clearance. In the reply filed by respondent No.6, it has come that as and when there is violation of the norms prescribed in the forest clearance, the company is penalized. Mr. Kaushal has brought to the notice of the Court constitution of the Local Area Development Committee. According to him, the Committee is not working satisfactorily as per the objectives. He has also argued that even though it may have come in the reply that the environmental laws and other enactments are being followed, however, taking into consideration the gigantic size of the project, continuous monitoring is required to be resorted by this Court. 17. Mr. Deepak Kaushal has finally contended that there is violation of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation), 1968. He could not substantiate violation of the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation), 1968. It was necessary for the petitioners to place contemporaneous material on record to prove that there is violation of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation), 1968. According to Mr. Upadhaya, the necessary permission has been obtained under the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation), 1968. 18. Mr. Upadhaya has argued on behalf of respondent No.12-company that the agreement was entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12-company on 18.11.1999 and thereafter two EIAs were prepared with the assistance of National Environmental Engineering Research Institute. He then contended that necessary environmental clearance and forest clearance were granted by the concerned departments. He then argued that the scope of judicial review to interfere in these matters is very limited. He also argued that the project was commenced in the year 1999 and is at the verge of completion. The second SSI is dated 22.12.2007 executed between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12. He has also strongly relied upon Narmada Bachao Andolan versus Union of India and others, (2000) 10 SCC 664. He also argued that the project was commenced in the year 1999 and is at the verge of completion. The second SSI is dated 22.12.2007 executed between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12. He has also strongly relied upon Narmada Bachao Andolan versus Union of India and others, (2000) 10 SCC 664. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case have held that when projects are undertaken and hundred crores of public money is spent, any individual or organizations in the garb of PIL cannot be permitted to challenge the policy decision taken after a lapse of time. Their Lordships have further held that in exercise of the jurisdiction, the Courts will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Their Lordships have held as under: “48. When such projects are undertaken and hundreds of crores of public money is spent, individual or organisations in the garb of P1L cannot be permitted to challenge the policy decision taken after a lapse of time. It is against the national interest and contrary to the established principles of law that decisions to undertake developmental projects are permitted to be challenged after a number of years during which period public money has been spent in the execution of the project. The petitioner has been agitating against the construction of the dam since, 1986 before environmental clearance was given and construction started. It has, over the years, chosen different paths to oppose the dam. At its instance a Five Member Group was constituted, but its report could not result in the stoppage of construction pan passu with relief and rehabilitation measures. Having failed in its attempt to stall the project the petitioner has resorted to court proceedings by filing this writ petition long after the environmental clearance was given and construction started. The pleas relating to height of the dam and the extent of submergence, environment studies and clearance, hydrology, seismicity and other issues, except implementation of relief and rehabilitation, cannot be permitted to be raised at this belated stage. This Court has entertained this petition with a view to satisfy itself that there is proper implementation of the relief and rehabilitation measures at least to the extent they have been ordered by the Tribunals Award. This Court has entertained this petition with a view to satisfy itself that there is proper implementation of the relief and rehabilitation measures at least to the extent they have been ordered by the Tribunals Award. In short It was only the concern of this Court for the protection of the fundamental rights of the oustees under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which led to the entertaining of this petition. It is the Relief and Rehabilitation measures that this Court is really concerned with and the petition in regard to the other issues raised is highly belated. Though it is, therefore, not necessary to do so. we however presently propose to deal with some of the other issues raised.” 19. It is now well-settled that the courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction, will not transgress into the field of policy decision. Whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy making process and the Courts are ill equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. The Court, no doubt, has a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and peoples fundamental rights are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. Even then any challenge to such a policy decision must be before the execution of the project is undertaken. Any delay in the execution of the project means over run in costs and the decision to undertake a project, if challenged after its execution has commenced, should be thrown out at the very threshold on the ground of latches if the petitioner had the knowledge of such a decision and could have approached the Court at that time. Just because a petition is termed as a P1L does not mean that ordinary principles applicable to litigation will not apply. Latches is one of them. 230. Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was an innovation essentially to safeguard and protect the human rights of those people who were unable to protect themselves. With the passage of -time the PIL jurisdiction has been ballooning so as to encompass within its ambit subjects such as probity in public life, granting of largess in the form of licences, protecting environment and the like. With the passage of -time the PIL jurisdiction has been ballooning so as to encompass within its ambit subjects such as probity in public life, granting of largess in the form of licences, protecting environment and the like. But the balloon should not be inflated so much that it bursts. Public Interest Litigation should not be allowed to degenerate to becoming Publicity Interest Litigation or Private Inquisitiveness Litigation. While exercising jurisdiction in PIL cases Court has not forsaken its duty and role as a Court of law dispensing justice in accordance with law. It is only where there has been a failure on the part of any authority in acting according to law or in non-action or acting in violation of the law that the Court has stepped in. No directions are issued which are in conflict with any legal provisions. Directions have, in appropriate cases, been given where the law is silent and inaction would result in violation of the Fundamental Rights or other Legal provisions. 233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power the Court should not be called upon or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor the administration indulge in abuse or nonuse of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under the constitution casts on it a great obligation as the sentinel to defend the values of the constitution and rights of Indians. The courts must, therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words the Court itself is not above the law. 236. Furthermore environment concern has not only to be of the area which is going to be submerged and its surrounding area. The impact on environment should be seen in relation to the project as a whole. In other words the Court itself is not above the law. 236. Furthermore environment concern has not only to be of the area which is going to be submerged and its surrounding area. The impact on environment should be seen in relation to the project as a whole. While an area of land will submerge but the construction of the Dam will result in multifold improvement in the environment of the areas where the canal waters will reach. Apart from bringing drinking water within easy reach the supply of water to Rajasthan will also help in checking the advancement of the Thar Desert. Human habitation will increase there which, in turn, will help in protecting the so far porous border with Pakistan.” 20. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.D. Jayal and another versus Union of India and others, (2004) 9 SCC 362 have held that conception or planning, decision to undertake project and execution thereof are part of policy making process and the Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. Their Lordships have held as under: “9. In Sardar Sarovar Project case it was also held that when two or more options are possible and the Government takes a policy decision it is then not a function of the Court to re-examine the matter by way of appeal. Necessary analogy could also drawn from Balco Employees Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, 2000 (2) SCC 333. 10. Once such a considered decision is taken, the proper execution of the same should beundertaken expeditiously. It is for the Government to decide how to do its job. When it has put a system in place for the execution of the project and such a system cannot be said to be arbitrary, then the only role which the Court has to play is to ensure that the system works in the manner it was envisaged. It is made clear in that decision that the questions whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. It is made clear in that decision that the questions whether to have an infrastructural project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the Courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. However, a note of caution was struck that the Courts have a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and peoples fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. When a law has been enacted in relation to the protection of environment and such law is being given effect to and there is no challenge to such law, the duty of the Courts would be to see that the Government and other respondents act in accordance with law and there is no other obligation for the Court to examine further in the matter. We respectfully agree with the view expressed in the Sardar Sarovar projects case and apply the same to the facts arising in this case.” 21. In a recent judgment D.D.A. versus Rajender Singh and others, JT 2009 (10) SC 137 have held that the delay and laches are also attracted in PIL. Their Lordships have held as under: (26) “Delay/Laches: Now, let us consider whether the writ petitions filed in the High Court in the year 2007 is justifiable and ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay/laches. Though an objection was raised by all the official respondents before the High Court about the inordinate delay in filing the writ petitions by the petitioners, the said aspect was not either adverted to or considered by the Division Bench. We have already referred to the fact that the site in question was changed to "public and semipublic" way back on 21.9.1999. Before re-classifying the site, the DDA and the concerned authorities issued public notice calling for objections/suggestions. The particulars furnished by the official bodies clearly show that after getting the suggestions from the public change of land use for the site falling in zone `O was changed on 21.9.1999 from "agricultural and water body" to "public and semi-public" purpose. Apart from this, the decision of hosting the Commonwealth Games at Commonwealth Games Village site was taken in 2003. Apart from this, the decision of hosting the Commonwealth Games at Commonwealth Games Village site was taken in 2003. The Department also issued a Global Tender process for Public Private Partnership ("PPP") participation in the residential portion of the Commonwealth Games project which was floated in December 2006 and was completed in June 2007. Apart from these materials, it was also highlighted before the High Court as well as before this Court to the effect that Environmental Clearance was granted on 14.12.2006 permitting permanent structures on the site after taking into consideration that the MoEF had stated "since environmental significance and public open space amenity of the river flood plain should be recognized, it was urged that the concerned authorities (DDA) that an extension of similar development in the area between Yamuna and its flood protection bunds must not be proposed without due environmental planning and prior environmental clearance." It was highlighted that in the light of the suggestions of Ministry of Environment and Forests, studies were carried out and after completion of such studies permanent structures were permitted to be constructed on the site in April 2007. Unfortunately, the High Court has lost sight with regard to these material aspects. In Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India, (2000) 10 SCC 664 para 229, this Court has held that the PIL should be thrown out at the threshold if it is challenged after the commencement of execution of the project. It was also held that no relief should be given to persons who approach the Court without reasonable explanation under Articles 226 and 32 after inordinate delay. We reiterate that the delay rules apply to PILs also and if there is no proper explanation for the delay, PILs are liable to be summarily dismissed on account of delay. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that both the petitioners though claiming that they are very much conversant with environment and ecology, approached the High Court only in the middle of 2007, hence on the ground of delay and laches, the writ petitions were liable to be dismissed.” 22. In the present case, the project was conceptualized and the agreement was entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12-company on 18.11.1999. The necessary environmental clearance and forest clearance were obtained by the company. The project is at the advance stage of completion. In the present case, the project was conceptualized and the agreement was entered into between the State of Himachal Pradesh and respondent No.12-company on 18.11.1999. The necessary environmental clearance and forest clearance were obtained by the company. The project is at the advance stage of completion. Huge amount has been invested by respondent No.12-company while executing this project. The petitioners have permitted the project to go on for a considerable period and have approached this Court towards the fag end of its execution for redressal of their grievance. 24. In the light of above discussion, the following conclusions are drawn: 25. However, before parting with the judgment, we constitute one man Committee to supervise the work being executed by respondent No.12-company to ensure that there is no violation of the mandatory provisions of clearance i.e. environmental clearance and forest clearance as well as other environmental laws, including the notifications issued by the State of Himachal Pradesh dated 29.4.2003, 28.2.2004, 11.8.2004 and 10.9.2004. Mr. D.K. Sharma, Environmental Engineer of respondent No.10-Board is appointed Member of the Committee. He will visit the site after every three months and furnish the report to this Court on his own affidavit. The Court will pass necessary orders in order to preserve fragile environment and ecology of the area, if necessary. We are equally concerned about the rehabilitation of the affected persons and development of the area. Rather it is the main objective of the Hydel Power Policy framed in the year 2006. The Local Area Development Committee has been constituted. It is to be financed by the Power Projects. We have been apprised at the Bar that meetings have been taking place between the representatives of respondent No.12 and the State functionaries. The rehabilitation and development of the area does not brook any delay. Accordingly we direct the State Government to take necessary steps for the rehabilitation and the development of the area through the agency of the Local Area Development Committee. The Secretary (Power) shall file his affidavit about the steps already taken and likely to be taken for doing the needful after three months. 26. The writ petitions, as far as the main issues are concerned, stand disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove. The Secretary (Power) shall file his affidavit about the steps already taken and likely to be taken for doing the needful after three months. 26. The writ petitions, as far as the main issues are concerned, stand disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove. However, to ensure that there is no flagrant violation of the environmental, mining and forest laws as stipulated in the environmental clearance and forest clearance and to ensure that the effective rehabilitation of the affected people is carried out along with the developmental activities, this Court, if necessary, will keep on issuing necessary directions as and when the reports of two Secretaries are received. (i) the petitioners have failed to establish that the project undertaken by respondent No.12-company is being executed in contravention of the provisions of the environmental clearance and forest clearance; (ii) the necessary directions have already been issued, as noticed above, by this Court in order dated 5.6.2009 in CMP No. 2372/2009. These directions are made an integral part of this judgment as far as setting up of stone crusher and disposal of mucks are concerned. These directions are made an integral part of this judgment as far as setting up of stone crusher and disposal of mucks are concerned. The Court while issuing the directions dated 5.6.2009 has taken into consideration the report submitted by the committee; (iii) the petitioners have failed to establish their legal right to get any compensation for the minerals extracted by the company while digging the tunnel at the depth of more than 300 meters below the land of the petitioners; (iv) the petitioners have failed to establish that there is any violation of the Himachal Pradesh Transfer of Land (Regulation) Act, 1968; (v) respondent No.10 has been monitoring the project and taking action by issuing directions to respondent No.12-company to carry out corrective measures; (vi) the Deputy Commissioner, Kinnaur has over stepped his brief by recommending the closure of the project vide letter dated 31.7.2008; (vii) the public hearing was given as per notification dated 27.1.1994 and the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute has prepared the necessary report; (viii) however, it is the duty cast upon the respondents to strictly comply with the conditions imposed in the environmental clearance and forest clearance; (ix) it is also the duty cast upon the respondents to ensure effect rehabilitation of the affected persons and also that the development takes place as per the objective of the Hydel Power Policy framed in the year 2006 by the Local Area Development Committee No costs.