Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2013 DIGILAW 483 (SC)

ALAKNANDA HYDROPOWER COMPANY v. ANUJ JOSHI

2013-04-25

DIPAK MISRA, K.S.P.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2013
Order 1. Heard Mr Rakesh K. Khanna, learned Additional Solicitor General of India; Mr M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for AHPCL; Mr B. Jhunjhunwala, party-in-person and also Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), who is personally present in the Court on a direction1 given by this Court. We asked the Secretary, MoEF, whether the conditions stipulated in the Order dated 30-6-2011 have been complied with by the project proponent. 2. The Secretary, MoEF has submitted that following the Order dated 30-6-2011 a Committee headed by Dr B.P. Das was constituted and the Committee has visited the site and examined whether the project proponent has complied with the conditions stipulated in environment clearance of May 1985 as well as the Order dated 30-6-2011. A few infirmities have been pointed out by the Committee in its report. The report is specific on few important aspects, one is with regard to the Catchment Area Treatment Plan (CAT Plan). According to the project proponent, they have already deposited an amount of Rs 22.03 crores with the State Forest Department towards implementation of the CAT Plan. However, the State Government has not acted in providing catchment area treatment in spite of receiving the amount from Alaknanda Hydropower Co. Ltd. (AHPCL), so says the report. 3. Further it was also noticed by the Committee that compensatory afforestation, as per the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 has already been completed in an area of 347 ha in District Lalitpur of Uttar Pradesh. Green belt around the periphery of reservoir is to be implemented by the Forest Department of Uttarakhand. For the said purpose, project proponent has already deposited Rs 2.33 crores but no steps have been taken by the State of Jharkhand so far. 4. Further, the Committee has also recommended the restoration plan of project proponent for muck disposal, quarry restoration is also linked with the resumption of works of the main Project. Therefore, the restoration plan of the project proponent is to be maintained by MoEF through appropriate mechanism. 5. The party-in-person also pointed out that the State Government is yet to comply with the compensatory afforestation as per the Forest (Conservation) Act, in the project area. 6. The report also refers to the modified temple plan as prepared in collaboration with INTACH, Temple Samithi and the Geological Survey of India which was submitted to MoEF from 12-9-2011. 5. The party-in-person also pointed out that the State Government is yet to comply with the compensatory afforestation as per the Forest (Conservation) Act, in the project area. 6. The report also refers to the modified temple plan as prepared in collaboration with INTACH, Temple Samithi and the Geological Survey of India which was submitted to MoEF from 12-9-2011. Intimation was also given to MoEF on 9-2-2012 regarding continuation of temple works as per provisions of Para 14(ii) of MoEF Order dated 30-6-2011. 7. We asked the counsel appearing for the State Government, as to whether they have taken any action after the deposit of amount by the project proponent. The counsel for the State Government is not in a position to answer the question. Few other infirmities have also been pointed out by the Das Committee. 8. Mr M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the recommendation in the report (Para 7.0) and submitted that the Committee has recommended that the project proponent may be allowed to resume works of HEP at the earliest which were stopped as a result of invoking Section 5 of the EP Act, 1986 by MoEF vide its Letter dated 30-6-2011. 9. After the submission of the report by the B.P. Das Committee, Chaturvedi Committee has been appointed with regard to the environmental flow of Alaknanda, Bhagirathi and other tributaries of Ganga. The Chaturvedi Committee Report also refers to the Project in question. 10. The Secretary, MoEF, submitted that the reports have been received by MoEF but the Ministry is still to take a final decision on those Reports. 11. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and to have a full and complete picture of the Project at present and also to decide whether the project proponent has complied with all the conditions stipulated in the environment clearance of May 1985 as well as Order dated 30-6-2011, we find it would be appropriate to constitute a joint team consisting of officials of MoEF as well as the State Government so as to make an on the spot inspection of the Project area and point out whether the conditions stipulated are complied with or not by AHPCL. The team can also afford personal hearing to Mr Jhunjhunwala accompanied by his wife as well as to the project proponent. The team can also afford personal hearing to Mr Jhunjhunwala accompanied by his wife as well as to the project proponent. It is open to them to place all their views and records, if any, to the Committee and the Committee will submit a report on or before 6-5-2013. 12. Personal presence of the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests is dispensed with for the time being. The Secretary, Department of Forests, State of Uttarakhand, shall be personally present on the next date of hearing. Post on 6-5-2013, as part-heard.