Supreme Court of India
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD.versusANUJ JOSHI & ORS.
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 535
- Decided
- 13 August 2013
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the existing environmental and forest clearances are valid, a public hearing is unnecessary at this stage, and the project may proceed subject to expert committee directives, while further clearances for new projects are stayed pending a detailed study.
Summary
The Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) in Uttarakhand, originally cleared environmentally in 1985 and forest‑cleared in 1987, was later transferred to Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. (AHPCL) with a capacity increase to 330 MW. Petitioners challenged the validity of the clearances and sought a public hearing under the 1994 EIA Notification. The High Court ordered a public hearing, but the Supreme Court held that the project is an ongoing one, the clearances were granted long before the 1994 Notification, and a public hearing at this stage would be futile. The Court set aside the High Court’s direction, allowed the project to continue subject to compliance with expert committee recommendations, and stayed further environmental and forest clearances for new hydro projects pending a detailed cumulative impact study. It also directed the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the State Government to refrain from granting new clearances until further orders.
Issues considered
- The necessity of a public hearing for an ongoing hydroelectric project whose environmental clearance predates the 1994 EIA Notification.
- The prospective applicability of the 1994 EIA Notification to projects approved earlier.
- Validity of the environmental clearance for the increased capacity of 330 MW.
- The scope of Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to issue stop‑work orders.
- The need to halt further environmental and forest clearances for new hydro projects pending a cumulative impact assessment.
- Whether raising the Dhari Devi temple infringes on religious rights under Article 25.
Legislation cited
Subjects
environmental clearancepublic hearinghydroelectric projectdam safetycumulative impact assessmentforest clearancereligious rightsDhari Devi templeSection 5MoEFUttarakhanddisaster management
Judgment
[2013) 11 S.C.R. 784
A ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD.
v.
ANUJ JOSHI & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2013)
AUGUST 13, 2013
B
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Hydroelectric Power Project - Environmental and Forest
clearance for - Granted to project developer - Writ petition
C filed objecting to the clearance - High Court directing the
Ministry of Environment and Forest to hold public hearing -
On appeal, held: The project in question is ongoing project,
environmental clearance and forest clearance wherefor were
granted way back in 1985 and 1987 - 95% work is already
D over and nearly 4, 0001- crores been spent on the project -
No purpose would be achieved by way of public hearing at
this stage - Now the safety and security of the dam and the
people is of paramount importance - Directions issued to the
authorities concerned and to the project developer to give
E effect to recommendations made by the Technical experts.
Environmental Law - Mushrooming of large number of
hydroelectric projects in the state of Uttarakhand and its
impact on Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins -
Cumulative impact of those project components on eco-
F system - Direction to Ministry of Environment and Forest to
constitute expert body to make detailed study as to the effect
of the projects on environmental degradation - Till then
MoEF as well as State Government directed not to grant any
hydroelectric power project - Disaster Management Authority
G of the State also directed to submit its report to the Supreme
Court as to whether they had any disaster management plan
for combating unprecedented tragedy in the State of
Uttarakhand.
H 784
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 785
JOSHI
The Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP), which A
was basically run-of -the-river Scheme, was given
Techno-Economic approval for 200 MW by Central
Electricity Authority in 1982, subject to environmental
clearance. After being segregated from other Ganga
Valley Projects, a separate Environment Impact B
Assessment (EIA) of the Project was made in 1985. A
temple (Dhari Devi Temple) which was likely to be
submerged in water, it was suggested in the Assessment
that the height of the same would be raised. The Ministry
of Environment and Forest also granted environmental c
clearance for the Project. Later the capacity of the Project
was enhanced to 330 MW in 1987, which was duly
approved and Planning Commission also accorded
investment approval. However, effective progress was
not made in the Project due to paucity of funds. D
·Pursuant to liberalisation policy, the State invited
private investment in the Project and MOU was entered
into with a private company. The State GovernJTient
requested Ministry of Environment and Forest to transfer
the environmental clearance to the private company and E
the clearance was transferred for 330 MW in the year
1999. Techno-Economic clearance for implementation of
the project was also issued to the private company. The
Project, therefore, was transferred to the appellant-
company and environmental clearance was transferred F
in its favour in the year 2006.
Respondent No.1 filed writ petition challenging the
decision as to environmental clearance for the increased
capacity of generation i.e. 330 MW. Ministry of G
Environment and Forest by its letter dated 3.8.2011
clarified that transfer in favour of the appellant-Company
was for 330 MW. High Court disposed of the petition
directing the appellant-Company to place the document
before Ministry of Environment and Forest and further H
786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A directed the Ministry to hold public hearing. Hence, the
present appeals.
Certain litigation had also been initiated before
National Green Tribunal on the issue. The proceedings
8 before the Tribunal have also been transferred to this
Court.
Disposing of the appeal and transferred cases, the
Court
c HELD: 1.1. Srinagar Hydro Electric Project is an
ongoing project for which environmental clearance was
granted as early as in the year 1985 and forest clearance
in the year 1987. Further, about 95 % of the work is
already over and nearly Rs.4,()00 crores has been spent.
o If public hearing is found necessary then the same
should have been held before granting environmental
clearance. The purpose of public hearing is to know the
concerns of the affected people and to incorporate their
concerns appropriately into the Environment
E Management Plan and it is after incorporation of the
concerns and revision/modifying plan, the final
Environment Management Plan would be submitted to
the Ministry of Environment and Forest for granting
environmental clearance. No purpose would be achieved
F by way of a public hearing at this stage. The various
Committees' reports and the report dated 3.5.2013 that
the members of the Committee had met the Dhari Devi
temple trustees, priests and residents of the locality, they
had not raised any objection for not holding a public
hearing. Further, the State of Uttarakhand has also never
G canvassed for a public hearing nor any complaint was
received by the temple authorities or the worshippers
raised any complaint of not holding any public hearing
there. Therefore, the direction given by the High Court
directing the MoEF to hold a public hearing, is set aside.
H [Para 18] [800-H; 801-A-E]
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 787
JOSHI
1.2. Das Committee, Chaturvedi and Joint Team A
constituted on the basis of direction of this Court have,
therefore, fully endorsed the views made by Indian
National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage {INTACH) on
Dhari Devi Temple. There is no reason to differ from the
views expressed by the expert committee, which was B
submitted hearing all the affected parties, including the
Trustees of the Temple, devotees, Pujaris etc. Committee
reports to that extent stand accepted. [Para 32] [834-E-F]
1.3. It is also not correct to say that by accepting the C
suggestions of all the expert committees to raise the
temple as such to a higher place, would wound the
religious feelings of the devotees or violate the rights
guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. Sacred
rock on which the temple exits is still kept intact and only
the height of the. temple is increased so that the temple D
would not be submerged in the water. [Para 33] [834-G-
H; 835-A]
2. Dam safety and security is a matter of paramount
importance, failure of which can cause serious E
environmental disaster and loss of human life and
property. Proper surveillance, inspection, operation and
maintenance of dams is essential to ensure for safe
functioning of the Dams. The Central Water Commission
(CWC) is a premier technical organisation of India in the F
field of water resources. The Commission is also
entrusted with the general responsibilities of initiating,
coordinating and furthering, in consultation with the State
Governments concerned, schemes for control,
conservation and utilisation of water resources G
throughout the country for the purpose of flood control,
irrigation, drinking water supply and water power
development Safety of dams is the principal concern of
the State Government. The State Government has also to
carry out investigation, planning, design, construction
H
788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A and operation. The appellant-Company says, so far as
SHEP is concerned, engineering and technical
parameters of the dam are clearly narrated in the detailed
project report which, in turn, are assessed by Central
Electricity Authority (CEA) in consultation with the CEC
B and GSI. The norms and regulations laid down by the
concerned authorities, and whether those are strictly
followed or not, have to be assessed and monitored by
the Nodal Agency, CEA/Ministry of Power as well as the
GSI. [Para 35) [835-E-H; 836-A]
c 3.1. Safety and security of the people are also of
paramount importance when a hydro electric project is
being set up and it is vital to have in place all safety
standards in which public can have full confidence to
safeguard them against risks which they fear and to avoid
D serious long term or irreversible environmental
consequences. The question as to whether the recent
calamities occurred at Uttrakhand on 16.6.2013 and,
thereafter, due to cloud burst, Chorabari Lake burst due
to unprecedented rain and consequent flooding of
E Alaknanda river etc. has affected the safety of SHEP has
also to be probed by the MoEF, State of Uttarakhand and
Dam Safety Authority etc. [Para 36) [836-B-D]
3.2. ConstructiQn of the project involving excavation
F of earth and rock has generated large quantum and with
the objective to protect the disposal areas from further
soil erosion and develop the surrounding areas in
harmony with the environment, the muck disposal plan
is formulated. Muck disposal plan gives quantification of
muck, identifies location and activities wherein muck is
G generated, during excavation and blasting operation and
quantifies muck generated from the activities with
relevance to disposal areas. The Das Committee visited
the project site and submitted a status report on 29-30
August, 2012 which has dealt with muck disposal. Report
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 789
JOSHI
of the Joint Committee dated 03.05.2013 also refers to the A
appellant-Company's action plan regarding muck
management and disposal and recommended that
remaining work, particularly, of the permanent site No.8
and 9 be carried out at the earliest. The appellant-
Company has given the details of the work carried out B
for muck disposal. Failure of removal of muck from the
project site may also cost flooding of the project areas,
causing destruction to the environment and to the life of
property of the people. MoEF and State Government and
all other statutory authorities would see that the c
appellant-Company takes proper action and steps for
muck management and disposal. [Para 37] [836-E-H; 837-
A-B]
3.3. Catchment Area Treatment (CAT) is required to
be carried out by the project developer along with R & R D
and greenbelt activities, primarily to mitigate the adverse
environmental impact created by the project construction.
CAT is also resorted to reduce the inflow of silt and
prevent sedimentation of reservoirs. CAT management
involves steps to arrest soil erosion, rehabilitation of E
degraded forest areas through afforestation, controlling
landslide and rockfalls through civil engineering
measures and long time maintenance of afforestation
areas. Silt inflows in river water not only result in
reduction in storage capacity of dams, but also lead to F
increased wear and tear of turbines. Therefore, CAT is of
crucial importance with regard to hydro electric projects.
CAT plan has been prepared by the Uttarakhand Forest
Department and the Project Proponent has paid the'
estimated amount of Rs.22.30 crores to the State Forest G
Department towards implementation of CAT Plan. [Para
38] [837 -C-F]
3.4. Appellant-Company has deposited first year
budget of Rs.203.6 lakhs to the State Forest Department
for green belt rim of the reservoir in August 2012. H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Although green belt area is earmarked, the technical
documents based on the maximum flood level in the
reservoir, the rim of the reservoir, could only be
determined and developed after reservoir is impounded.
Proper steps would be taken by the Forest Department
B of Uttarakhand to carry out the green belt development
area in question. The MoEF, the State Government etc.
would see that the proper steps would be taken by all the
authorities including the appellant-Company to give effect
to the directions given by the Joint Team. [Para 41] [838-
C F-H]
3.5. Going through the reports of Das Committee,
Chaturvedi Committee as well as the Joint Team and after
perusing the affidavits filed by the parties, there is no
reason to hold up the project which is almost nearing
D completion. MoEF, the appellant-Company, Government
of Uttarakhand, Forest Department would take immediate
steps· to comply with all the recommendations made by
Joint Team in the report dated 03.05.2013 and also
oversee whether appellant-Company is complying with
E those directions as well. [Para 42] [839-A-B]
4.1. The Court is, however, very much concerned
with the mushrooming of large number of hydroelectric
projects in the State of Uttarakhand and its impact on
F Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. Various studies
also indicate that in the 1,.1pper-Ganga area, including
Bhagirathi and Alaknanda rivers and their tributaries,
there are large and small hydro power dams. The
cumulative impact of those project components like
G dams, tunnels, blasting, power-house, muck disposal,
mining, deforestation etc. on eco-system, is yet to be
scientifically examined. The AHEC Report has not made
any indepth study on the cumulative impact of all project
components like construction of dam, tunnels, blasting,
p_ower-house, Muck disposal, mining, deforestation etc.
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 791
JOSHI
by the various projects in question and its consequences A
on Alaknanda as well as Bhagirathi river basins so also
on Ganga which is a pristine river. [Paras 44 and 46) [839-
D-F; 840-E-F]
4.2. The above mentioned Reports would indicate the B
adverse impact of the various hydroelectric power
projects on the ecology and environment of Alaknanda
and Bhagirathi river basins. The cumulative impact of the
various projects in place and which are under
construction on the river basins have not been properly C
examined or assessed, which requires a detailed
technical and scientific study. [Para 50] [844-C-D]
4.3. The MoEF as well as State of Uttarakhand is
directed not to grant any further environmental clearance
or forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project in D
the State of Uttarakhand, until further orders. MoEF is
directed to constitute an Expert Body consisting of
representatives of the State Government, Wll, Central
Electricity Authority, Central Water Commission and
other expert bodies to make a detailed study as to E
whether Hydroelectric Power Projects. existing and under
construction have contributed to the environmental
degradation, if so, to what extent and also whether it has
contributed to the present tragedy occurred at
Uttarakhand in the month of June 2013. MoEF is directed F
to examine, as noticed by Wll in its report, as to whether
the proposed 24 projects are causing significant impact
on the biodiversity of Alaknanda and Bhagirath River
basins. The Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand
would submit a Report to this Court as to whether they
had any Disaster Management Plan is in place in the G
State of Uttarakhand and how effective that plan was for
combating the present unprecedented tragedy ,at
Uttarakhand. [Para 51] [844-G-H; 845-A-D]
Narmada Bachao Ando/an vs. Union of India and Ors. H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A (2000) 10 SCC 664: 2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 94 Lafarge Umiam
Mining (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (2011) 7 SCC 338: 2011
(7) SCR 954; Orissa Mining Corporation vs. MoEF (2013) 6
sec 476 - referred to.
Case Law Reference:
B
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 94 referred to Para 14
2011 (7) SCR 954 referred to Para 15
(2013) 6 sec 476 referred to Para 26
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6736 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 03.11.2011 of the High
Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WP (PIL) No. 68 of 2011.
D
WITH
C.A. No. 6746-6747 of 2013, T.C. Nos. 55,56 &57 of 2013.
Himanshu Shekhar, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar,
E Petitioner-in-Person for the Appellant.
Santosh Singh, B. Krishna Prasad, Rachana Srivastava,
Himanshu Shekhar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) located in Tehri
I Pauri Garhwal district of Uttar Pradesh was a project
envisaged by the then Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board
G (UPSEB) on river Alaknanda, which was basically run-of-the-
river scheme.
3. The Techno-Economic approval of the scheme was
granted for 200 MW by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA),
H a competent authority exercising powers under Section 29 of
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 793
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in its meeting held on A
6.11.1982, subject to the environmental clearance from the
Ministry of Environment. SHEP was later segregated from
twenty two other Ganga Valley projects. A separate
Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was made on the SHEP
on 9.2.1985. No adverse affect had been noticed on B
environment in that assessment on setting up of the Project. On
the contrary, it was felt that such a scheme would add to the
richness of the scenic beauty by creation of beautiful lakes
attracting more tourists and also meet the energy requirements
of the State and could be completed within a short span of five C
years. Dhari Devi Temple, it was noticed, was likely to be
submerged in water, therefore was also considered while
considering the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It was
suggested that temple would be raised and created with a
pleasing architecture suiting the surroundings. D
4. The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) granted
Environmental Clearance for the project to UPS EB vide its letter
dated 03.05.1985 subject to certain safeguards. The project
involved diversion of forest land to the extent of 338.38 hectares E
which was cleared by the Forest Department vide proceeding
No. 8-227/86-PC dated 15th April, 1987, in accordance with
Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Project
involved construction of concrete gravity dam affording a gross
storage of 8 Mcum water conductor system designed for 660 F
cumecs and a power house with an installation of six units of
55 MW each. UPSEB later carried out a detailed study and
submitted a report stating that taking into consideration· the
peaking capacity, the installed capacity of the project would be
increased from 200 MW to 330 MW. CEA approved and G
granted the Techno-economic clearance in the enhanced
capacity .of 330 MW vide its letter dated 18.12.1987. Planning
Commission vide its letter dated 29.01.1988 accorded the
investment approval. UPSEB started the work but due to the
H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A paucity of funds the project could not make any effective
progress.
5. The Government of India, in the meanwhile, had
liberalized the policy to encourage private participation in
8 power development. Consequently, the UP Government
following the above mentioned policy decided to invite private
investment in the development of energy sector especially with
regard to the Srinagar Hydro Electric Project. Consequently, the
State Government had entered into a Memorandum of
c Understanding (MOU) with M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. on 27th
August, 1994 for development of the project and in terms of the
MOU, Mis Duncan Industries Ltd. had established a generating
company 'Duncan North Hydro Power Co. Ltd.'. The project
was an ongoing project and most of the infrastructure required
D for the execution of the project had already been arranged by
the State Government. The Department of Energy and
Government of Uttar Pradesh then wrote to the MoEF by letter
dated 04.09.1997 to transfer the environmental clearance
earlier granted to the UPSEB to the Duncans so that the
E safeguards against environmental degradation while clearing
the project might be implemented by the Duncans.
6. M/s Duncan submitted a revised EIA report and DPR
to the MoEF on 25.01.1996 and it was also conveyed that the
project of the enhanced capacity of 330 MW had to be
F transferred to the Duncans. MoEF following the letters dated
25.01.1996 and 18.06.1998 on the subject transferred
environmental clearance to Duncans for 330 MW on 27.07.1999
subject to the condition that the conditions stipulated in the
environmental clearance already granted and any other
G conditions, if stipulated in future for protection of the environment
would be fulfilled by Duncans. CEA also issued the Techno
Economic clearance for implementation of the Project vide it
letter dated 14.06.2000 to Duncans.
H 7. The Duncans had also given up the project after carrying
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 795
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
out some work and in its place came the appellant - Alaknanda A
Hydro Power Company Ltd. (AHPCL). Request was then made
to the MoEF by AHPCL for transfer of the environmental
clearance granted to 330 MW Srinagar Hydro Electric Project
in its favour. Request was favourably considered by the MoEF
and vide communication J-12011/6/96/ IA-I dated 27th March B
2006 MoEF transferred the environmental clearance in favour
of AHPCL stating that it was with the approval of the competent
authority.
8. First respondent along with few others filed Writ Petition C
(PIL) No. 137/2009 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at
Nainital to quash the above mentioned order and sought a CBI
inquiry relating to the enhanced capacity of 330 MW mentioned
in the letters dated 27.07.1999 and 27.03.2006. Direction was
also sought for against AHPCL to stop the construction of the D
Hydro Power Project and also for other consequential reliefs.
Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.04.2011 with a direction
to AHPCL to approach the MoEF for a specific decision as to
the clearance for increased capacity of generation and
increased height of the dam. The MoEF was directed to take
a decision within a period of three months. Court, however, E
11oticed that the clearance had already been given by the MoEF
in the year 1985 which stood transferred in favour of AHPCL
for construction of the dam for generation of 200 MW of
e.lectricity and 63 metre height of the dam. The Court also
ordered that the construction of dam for the said height and for F
generation capacity of 200 MW would not be stopped but the
construction beyond that limit could be proceeded only after
clearance is sought from the MoEF.
9. MoEF as directed by the High Court considered the G
entire matter afresh and rendered a specific decision dated
03.08.2011clarifying that transfer letter dated 27.03.2006 in
favour of AHPCL was for 330 MW. The operative portion reads
as follows:-
H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 'The matter has been reviewed by the Ministry and it is to
clarify that while transferring the environment clearance
dated 3rd May, 1985 of the Project in the name of Uttar
Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) to Mis. Duncans
North Hydro Power Company Limited vide this Ministry's
B letter No. 12011/6/96-IA-I dated 27.7.1999 (copy
enclosed), the Ministry had reviewed that increased
capacity from 200 MW (4X50 MW) to 330 MW (5X66 MW)
and associated parameters like change in dam height
from 73m to 90m from the deepest foundation and FRL
from EL 604.0m to 605.5m. The Ministry also noted that
c there was a change in the submergence from 300 ha to
324.074 ha, however Forest land remained the same i.e.
338.36 ha dated 15th April, 1987 which will be the final
Forest Land for the Project. Therefore, the final parameters
for the project are as follows:-
D
(i) Submergence area - 324.074 ha
(ii) Forest land for diversion - 338.86 ha
(iii) Capacity - 330 MW (4X82.5 MW)
E
(iv) Dam height from the deepest foundation - 90 m
(v) Dam height for the river bed level - 66 m
{vi) FRL - EL 605.5 m
F
(vii) MDDL - EL 603.0 m
{viii) Dam top Road level - 611.0 m
In view of the. above, I am directed to clarify that the transfer
G of environment clearance from DHPCL to Alaknanda
Hydro Power Company Limited (AHPCL) vide this
Ministry's letter No. J-12011/6/96-IA_I dated 27th March,
2006 is of 330 MW capacity with the above mentioned
parameters. The Ministry has further noted the change in
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 797
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
the units from 6X55 MW to 4X82.5MW, as approved by A
CEA.
This has approval of the Competent Authority."
10. MoEF though clarified the position as directed by the
8
High Court, the first respondent herein along with one Dr. Bharat
Jhunjhunwala preferred Writ Petition (PIL) No. 68 of 2011
before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 09.08.2011
challenging the order dated 03.08.2011.
11. Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court C
directing AHPCL to place the documents mentioned in
Schedule IV to the Notification dated 27 .01.1994 before MoEF
and the Ministry was directed to take steps to hold a public
hearing as envisaged in the Notification. Further, it was also
ordered that the notice should mention that the public hearing D
would be given at Dhari Devi Temple premises and that the
Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal to be present at the public
hearing. Further, Court also noticed that the construction work
had progressed to a great extent and at no stage, there was
any objection to the construction of the project having a capacity E
of 200 MW and, therefore, did not stop the construction,
however, it was made clear that the same would be subject to
the decision taken by the MoEF.
12. AHPCL, aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment, F
has preferred this appeal by raising the core issue with regard
to the applicability of EIA Notification dated 27 .01.1994 in a
case where the project had been granted environmental
clearance for 200 MW on 3.05.1985 and thereafter for 330 MW
by the MoEF on 15.4.1987 and approved by CEA on G
18.12.1987, followed by the sanction accorded by the Planning
Commission on 29.1.1988.
13. Respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal arising out of
SLP (Civil) No. 362 of 2012 also filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 5849-
H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 5850 of 2012 challenging the order of the High Court dated
3.11.2011 and the order dated 5.12.2011 passed on the review
petition contending that the finding recorded by the High Court
that they had not questioned the environmental clearance for
200 MW, was incorrect. They also wanted the stoppage of the
B project till the procedure laid in the EIA Notification 2006 is
complied with including the holding of a public hearing.
14. Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant - AHPCL submitted that EIA Notification dated
c 27.01.1994 (as submitted upto 07.07.2004) would operate only
prospectively and that too only to those projects which are either
'new' or 'expansion or modernisation' of the existing project is
proposed after 1994 Notification. Learned counsel made
reference to the judgment of this Court in Narmada Bachao
D Ando/an v. Union of India and Others (2000) 10 SCC 664 and
submitted that the Notification would operate only prospectively.
Learned counsel pointed out that public hearing was expressly
excluded by para 4 of the Explanatory Note to the Notification
in respect of projects like Srinagar Hydro Project where neither
E large displacement is involved nor is there severe environment
ramification. Further, it was also pointed out that the expansion
of the project from 200 MW to 330 MW was granted in the year
1987 prior to the notification and even the original EIA of 1994
would not apply. Further, it was also pointed out that
F Amendment Act 77 of 2004 was incorporated simultaneously
with the explanation along with two Entries Nos. 31 and 32 to
bring within its purview the "new construction projects" and "new
industrial estates". Learned counsel pointed out so far as the
Hydro Projects are concerned, they are not covered by the said
two newly introduced Entries as from the very inception of 1994
G notification, Hydro Power Projects are covered by Rule 2 of
Schedule 1 and therefore the explanation so inserted also has
no application. Consequently, the concept of 'plinth level' is also
not applicable as it goes with the applicability of the
H Explanation.
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 799
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
15. Learned counsel also pointed out that the A
environmental clearance even otherwise was issued in the light
of the specific decision of MoEF dated 03.08.2011 clarifying
that the transfer letter of 27.3.2006 in favour of AHPCL was for
330 MW. Learned counsel in support of his contention made
reference to the judgment of this Court in Lafarge Umiam B
Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338. Learned
counsel also pointed out that the project in question was
conceptualized more than three decades back. As on date the
project stands almost completed and more than Rs.4000 cores
had been invested and therefore, there is no question of holding C
a public hearing at this stage. Further, it was also pointed out
that State Government had ascertained views of the local
inhabitants, public representatives, Gram Panchayat,
Shopkeepers, Temple·Pujaris, Trust, devotees etc. and it was
considering their views,. the MoEF granted environmental D
clearance and also forest clearance for the project.
16. MoEF in the counter affidavit filed on 25.7.2012 stated
that the project in question was granted environment clearance
in the year 1985 and hence it would not come under the purview
of EIA Notification of 1994 or EIA Notification of 2006 which E
replaced the EIA Notification of 1994. Further, it was stated that
the construction of project was already in an advance stage and
hence public hearing would be an empty formality, since the
purpose of public hearing is to know the concerns of the F
affected people and to incorporate their concerns appropriately
into the Environment Management Plan (EMP) for the project
and it is after incorporation of the concerns and revising/
modifying the EMP, the final EMP would be submitted to the
MoEF for granting environmental clearance to the project.
MoEF has, therefore, taken the stand that since environmental G
clearance to the project had already been granted in the year
1985 prior to the coming into force of the Environmental
(Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification of 1994, no
public hearing was necessitated.
H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 17. Shri Lahoty also pointed out that so far as the issue of
Dhari Devi temple is concerned, the Joint Committee had
endorsed and recommended that upliftment of the temple
adhering to the INTACH plan is the best option and has found
wide acceptability amongst Temple Samiti, Pujari, local
B inhabitants as well as local statutory authorities. Elaborate
arguments were also addressed by the learned counsel on
muck Management and submitted and that they had
substantially complied with the proposed directions under
Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act. Arguments were
c also addressed on the Catchment Area Treatment Plan and
submitted that an amount of Rs.22.30 crores was deposited
with the Forest Department way back in 2007-09. Further, it was
also pointed out that the AHPCL had spent about 40 crores
for rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected people i~ the
D catchment area. For Greenbelt Development, it was pointed out
that an amount of Rs.2.30 crore was made available to 'the
State of Uttarakhand by AHPCL. Learned counsel, therefore,
submitted that the respondents are unnecessarily creating
hurdle in the completion of the project and litigation is not in
E public interest but for advancing the private interest of the
respondents.
18. We may indicate while going through the averments
made in the writ petition as well as the impugned judgment and
F the pleadings of the parties, it is seen that the question that was
primarily raised before the High Court was with regard to the
necessity of a public hearing and also whether the sanction had
been accorded to construct the project with the capacity of 330
MW. This Court in Narmada Bachao Ando/an case (supra) has
held that the 1994 Notification applies only prospectively, in any
G view so far as this case is concerned the el"!vironmental
clearance cannot be an issue in view of the specific stand taken
by MoEF and the orders dated 03.08.2011 passed by MoEF
which can also be considered as an ex post facto approval.
SHEP, it may be noted, is an ongoing project for which
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 801
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
environmental clearance was granted as early as in the year A
1985 and forest clearance in the year 1987. Further, about 95
% of the work is already over and nearly Rs.4,000 crores has
been spent. If public hearing is found necessary then the same
should have held before granting environmental clearance. The
purpose of public hearing, it may be noted, is to know the B
concerns of the affected people and to incorporate their
concerns appropriately into the EMP and it is after
incorporation of the concerns and revision/modifying plan, the
final EMP would be submitted to the MoEF for granting
environmental clearance. Environmental clearance, in the C
instant case, had been granted in the year 1985 and the project
is an ongoing project which is now nearing completion and,
therefore, no purpose would be achieved by way of a public
hearing at this stage. We also notice from the various
'Committees' reports and the report dated 3.5.2013 that they D
had met the temple trustees, priests and residents of the locality,
they had not raised any objection for not holding a public
hearing. Further, the State of Uttarakhand has also never
canvassed for a public hearing nor any co111plaint was received
by the temple authorities or the worshippers raised any E
complaint of not holding any public hearing there. We, therefore,
set aside the direction given by the High Court directing the
MoEF to hold a public hearing.
19. We find that a new dimension has been added to this F
litigation by initiating certain proceedings by group of litigants
before the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. MoEF also, on
30.06.2011, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5
of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 passed a stop work
order directing AHPCL to attend certain environmental issues G
· which included (i) mounting Dhari Devi temple at a higher
elevation as per the Plan prepared by INTACH (ii) maintain and
manage muck at the various muck disposal sites by providing
retention wall, slopes, compacting and terracing etc. (iii) develop
greenbelt (iv) Catchment Area Treatment (v) undertaking H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Supana Query restoration (vi) maintain minimum environmental
flow etc.
20. The second respondent and few others then
approached NGT vide Appeal No. 9 of 2011 praying for some
8 rigours orders against AHPCL. The appeal was, however,
disposed of by NGT directing MoEF to take a final decision
within a period of eight weeks. No decision was taken by the
MoEF within the time granted by the NGT which led AHPCL
filing M.A. No. 103/2012 before the NGT to revoke Section 5
c directions and allow AHPCL to continue the construction work
of the project.
21. The Tribunal (NGT) disposed of the application on
07.08.2012 expressing its anguish for not disposing of the
matter within the time granted by it. The AHPCL submitted that
D in spite of the fact that it had complied with all the requirements
stipulated in the notice dated 30.06.2011, unnecessarily the
project was held up causing huge financial loss to it. AHPCL
also sought a direction to transfer all the cases from NGT to
this court to be heard along with the appeal. Consequently, all
E those rel~ted matters were transferred to this case Court and
were heard along with these appeals.
22. We asked the Secretary, MoEF, when the matter came
for hearing, as to whether the conditions stipulated in its order
F dated 30.06.2011 had been complied with by the project
proponent. Committee headed by Dr. B.P. Das was constituted
by MoEF to examine whether the project proponent had
complied with the conditions stipulated in the environmental
clearance granted in May 1985 as well as Order dated
G 30.06.2011 and the copy of the Das Committee report of
August 2012 has been made available.
23. Reference was also made to the B.K. Chaturvedi
Committee Interim Report, as well as the final report, with
H regard to the environmental flow of Alakhnanda, Bhaghirthi and
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 803
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.)
other tributaries of Ganga which has also made some A
reference to this project as well. After noticing Das Committee
Report and after hearing learned counsel on either side, this
Court thought it appropriate to constitute a joint team consisting
of officials of MoEF as well as State Government so as to
conduct an on the spot inspection of the project area in question B
and to examine whether the project proponent had complied
with all the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance
of May 1985 as well as Order dated 30.06.2011 of the MoEF,
which also referred to the issue of the protection of Dhari Devi
Temple. The joint team was directed to give an opportunity of C
hearing to second respondent as well. We have taken such a
course to give a quietus and finality to the various issues which
are long standing.
24. The Joint Team consisted of Professor R. Ramesh D
National Centre Coastal Zone Institute, Chennai, Mr. Gambhir
Singh, Chief Conservator of Forests, Garwhal, Prof. R.
Sakthivakivel, International Water Management Institute, Mr.
Lalit Kapur, Director, MoEF and Dr. Arun Kumar, CSO, AHEC,
llT Roorkee as a Chairman of the Committee. This 5-members E
Committee visited the project site including MUCK disposal
sites on May 1st and 2nd 2013 and heard the second
respondent as well as the AHPCL. The Committee also visited
Dhari Devi temple site and met trustees, priests and few
residents of village Dhari. The Committee also visited the
F
catchment area. The Committee examined as to whether the
AHPCL had complied with the conditions stipulated in the
environmental clearance of May 1985 and also the conditions
stipulated in forest clearance of April, 1987. The Committee
also examined whether the AHPCL had complied with the
conditions communicated under Section 5 of Environment G
(Protection) Act 1986 vide letter dated 30.06.2011, also issues
with regard to Dhari Devi Temple. The Committees, after
considering all those aspects, submitted its report on
03.05.2013. The operative portion of the same reads as follows:
H
804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A "2. Compliance of Conditions stipulated In
Environmental Clearance of May, 1985.
1. Fuel Wood should be provided to the construction stage
so as to prevent indiscriminate falling of trees in the
B neigbouring areas. The budgeted estimate should
therefore, be suitably augmented.
The AHPCL has informed that they have made
arrangements through their contractor to supply cooking
gas for all the workers of the project. Nearly three to four
c hundred cylinders are used by the workers of all
contractors for cooking requirements. In case of non-
availability of gas, kerosene is used on limited occasions.
No fuel wood is used for cooking or any other purpose. In
case of any exigency wood is purchased from authorized
Government/Forest departments by the contractor.
2.Critically eroded areas in the catchment should be
identified for undertaking time bound soil conservation
program in the first phase, concurrently with the
E construction works. The catchment area treatment plans
be worked out expeditiously.
Uttarakhand Forest Department has provided a status on
the CAT plan and green belt matter and is placed at
Annexure - 2.
F
Uttarakhand Forest Department is executing the CAT plan
through its four Divisions viz. Narendranagar,
Rudraprayag, Garhwal and Civil - Soyam Pauri Forest
Division. The proposed outlay of CAT plan for five year
G period was Rs.22.03 crores deposited by the AHPCL in
three instalments (last in April 2009) to the Nodal Officer
who in tum transferred this amount to the CAMPA fund with
Govt. of lndi~. In 2010, the funds were transferred to the
CAMPA society of Uttarakhand Govt. for execution of
H proposed works.
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 805
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
To bring uniformity and for providing directions for A
finalization of CAT plans in participatory mode, PCCF
Uttarakhand vide letter No. 238/PA and Kha-2023/13-2(2)
dated 25 March 2011 issued guidelines for
implementation of CAT plans in participatory mode.
Overall framework for reviewing CAT plans was approved B
by steering committee of UK CAMPA in its 3rd meeting
on 16th May 2011. Further, the PCCF vide office Memo
NO. 174/13-2(2) dated 03.08.2011 issued preliminary
guidelines with respect to creation of a Project
Management Unit (PMU) for implementation of the CAT C
Plan. The funds for CAT plan are being allocated as per
original proposal-: However, micro-plans are being
prepared in participatory mode by the respective Divisions
of the Forest department following the Procurement Rules,
2008. D
In pursuance to the above mentioned facts preparatory
phase for the CAT plan execution was started in 2011-12
during which identification of sites, consultations with
village communities, preparation of micro-plans by PRA E
method and awareness campaigns were carried out. In
2012-13, nursery raising, advance soil works were carried
out together with preparatory activities. Total 133 villages
have been identified for the CAT plan and Division wise
distribution of which is Narendranagar Forest Division - F
40 villages, Rudraprayag Forest Division ....:: 41 villages,
Garhwal Forest Division - 21 villages and Civil-Soyam
Pauri Forest Division - 31 villages. Out of the 133 villages
micro-plans have been prepared for 76 villages and
division wise status of preparation of micro-plans in G
Rudraprayag Forest Division - 34 villages, Garhwal
Forest Division- 21 villages and Civil Soyam Pauri Forest
Division - 31 villages. During the financial year 2012-13,
implementation of micro plans was started in 10 villages
H
806 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A and during current financial year approximately 60 villages
are being taken up for this purpose.
Nursery activities have been selected at Division level. The
actual requirement of the plants is expected to be known
B on completion of all micro-plans. Based on estimates
saplings are already being raised in nurseries as
Narendranagar Forest Division - 1 .5 lacs saplings,
Rudraprayag Forest Division - 5.4 saplings, Garhwal
Forest Division - 1.0 saplings and Civil-Soyam Pauri
Forest Division - 1.3 saplings. Through these nurseries
c
afforestation is being taken up through micro planning of
the planned villages in the catchment.
A total sum of Rs.46.22 lacs has been spent so far by the
department during the financial years 201 f-12 and 2012-
D 13 under the budget provided by the project.
Further from other sources of funding i.e. 13th Finance
Commission and FDA etc. the forest department· of
Uttarakhand has treated 882 Ha area as well as
E constructed 81 check dams and 10 water ponds in the
catchment of the project.
3. Afforestation should be undertaken on a large seal~ in
the project area and a 50m wide green belt created
around the periphery of the reservoir.
F
For afforestation the response has been same as above
in 2.
Compensatory afforestation as the Indian Forest
G Conservation Act (1980) was completed in an area of 347
ha in district Lalitpur of Uttar Pradesh (the then combined
State) after the forest clearance accorded in the year 1987.
Based on the estimates provided by Forest department
in June 2012 for a sum of Rs.652.49 lacs to be
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 807
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
implemented in six years, AHPCL has deposited first year A
budget of Rs.203.6 lacs with the state forest department
for creating Green Belt around the rim of the reservoir of
Srinagar HEP in August 2012.
The state forest department is expecting the Srinagar 8
hydropower project to be commissioned in Dec. 2013/
Jan.2014 and only after filling the reservoir, they intend to
assess the requirement of site above the submerged area,
the selection of species, the type of soil works etc. and
creating the Green Belt accordingly. Therefore they intend c
to start the green belt activities onlyafter works of water
reservoir are completed and is filled. The work in the
private land shall be taken up for green belt development
through participatory approach with the land owners.
4. Geo-morphological studies be undertaken in the D
catchment to formulate plans for the stability of slopes on
reservoir periphery through engineering and biological
measures.
Geological Survey of India (GSI) has been appointed as E
the agency for carrying out the Geo-morphological Studies.
Total 9 villages have been identified. These are
Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour, Gandasu, Farasu,
Mehargon, Paparasuand and Maliyasu. The studies for 7
villages are completed. Recommendations received for 5 F
villages namely Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour,
Gandasu and implemented by the AHPCL. As informed
by AHPCL, the recommendations for the displacement of
the houses in the rim area of the reservoir have been
complied with. The balance reports are expected to be G
received from GSI soon.
Measures comprises of engineering and biological
aspects in green belt area are being implemented by state
forest department.
H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 5. A monitoring committee should be constituted, in
consultation with the Department of Environmental to
oversee the effective implementation of the suggested
safeguards.
B The AHPCL has been submitting the half yearly compliance
reports to the Regional Office of MoEF, Lucknow. The
Regional Office also visited the project site from time to
time. The committees of Dr. BP Das in June 2011, Dr. J.K.
Sharma in June 2012, Dr. BP Das in Aug 2012 appointed
by MoEF and Shri AON Rao in Dec.2012 appointed by
c NGT have visited the project site and submitted the reports.
The committee is of the opinion that AHPCL should
monitor the project during construction and post
construction for various parameters of water quality,
D aquatic biodiversity, landslides in the rim area, inflow and
outflow, impacts on water tables and springs and submit
the reports to the State Government and MoEF regularly.
There should a monitoring mechanism at the state level
E which should have the data for practicing adaptive
management and such monitoring may be carried out in
association with project affective society.
3. Compliance of conditions stipulated in Forest
Clearance (FC) of April, 1987.
F
1. Legal status of land will remain unchanged.
No change has been reported.
2. Compensatory afforestation will be raised over and
G
equivalent non forest land.
Compensatory afforestation as per the Indian Forest
Conservation Act (1980) was completed in an area of 347
ha in district Lalitpur of Uttar Pradesh (the then combined
H State) after the forest clearance accorded in the year 1987.
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 809
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
3. The oustees will be rehabilitated as per plan submitted A
in the state government.
Since there were no human oustees in the submergence
area no rehabilitation plan was prepared by the State
government. However, Geological Survey of India (GSI) 8
was appointed by AHPCL for carrying out the Geo-
morphological Studies for 9 villages identified as
Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour, Gandasu, Farasu,
Mehargon, Paparasu and Maliyasu. As informed by
AHPCL, the recommendations for the displacement of the c
houses in the rim area of the reservoir have been complied
with for the recommendation received from GSI so far. The
balance reports are expected to be received from GSI
soon.
Dhari Devi temple coming under the submergence area D
has been reported separately.
4. The project authority will establish fuel wood depots and
the fuel wood be provided to construction labor and staff
free of cost, or its cost deducted from the salaries and E
wages to be paid to the staff and labor.
The AHPCL has informed that they have made
arrangements with the local gas supplier to supply cooking
gas for all the workers of the project. Nearly three to four
F
hundred cylinders are used by the workers of all
contractors for cooking requirements. In case of non-
availability of gas, kerosene is used on limited occasions.
No fuel wood is used for cooking or any other purpose. In
case of any exigency wood is purchased from authorized G
Government/Forest departments by the contractor.
4. Compliance of conditions communicated under
Section 5 of EP (Act) 1986 vide letter dated
30.06.2011.
H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 1. To preserve the religious sanctity and character of
the Dhari Devi Temple, a modified plan will be
prepared in collaboration with INTACH, a
Conservation Architect, the local Temple Samity and
the representative of GSI. The Plan should, inter alia,
B examine how part of rock on which the platform of
the deity has been constructed, along with the rock
that formed its backdrop, shall be mounted at a
higher elevation in such a -way that it maintains
contact with the base rock from which it is raised.
c
2. Only afte'r modified Plan as specified above has
been prepared, the construction shall be resumed at
Dhari Devi Temple.
As reported by AHPCL a modified Temple Plan was
D prepared in collaboration with INTACH, Temple Samithi
and Geologica1 Survey of India and submitted to MoEF on
12.09.2011 and further intimated to MoEF on 09.02.2012
for continuation of works as per provisions of para 14(ii)
of Section 5 notice.
E
Earlier committees which visited sites during 16-17th June,
2012 and 29-30th August, 2012 and B.K. Chaturvedi
Committee report April 2013, have all recommended
construction of temple works as per INTACH scheme. The
F committee visited the temple site and found the work of
raising the platform was in advance stage of construction
with certain changes made by temple priest and trustees.
3. The muck slope at the edge of the river shall be
adequately protected by a retaining wall of at least
G
1-2 m height to be 1m above HFL corresponding to
a flood of 2500 to 3000m3/sec in the river.
4. The existing slope of the muck disposed off is
around 40-450 and shall be flattened to 350. The walls
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 811
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
shall be constructed partially upto a maximum of 2m A
height and need to be completed to the top with
surface protection before July 2011 when monsoon
precipitation becomes intense. This is considered
expedient to prevent sloughing, sliding of the
critically steep much slope and to arrest flow of the B
muck into the river. The wall shall be constructive
over a length of almost 1 km stretch at three major
sites i.e. the dam, desilting basin and power house.
This would lead to adequate environmental
protection. C
5. Muck shall be compacted· and Terraces shall be
formed where so ever possible.
As per plan approved by the State forest department there
are 10 muck disposal sites in the project area out of which D
only sites 8 & 9 are permanent and others are temporary
meant only for construction duration. A total volume of 66.1
lacs cubic meter of muck was estimated, out of which
16.79 lacs cubic meter of muck has been utilized for back
filling purpose. Further 12.5 lacs cubic meter is E
contemplated to be utilized from muck site 6, 7 and 10 for
back filling. 37.62 lacs cubic meter is planned to be left
over at site 3 (2.01 lacs cubic meter), 4(4.22 lacs cubic
meter), 6(4.96 lacs cubic meter), 7(2.39 lacs cubic meter),
8(8.8 lacs cubic meter), 9(12.48 lacs cubic meter) and F
10(2.77 lacs cubic meter) for land shaping and grading.
Total muck utilization as on date as informed by AHPCL
is estimated to be about 44%.
A review of water quality parameters (Temperature, pH, G
Dissolved Oxygen, Biological Oxygen Demand) provided
by the State Pollution Control Board, Uttarakhand for the
year 2011-12 and 2012-13 measured in Alaknanda at
Rudraprayag i.e. upstream of Srinagar project and in
Alaknanda at Deoprayag i.e. downstream of Srinagar H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A project indicates that there is negligible difference in the
water quality parameters due to project construction
activity.
Slope dressing and toe walls are constructed/being
B repaired at temporary sites. Some construction material
is stored on site No.6 and the same is planned to be
removed after completion of words. Soil from site No.4 is
planned to be removed before monsoon, 2013 as the
batching plant has been removed now. Soil from site no.7
is being removed now. Slope dressing, Terracing, Toe
c walls would be completed in location nos. 8 and 9 where
much disposal is going to be permanent.
Angles of muck disposal sites 4,6,7,8 & 9 were got
measured by AHPCL and are reported as follows: 4- 210/
D 250, 18o/33o, site 6 - 28o/29o, 32o/32o, site 7 - 33o/29o,
37o/36o/27o, site 8 - 31o,32o, site 9 - 35o/36o/35o/37o,
35o/32o.
Slopes of muck disposal areas (angle of repose) are given
E as 450 at para 18(3) page no.16 of Report on "Muck
Disposable and Management of Srinagar project" by llT,
Roorkee, November 2008. However MoEF letter has
suggested flattening the slopes up to 350. The slopes
measured and reported by AHPCL appear to be in order.
F
Earthen cofferdam in front of power house is planned to
be removed after completion of power house for joining
the water from powerhouse to river through tail water
channel and soil to be utilized for back filling and
landscaping. This cofferdam was synonymously referred
G
to as Muck disposal site no. 10 at Power house location
in the section 5 notice dt. 30.06.2011. Disposal Location
no. 1O is well behind the power house coffer dam and has
no contact with river water.
H All the toe walls which got damaged at the muck disposal
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 813
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
sites during monsoon, should be repaired by AHPCL A
especially for those sites where muck is being stored
permanently.
The photographs of all muck disposal sites of different time
along with approved muck disposal plan by AHPCL is B
placed at Annexure - 3.
6. Appropriate protection by plantation and gabions
should be put only after slopes are flattened to 350,
protected by retaining walls of desired height. C
Thereafter, appropriate soil cover pf 1m shall be
provided to raise plantation for slope protection.
7. Muck disposal site wise restoration plan with the
targets shall be submitted immediately to the MoEF.
D
In view of the ongoing removal of the muck from sites and
construction activity the plantation is expected to be taken
up thereafter.
8. Green Belt development to be undertaken
simultaneously along with project construction. E
Based on the estimates provided by Forest department
in June 2012 for a sum of Rs.652.49 lacs for
implementation in six years, AHPCL has deposited first
year budget of Rs. 203.6 lacs with the state forest F
department for creating Green Belt around the rim of the
reservoir of Srinagar HEP in August 2012.
The state forest department is expecting the Srinagar
hydropower project to be commissioned in Dec 2013/Jan G
2014 and only after filling the reservoir, the forest
department intend to assess the requirement of sites
above the submerged area, the selection of species, the
type of soil words etc. and creating the Green belt
accordingly. Therefore they intend to start the green oelt H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A activities only after works of water reservoir are completed
and is filled. The private land shall also be taken up for
green belt development through participatory approach
with the land owners.
B 9. For expediting Geo-morphological studies by
Geological Survey of India (GSI) and implementation
of recommendations before Dam gets operational.
AHPCL shall pursue with GSI and take up the
mitigation measures immediately.
c Geological Survey of India (GSI) has been appointed as
the agency for carrying out the Geo-morphological Studies.
Total 9 villages have been identified. These are
Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour, Gandasu, Farasu,
Mehargon, Paparasu and Maliyasu. The studies for 7
D villages are completed. Recommendations received for 5
villages namely Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari Kaliyasour,
Gandasu and implemented by the AHPCL. As informed
by AHPCL, the recommendations for the relocation of the
houses in the rim area of the reservoir have been complied
E with. The balance reports are expected to be received from
GSI soon.
Village: Dungripanth
Recommendation of GSI with status
F
House of Sri Hari Sankar Singh is to be relocated -
Complied.
The area falling between +605.90 and 611.00 both
G Dungripanth and Dikholi villages may be monitored from
safety view point immediately after impounding of reservoir
- Shall be monitored accordingly
House of C.S. Bahuguna needs to be relocated to a safe
place - Complied.
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 815
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Village : Sendri A
Recommendation of GSI with status 4 houses located
close to the outer edge of the ridge need to be relocated
to a safer place - Complied
B
Village - Dhari
Houses and land upto EL +616.00 sshall have to be
displaced/acquired - Complied
Village: Kaliyasour c
There would not be major threat from the reservoir to the
stability of slopes where main settlement is located - No
action is to be taken
Village Gandasu D
Suitable remedial measures for slopes at specific
locations are being recommended -
Action may be initiated after receipt of recommendations
E
Village: Farasu
Studies conducted, report yet to be submitted.
Village Mehargon
F
Studies conducted, report yet to be submitted.
10. The Restoration work for Supana Quarry shall be
undertaken simultaneously, leaving the part which is
being used for storage of building material. G
Committee observed from the site visit that storage of the
building material has been almost removed and vacated
site is being filled with muck.
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 11. AHPCL shall maintain a minimum environmental
flow as will be decided by the Ministry on the basis
of Study of llT Roorkee on the Cumulative Impact
Assessment on Alaknanda and Bhaghirathi Basin.
B As per the approved Environmental Management Plan of
the project, AHPCL is required to release a minimum of
5 cumecs of water from the Dam through out the year in
the river section of water.
Ministry of Environment and Forest constituted an Inter-
c Ministerial Group (IMG) headed by Shri B.K. Chaturvedi
to consider the issue related to hydropower projects and
environmental flows in June 2012. The committee has
, submitted its report in April 2013 after considering the
report from llT Roorkee, Wildlife Institute of India and others
D as available.
The MoEF is expected to take a decision on this and
convey to the project proponent at appropriate time for
compliance.
E
12. Requisite clearances shall be sought by AHPCL
for Alaknanda River Front Development Scheme
before proceeding further on this scheme.
13. AHPCL shall submit a detailed Action Plan on the
F above mentioned directions with time targets along
with a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1 crore in favour of the
State Pollution Control Board, Uttarakhand. The
Bank Guarantee shall be forfeited in case of non
compliance by AHPCL.
G
AHPCL informed that the proposed scheme is not a part
of approved EMP/EC of the project. This was an additional
proposal from AHPCL. However, neither proposal nor
word has been taken up so far. ·
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 817
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
A Bank Guarantee of Rs.1 core was submitted through A
Uttarakhand on July, 2011.
5. TOR II: The Committee will also submit a full and
complete picture of the project at present.
8
AHPCL has provided the statement of physical and
financial progress of various work of the Srinagar project
as on March 31, 2013 and is given at Annexure 4. The
summary of the same is as below:
Civil Works: diversion tunnel, coffer dams, dam and C
spillway, head race tunnel, forebay tank and bye~ss
channel, bridges on the channel, penstock, power house
building, switchyard are 100% completed. The cross
drainage works of Munjh Kot nallah are 93% completed.
D
Hydro mechanical works: dam and spillway, head race
tunnel, forebay and byepass and draft tube are 100%
completed.
Electro-mechanical works: 3 units are 100% completed E
whereas unit 4 is under progress.
6.TORlll: In the context of Dhari Devi Temple, which
is coming under submergence of the reservoir, the
Committee will suggest best possible option
regarding how to protect the Dhari Devi Temple F
without disturbance at its present location.
In the recent time there have been several committees who
have gone through the issue of the submergence of Dhari
Devi temple and a numbers of alternative to prevent the G
submergence of the Dhari Devi Temple were studied.
These are as follows:
(a) Architectural Heritage Division of Indian National
Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) has
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A prepared a plan in consultation with Dhari Devi
Temple Trust, Geological survey of India and
AHPCL in Sept 2011.
(b) Dr. B.P. Das Committee Aug 2012 recommended
that "In view of the compelling Technical, Social,
B
Religious and Sentimental Reasons narrated in
para 4.2, the feasibility of constructing a dry well
structure to protect the rock mound in situ and "Maa
Dhari Devi Idol" .in its existing position is not
feasible. The team therefore recommends for
c continuation of works of restoration of the temple
as per INTACH proposal".
(c) B.K. Chaturvedi Inter Ministerial Group (IMG)
appointed sequel to the third meeting of National
D Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in April
2012 submitted its report in Sept 2012 where the
IMG has recommended that best solution for saving
the temple appears to be accepting the
recommendation of two rnember committee
E comprising of Chairman Central Water
Commission and Chairman Central Electricity
Authority represented by its Member (Hydro). The
two member committee examined the following
option:
F (i) Construction of an enclosure bund around temple
and surrounding ghat and access road upto the
level of 611 m on the banks.
(ii) Construction of an concrete well of about 30 meter
G diameter and 18 meter height around the temple.
(iii) Relocation of the temple to a safe location on the
left bank of the river.
(iv) Raising the temple above the highest flood level at
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 819
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
its current location and to install the idol at higher A
elevation at the same spot with access to the
temple through a pedestrian bridge from the left
bank.
(v) Construction of 30km long power channel and 8
diversion dam in the upstream of existing dam.
Keeping in view the limitations and infeasibility of
implementing the first three options the committee
recommended the fourth option i.e. "Raising the temple
above the highest flood level at its current location and to C
install the idol at higher elevation at the same spot with
access to the temple through a pedestrian bridge from the
left bank."
This committee visited the Dhari Devi temple on May 02, D
2012 and interacted with trustees, priests of the Dhari Devi
temple and few residents of village Dhari who were In
favour of raising the temple above the highest water level.
In fact the committee observed that the elevated platform
of temple is in advance stage of construction and the E
preparations are under way for shifting the deities to the
elevated location. The trustee, priests and resident who the
committee interacted are of the opinion of early completion
of the temple at the elevated location.
'F
Dr. 8. Jhunjhunwala expressed apprehensions against
moving the Dhari Devi temple to a higher elevation, as it
is against the "Rights of Worship". He proposed the option
of Construction of 30 km long power channel and diversion
dam in the upstream of existing dam.
G
7. TOR IV: The committee will gather evidence
through photography/videography
The photographs taken during site visit are available at
annexure - 5 · H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A 8. TOR V: The Committee will give personal
hearing to Shri Bharat Jhunjhunwala accompanied
by his wife & representatives of the project .
proponent i.e. AHPCL who will place their views and
records if any, before the said Committee.
B
The committee gave personal hearing to Shri Bharat
Jhunjhunwala accompanied by his wife as well as project
proponent (AHEC) on May 01, 2013 and heard patiently.
The points raised by Shri Bharat Jhunjhunwala are
addressed as below:
c
a. Sale of power outside the area
The project clearances were accorded in the year
1985 and 1987 during the period of undivided Uttar
D Pradesh. The power purchase agreement of the
project is with Uttar Pradesh Govt. utility and free
power @ 12% of power generated shall be
available to Uttarakhand Government and is in line
with the Uttar Pradesh state re-organization Act
E 2000.
b. Conditions attached to Environmental Clearance
1985
Not in the purview of the committee. He may request
F to the MoEF for the safe.
c. CAT Plan
The status on the CAT plan has been given above
under the EC and FC clearance.
G
d. Compensatory afforestation
The status on the afforestation has been given
above under the FC clearance.
H e. Green Belt
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 821
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
The status on the green belt has been given above A
under the EC and FC clearance.
f. Geo morphological studies
The status on these studies and resettlement of the
likely to be affected persons has been given above. B
g. Dhari Devi Temple
The response is given under TOR 3
h. Muck Disposal c
The status of muck disposal sites is elaborated
above along with annexure 3 of photographs of all
10 locations.
D
i. Stop work order
As informed by AHPCL that in view of NGT order
of M.A. No. 103/2012 in Appeal No. 9 of 2011
dated Aug 07, 2012 they are continuing the
construction of work. E
Committee also heard AHPCL through a power
point presentation. The AHPCL requested the
committee that their project may be allowed to be
commissioned as earliest as possible. F
9. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The committee after verifying the conditions and
progress of the work at site and hearing of Dr. B.
. Jhunjhunwala along with his wife and project G
proponent AHPCL and interaction with others in the
project area recommends following:
1. The muck disposal restoration may be done at the
earliest. The necessary covering with top soil, H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A· .
plantation and toe wall for the permanent
disposable site no. 8 & 9 be carried out at the
earliest.
2. The catchment area treatment plan and green belt
B plan being executed by State Forest department be
expedited.
3. An effective monitoring mechanism at the state
level which should have the data for practicing
adaptive management be created and such
c monitoring may be carried out in association with
project affective society.
4. As the project is in close proximity to habitations
having several national and state institutions/
D organization, the ongoing construction activities
may be completed at the earliest."
25. Report is now being questioned by the MoEF, in spite
of the fact, that they constituted the joint team which included
E the Director, MoEF as its representative. MoEF, in their written
submission, raised an objection with regard to the proposal to
shift Dhari Devi temple to a higher place which according to
the MoEF would wound the religious feeling of large sections
of Hindus. The MoEF felt that the project proponents plan to lift
the temple up on column and preserve it under guidance of
F INTACH which could not possibly be a viable solution in view
of the recent judgment of this Court in Orissa Mining
Corporation v. MoEF [(2013) 6 SCC 476] which says that the
religious faith, customs and practices of tribals have to be
preserved and protected. MoEF in its affidavit dated 6.5.2013
G also took that position. The Principal Secretary and State of
Uttarakhand filed their response on 10.05.2013 with respect to
the affidavit filed by the MoEF on 06.05.2013 and the Report
submitted by the Joint Team. Forest Department of Uttarakhand
H also filed their note indicating their stand. Detailed written
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 823
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
submission has also been filed by the second respondent on A
10.05.2013 with regard to the non-compliance of various
directions given by the MoEF in its notice dated 30.06.2011
by AHPCL
26. Dr. B. Jhunjhunwala - party in person submitted that 8
the High Court was right in directing a public hearing following
the 1994 Notification, the necessity of the same, according to
him, has been highlighted by this Court in G. Sundarrajan v.
Union of India and Others, the judgment of which is reported
in {2013) 6 SCC 620. Dr. Jhunjhunwala has also highlighted c
the necessity of keeping Dhari Devi temple on the spot at its
present location. Dr. Jhunjhunwala further submitted that Right
to Worship stands at a higher pedestai than Right to Life under
Article 21 and any disturbance of the temple would violate the
Right to Worship at Dhari Devi temple without any hindrance D
as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. Dr.
Jhunjhunwala also suggested that the temple could be saved
by making a canal instead of reservoir at the impugned project
and the sacred rock in situ by constructing a dry well of sufficient
height and diameter around it and providing pilgrim access to E
it by building an approach road.
27. We have gone through the affidavits filed by the State
of Uttarakhand and we find they have wholeheartedly accepted
the B.P. Das Committee Report and the report dated 3.5.2013
submitted by the Joint Team and also the B.K. Chaturvedi F
interim report dated September 2012. Wh.en this .Court
. constituted the Committee on 25.4.2013, this Court directed the
inclusion of the State Government representative as well, so
that the State Government can express its views on various
issues including the issue relating to Dhari Devi temple. State G
Government in their affidavit, it may be noted, have not
questioned the suggestions made by the Committee in its
report dated 3.5.2013. Consequently, we have to take it that
the State Government has no objection whatsoever with regard
to the suggestion made by the joint Committee in its report H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A dated 03.05.2013 i.e. raising the temple above the highest flood
level at its current location and to install the idol at higher
elevation at the same spot with access to the temple through
a pedestrian bridge from the left bank. The Committee
specifically stated in the report that they had visited Dhari Devi
B temple site and met trµstees, priests of the temple and few
residents of village Dhari and no objection was raised either
by the trustees or priests of the temple on the suggestion made
by the joint team in the report dated 03.05.2013.
C INTACH Report:
28. We also find that the Architectural Heritage Division
of Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH)
has prepared a plan in consultation with Dhari Devi temple
trust, Geological Survey of India and AHPCL and which was
D submitted to the MoEF on 12.9.2011, which has been accepted
by all the subsequent Committees appointed.
Dr. B.P. Das Committee Report
29. MoEF in compliance with the order passed by this
E Court in SLP 362 and 5849 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 68 of
2008 dated 27.07.2012 constituted B.P. Das Committee vide
his Order dated 17.08.2012 to verify whether AHPCL has
complied with the conditions of the environmental clearance
F granted in May 1985 and directions of the order issued under
Section 5 of Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 dated
30.06.2011 and to examine the feasibility of well option of Dhari
Devi Temple.
30. We have already referred to in detail the steps taken
G by AHPCL to comply with the environmental clearance granted
in 1985 and the conditions stipulated in the MoEF Order dated
30.06.2011, which has also been noted by the Joint Team
constituted on the basis of the directions of this Court. B.P. Das
Committee has elaborately examined the issue regarding
H restoration of Dhari Devi Temple in Paras 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.2.1,
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER co:
LTD. v ANUJ 825
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
6.0 of its report of August 2012 and ultimately came to the A
conclusion that the proposal made by INTACH be accepted.
The paragraphs mentioned above are extracted hereunder for
easy reference:
"4.0 Restoration of Dhari Devi Temple B
The Team visited the temple premises and surroundings
on 29th August 2012. Discussions were held with the
officials of AHPCL, office bearer of Aadhyashakti Maa
Dhari Pujari Nyas, Shri V.P. Pandey, President along with C
Shri Vivek Pandey, Secretary and a Pujari namely Shri
Manish Pandey. A number of local people and people
representing different organizations/groups were present
during the discussions. The following emerged as a result
of discussions and interactions.
D
4.1 Upliftment scheme for Dhari Devi temple prepared
in collaboration with INTACH
In accordance with the directions issued by MoEF
vide dated 30.06.2011; the project proponent had E
got a restoration plan for Dhari Devi Temple
prepared by INTACH. The construction, as per this
plan, had already begun. Fourteen pillars out of
eighteen have been erected upto 10-15 meters of
heights. No Temple work was in progress on the
F
day of site visit.
In addition to main Deity ie Maa Dhar-i Devi, the
Plan contains provision for installation of other
deities namely; Hanuman, Shiva, Havan Room,
Prayer Hall, Mother rooms (2nos), office room and G
adequate space for passage and congregation of
devotees. A total plan area of 544 sq. Mtr. Has
been envisaged in the design of the temple at 611
meter Elevation and at 614 meter Elevation, as per
the scheme formulated by INTACH. H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A The Group explained to the Temple Samity about
the concept and design of Kudala Sangam Temple
in Karnataka where a well structure has been built
to house a Samadhi. There was vehement
opposition from the Temple Samiti and the people
B gathered in an around the temple to this concept.
All the assembled people expressed that
confinement of deity in a well is totally unacceptable
to them. The Temple Samiti explained that Maa
Dhari Devi is presently facing a village called Dhari
c Village and offering its blessing to the villagers and
thus, protecting them from the perils and penury of
different sorts. Under no circumstances the deity
should be hidden and kept in the well which will
cause obstruction to Maa Dhari Devi from viewing
D Dhari village. It was explained by them that the top
of the sanctum sanctorium shall have to be kept
open to sky and therefore, a well structure will pose
many a problems.
It was lea~nt from the Temple Samiti that Maa Dhari
E
Devi is not part of the base rock. It is placed on a
marble/tiled platform on the rock. The Presidentof
Temple Samiti also informed that about 20-22 years
back, the deity had once lifted from its earlier
position.
F
The Temple Samiti expressed their anguish and
resentment at the prolonged delay in completing the
temple in its new form as per the INTACH design.
They, along with the local people also informed that
G they might execute the remaining work through Kar
Seva if an early decision in their favour is not
forthcoming. They stated that they were fed up in
facing Committees after Committees on this issue.
H The Temple Samiti as well as local people
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 827
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
expressed the view that in case of Kudala Sangam A
in Karnataka State, a Samadhi has been housed
in the well. They opined that there is no parity of
reasoning and therefore, these two are not
comparable. Thus, the concept of well structure of
Kudala Sangam is not for a temple and the same B
cannot be considered appropriate for adoption in
case of Dhari Devi Temple. They further informed
that the temple rehabilitation plan prepared by
INTACH is in conformity with temple architecture
prevalent in Northern Part of India. They further · c
infonned that the temple plan was approved by the
State Govt. Of Uttarakhand during year 2009.
The people also raised security, safety issues and
difficulty in movement of devotees as the D
congregation would be much more in case of Maa
Dhari Devi temple tlTan Kudala Sangam. The entry
and exit access for a well structure would be through
spiral stairs along the stenning wall which are
disadvantageous and accident prone. .
E
4.2. On the feasibility of "Protecting the sacred rock in
situ by constructing a dry-well of sufficient height
and diameter around it and providing pilgrims
access to it by building an approach way and a stair
case on the inner wall of the dry-well." F
The team considered the following two alternative options:
(i) To protect the "Maa Dhari Devi idol" along with the
sacred rock mound (Shila) by constructing a bigger G
diameter dry well.
(ii) To protect the rock mound (Shila) by constructing a
smaller diameter dry-well in conjunction with the "Maa
Dhari Devi Idol" upliftment scheme prepared in
collaboration with the INTACH. H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A For the reasons and constraints mentioned below the team
is of the view that both the proposals are not feasible.
·A plan area of 544 sq. Meter has been worked out and
provisioned for the temple complex. For a circular structure
such as dry well, this will entail a Bigger diameter
B
(exceeding 50 meter) in order to accommodate staircases,
space for deities and other associated facilities. This has
been examined by Tata Consulting Engineers also, on
behalf of the AHPCL. In view of very large diameter, the
dry well structure would encroach into the river where its
c width is already narrow. The construction of dry-well
structure will therefore, need temporary diversion of river
water requiring structures like cofferdam etc. Fresh EIA
study and EC for river diversion arrangements may be
required and thereby delaying the temple construction/
D rehabilitation work and impounding of the reservoir.
· The concept of a "Small Dry-well" of around 15m in
diameter is not feasible as four columns (out of eighteen)
enclosing an area of 10mX15m around the deity planned
E from structural consideration that emerges out of INTACH
restoration plan, will be fully interfering with the 15m well.
This dry well from consideration of structural safety to resist
uplift of 17m (anticipated HFL of 609.5 at the temple due
to backwater rise minus base level of 593 m) will need a
F solid reinforced concrete (RC) raft of 20 to 22m diameter,
which would mean shattering and removing the entire rock
mound below the deity by the action of Drilling and
Blasting. Even an annular raft will interfere with the central
four columns and shatter the sacred rock during blasting
operations. This will defeat the very purpose of protecting
G
it.
· During field visit, ne.ither the puja samiti I the head priest
nor the large number of devotees gathered there
expressed their desire to go down to the lower level of the
H rock mound, once Maa Dhari Devi is installed at EL
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 829
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
614.00 and all other deities will be installed to complete A
the religious paraphernalia. The Puja Samity and the
people at large expressed that they would feel hurt and
anguished if the lower rock is encircled by a large well
barring an open exposure.
B
· The size and nature of sub-structure and its foundation
of the well will depend on the geological strata and
formation of river bed which will govern the actual quantum
of work for erecting the structure. Detailed sub-soil study
will be necessary for this.
c
· Safety arrangements covering a number of aspects have
to be provided such as for emergency evacuation, fire
hazards etc. in case a well option is though of. It will also
impede future expansion of the temple premises which
may be essential to cater for the increasing number of D
devotees visiting the temple.
· As the top of the well would have to be kept open, the
well will be subjected to heavy rain and occasional cloud
burst that may endanger the safety of deity and devotees. E
In addition, poor ventilation and stampede like situation
cannot be ruled o~t. In the net, the well structure will hinder
smooth "darshan" and movement of devotees.
· Structurally, the well will be subjected to huge uplift
pressure making the well unsafe and unstable. This will F
also entail huge thickness of wall and heavy foµnding rafts
and thus, making construction complicatec;l as drilling,
blasting and grouting of rocks will be a neGessity.
· The devotees strongly object to any concept of well and G
expressed that confinement of Deity Maa Dhari Devi in a
well is totally unacceptable to them. The devotees strongly
fell that under no circumstances the Deity Maa Dhari Devi
should be hidden and kept in a well. They desire that Maa
Dhari Devi should continue to face the Dhari village and
H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 11 S.C.R.
A offer blessings to the villagers and thus protect them from
perils and penury of all sorts.
· The well structure will go against the local aesthetic and
cultural heritage as prevalent in the region.
B In view of the compelling Technical, social, religious, and
sentimental reasons, the scheme of constructing a big/
small dry well structure to protect "Dhari Devi Idol" and the
surrounding sacred rock mound in its existing position is
not feasible.
c
5.2.1 Dhari Devi Temple Rehabilitation Scheme
(submission of modified plan for construction
commencement)
There has been adequate compliance by the Project
D
Proponent and they have proceeded· as per advice I
directions given vide MoEF letter dated 30.06.2011. The
project proponent has also informed the MoEF in
February, 2012 about their program to resume the works
as per modified temple restoration plan that has been
E
prepared in collaboration with INTACH, a Conservation
Architect, involving local Temple Samity and a
representative of GSI. The AHPCL informed the MoEF
about resumption of works on the Temple restoration
accordingly.
F
6.0 Conclusion on Dhari Devi Temple Restoration
Proposal.
The group is of the view that the architecture of temple in
G southern part of India and in Northern part of India is
altogether different. The INTACH proposal takes care of
the people's acceptability of the temple in terms of design,
plan, facade and overall architecture of the temple.
The project proponent has gone ahead with the
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 831
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
construction of the uplifting proposal of the temple in A
compliance with the directions given under Section 5 of
EP (Act), 1986 on 30.06.2011. They have' followed the
directions/ advice given under relevant paras of the order
of the MoEF.
B
In addition to the engineering .and construction related
impediments in building a well structure.which will encroach
into the main course of the river where it is narrow. There
has been .tangible progress in the construction of the
temple as per restoration plan prepared by INTACH and
which has got the acceptance of the Temple Samiti and c '
the local citizen:
The Group does not consider it appropriate to thrust an
option against the faith, belief, expectation of the local
people/stakeholders and which is contrary to cultural D
heritage of the region. It merits mention that they are totally
opposed and appeared contemptuous to the very concept
of a well structure for housing the deity.
A portion of the base rock is planned to be cut and placed E
at new location to form the Deity's backdrop. The Group
noted that the Temple Samiti and others are in accordance
with the overall plan of restoration of Dhari Devi Temple
as suggested by INTACH.
The Group also apprehends public unrest, agitation F
leading to law and order problem in the event of thrusting
upon them the option of well structure and other action
causing prolonged delay in putting the temple restoration
issue, in accordance with INTACH plan in rest."
G
B.K. Chaturvedi Committee Report
31. MoEF constituted an inter-ministerial group (IMG) under
the Chairmanship of Shri B.K. Chaturvedi, Member, Planning
Commission on 15th June, 2012 to review and consider certain H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R
A issues related to environmental flows, environmental impact of
the hydro-power projects in the upper reaches of river Ganga
and its tributaries such as Bhagirathi and Alaknanda. MoEF
also vide its office memorandum dated 20.7.2012 requested
the Chaturvedi Committee to review the cumulative impact on
B flow of river as also the social impacts of the relocation of Dhari
Devi Temple situated upstream of the project. A two-Member
Committee consisting of Chairman, Central Electricity Authority
and Chairman, Central Water Commission, both of them are
members of the IMG, was constituted to consider the issue with
C regard to Dhari Devi Temple and to make suggestions. The
interim report dated 07.09.2012 (Volume II) of the two-Member
Committee on Dhari Devi Temple reads as follows:
12.3 Construction of Dhari Devi Temple on raised
platform
D
· The proposed structure of Dhari Devi temple on a raised
platform on concrete columns above HFL (at El. +614 m)
has been designed by llT Roorkee and has got necessary
clearance I permission of the State Government.
E
· During the visit, discussions were held with several local
people and priest of the temple. All the people met with
the Committee were found very positive towards the
construction of Dhari Devi temple on a raised platform.
F There was no objection on raising the temple at higher
elevation and so the project works can go on, it was felt
by them.
· The construction of Dhari Devi temple on raised platform
would cost to the Developer of Rs.9.0 crore only.
G
· It has been reported by the local residents that this temple
has submerged earlier at several times during high floods.
Even on 3rd August, 2012 the water level reached up to
the floor level of the temple (+593 m) and lower part of the
H temple was filled with silt and floating debris, as it may
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 833
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
seen in the following photograph taken during visit. A
· Even if, the dam would not have been constructed, there
is always a possibility of submergence of the temple during
high flash floods.
13. Recommendations of the Two Member 8
Committee
Based on above findings, the recommendations of the
TMC are as under:
c
Considering the significant progress of the project,
the' Section 5 may be withdrawn by MoEF at the earliest
so that the project works are resumed at site keeping in
view the national interest of hydro power sector, benefits
of local people, project specific local area development, D
feelings/views of project affected people, etc. otherwise it
would be an end to hydro power development in
Uttarakhand as well as in the country.
· Since an expenditure of over three thousand crore rupees
have already been incurred on the project, any delay in E
commissioning would add to heavy burden of interest
during the construction {IDC) and escalate the cost of the
project and would make the tariff chargeable to consumers
completely unviable.
F
· During the discussion with villagers, it was observed that
barring few individuals, everyone is anxious to see
completion of the project as early as possible. They are
in favour of construction of Dhari Devi temple on raised
platform above HFL at the earliest.
G
· Discussions were held with the officers of UJVNL and
they were also keen in completion of this project in view
of the power shortages in Uttarakhand. The Government
of Uttarakhand would get 12% free power from the project
on its commissioning. H
834 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A 14.· Conclusion
· The idea of construction of a 30km power channel in lieu
of existing dam cannot be accepted at this stage on
account of (i) geological and geotechnical investigations
B not done, (ii) enormous cost of the power channel and new
diversion dam, (iii) issue of forest clearance and land
acquisition, (iv) minimum 5 years of construction time, (v)
very high tariff to be paid by the purchaser.
• The Dhari Devi temple is not included in the protected
c monuments of Archaelogical Survey of India and it is a
local temple to be worshipped by nearby villagers only. All
the local villagers and the priest of the temple are in
agreement with the project authorities to raise the temple
on RCC structure above HFL.
D
· Option of providing a well surrounding the temple is
neither practical nor acceptable to locals.
32. Final Report was submitted by B.K. Chaturvedi
E Committee on April 2013 (Vol 1) before MoEF, inter alia,
reiterating its interim report on Dhari Devi Temple. Das
Committee, Chaturvedi and Joint Team constituted on the basis
of direction of this Court have, therefore, fully endorsed the
views made by INTACH on Dhari Devi Temple. We find no
F reason to differ from the views expressed by the expert
committee, which was submitted hearing all the affected
parties, including the Trustees of the Temple, devotees, Pujaris
etc. Committee reports to that extent stand accepted.
33. We are also not impressed by the argument that by
G accepting the suggestions of all the expert committees to raise
the temple as such to a higher place, would wound the religious
feelings of the devotes or violate the rights guaranteed under
Article 25 of the Constitution. Sacred rock on which the temple
exits is still kept intact and only the height of the temple
H increased so that the temple would not be submerged in the
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 835
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
water. In Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, this Court was A
examining the rights of Schedule Tribes and the Traditional
Forest Dwellers under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in the light
of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. This Court held that
those articles guarantee the right to practice and proposals not
only in matters of faith or beliefs, but all rituals and observation. 8
We are of the view that none of the rights of the devotees of
Dhari Devi Temple has been affected by raising the level of the
temple, which remains attached to the Sacred Rock.
34. MoEF proceedings dated 30.06.2011, Report of the c
Das Committee as well as the Joint Team dated 3.5.2013 refer
to the issue of.muck management and disposal, catchment
treatment area plan and green belt and also the safety .of the
Dam.
Safety of the Dam D
35. Dam safety and security is a matter of paramount
importance, failure of which can cause serious environmental
disaster and loss of human life and property. Proper
surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of dams E
is essential to ensure for safe functioning of the Dams. The
Central Water Commission (CWC) is a premier technical
organisation of India in the field of water resources. The
Commission is also entrusted with the general responsibilities
of initiating, coordinating and furthering, in consultation with the' F
State Governments concerned, schemes for co·ntrol,
conservation and utilisation of water resources throughout the
country for the purpose of flood control, irrigation, drinking water
supply and water power development. Safety of dams, in our
country, is the principal concern of the State Government. The G
State Government has also to carry out investigation, planning,
design, construction and operation. AHPCL says, sofar as
SHEP is concerned, engineering and technical parameters of
the dam are clearly narrated in the detailed project report which,
in turn, are assessed by CEA in consultation with the CEC and H
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A GSI. The norms and regulations laid down by the concerned
authorities, and whether those are strictly followed or not, have
to be assessed and monitored by the Nodal Agency, CEA/
Ministry of Power as well as the GSI.
8 Safetv and security of the people
36. Safety and security of the people are of paramount
importance when a hydro electric project is being set up and it
is vital to have in place all safety standards in which public can
have full confidence to safeguard them against risks which they
C fear and to avoid serious long term or irreversible environmental
consequences. The question as to whether the recent
calamities occurred at Uttrakhand on 16.6.2013 and, thereafter,
due to cloud burst, Chorabari Lake burst due to unprecedented
rain and consequent flooding of Alaknanda river etc. has
D affected the safety of SHEP has also to be probed by the
MoEF, State of Uttarakhand and Dam Safety Authority etc.
Muck Management and Disposal
E 37; Construction of SHEP involving excavation of earth and
rock has generated large quantum and with the objective to
protect the disposal areas from further soil erosion and develop
the surrounding areas in harmony with the environment, the
muck disposal plan is formulated. Muck disposal plan gives
F quantification of muck, identifies location and activities wherein
muck is generated, during excavation and blasting operation
and quantifies muck generated from the activities with relevance
to disposal areas. The Das Committee visited the project site
and submitted a status report on 29-30 August, 2012 which has
G dealt with muck disposal, details of which have already been
dealt with in the earlier part of the Judgment. Report of the Joint
Committee dated 03.05.2013 also refers to the AHPCL's action
plan regarding muck management and disposal and
recommended that remaining work, particularly, of the
H permaner:it site No.8 and 9 be carried out at the earliest.
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 837
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
AHPCL has given the details of the work carried out for muck A
disposal. Failure of removal of muck from the project site may
also cost flooding of the project areas, causing destruction to
the environment and to the life of property of the people. MoEF
and State Government and all other statutory authorities would
see AHPCL takes proper action and steps for muck B
management and disposal.
Catchment Area Treatment (CAT)
38. CAT is required to be carried out by the project
developer along with R & R and greenbelt activities, primarily C
to mitigate the adverse environmental impact created by the
project construction. CAT is also resorted to reduce the inflow
of silt and prevent sedimentation of reservoirs. CAT
management involves steps to arrest soil erosion, rehabilitation
of degraded forest areas through afforestation, controlling D
landslide and rockfalls through civil engineering measures and
long time maintenance of afforestation areas. Silt inflows in river
water l"!Ot only result in reduction in storage capacity of dams,
but also lead to increased wear and tear of turbines. Therefore,
CAT is of crucial importance with regard to hydro electric E
projects. CAT plan has been prepared by the Uttrakhand
Forest Department and the Project Proponent has paid the
estimated amount of Rs.22.30 crores to the State Forest
Department towards implementation of CAT Plan.
F
· 39. We may, in this connection, refer to the brief note
submitted by the AHPCL wherein they have referred to
landslide which occurred in the catchment area of dam Manari
Bhali Stage-I in August 1978 blockading the Bhagirathi River
with a dam of muck, about 40 KM upstream of dam. This dam G
of muck breached on its over after 12 hours and the monsoon
water accumulated during this period gushed out in form of a
wall of water about 20 meter high. The flood receded after a
few hours, but the dam did not suffer any damage. It was
pointed that during this flash flood period boulders up to 250 H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013) 11 S.C.R.
A tonnes in weight had hit and rolled over the dam. The discharge
in the river had risen to 4500 Cum per sec. Further it was also
pointed out that in Au·gust 2012, partly constructed Srinagar
Dam also faced similar type of flood. This time due to cloud
bursts and breaching of coffer dams in the project upstreams,
B the water level at the Dam rose by 17 meters, but after the flood
receded, no damage to the dam was noticed. The discharge
in the river had risen to 6500 Cum per sec. AHPCL, therefore,
maintains the stand that the structure of the dam is strong
enough to bear the pressure not less than 6500 Cum per sec
C of water discharge.
40. The Principal Secretary of Forest Department,
Government of Uttarakhand submitted in a short affidavit dated
10.05.2013, explaining the steps they have taken. The primary
D responsibility is on the Forest Department to carry out
effectively the CAT Plan. Proper steps would be taken by the
concerned authorities, if not already taken. MoEF, State
Government and all other authorities will see the same is fully
implemented at the earliest, so also the recommendations
E made by the Joint Team with regard to CAT.
Green Belt Development
41. AHPCL, it is seen, has deposited first year budget of
Rs.203.6 lakhs to the State Forest Department for green belt
F rim of the reservoir in August 2012. Although green belt area
is earmarked the technical documents based on the maximum
flood level in the reservoir, the rim of the reservoir, could only
be determined and developed after reservoir is impounded.
Proper steps would be taken by the Forest Department of
G Uttarakhand to carry out the green belt development area in
question. The MoEF, the State Government etc. would see that
the proper steps would be taken by all the authorities including
the AHPCL to give effect to the directions given by the Joint
Team.
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 839
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
42. Going through the reports of Das Committee, A
Chaturvedi Committee as well as the Joint Team and after
perusing the affidavits filed by the parties, we find no reason
to hold up the project ~hich is almost nearing completion.
MoEF, AHPCL, Government of Uttarakhand, Forest
Department would take immediate steps to comply with all the B
recommendations made by Joint Team in the report dated
03.05.2013 and also oversee whether AHPCL is complying
with those directions as well.
43. Under such circumstances, the Appeal in SLP (C) No. c
362/2012 would stand allowed and the judgment of the High
Court stands set aside. Consequently the SLP (C) Nos. 5849-
5850 of 2012 would stand dismissed. All the Transferred
matters from NGT are also disposed of as above.
Court's concern D
44. We are, however, very much concerned with the
mushrooming of large number of hydroelectric projects in the
State of Uttarakhand and its impact on Alaknanda and
Bhagirathi river basins. Various studies also indicate that in the E
upper-Ganga area, including Bhagirathi and Alaknanda rivers
and their tributaries, there are large and small hydro power
dams. The cumulative impact of those project components like
dams, tunnels, blasting, power-house, muck disposal, mining,
deforestation etc. on eco-system, is yet to be scientifically F
examined. MoEF undertook two studies in the recent past:
(i) Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower
Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins which
was entrusted by National River Conservation G
Directorate (NRCD) of MoEF to the Alternate Hydro
Energy Centre (AHEC), llT Roorkee vide
proceedings dated July 14, 2010. ·
(ii) MoEF also vide their proceedings dated 23rd July,
2010 authorized Wild Life Institute of India (Wll), H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Dehradun to make an assessment on cumulative
impacts of "Hydroelectric Projects on Aquatic and
Terrestrial Biodiversity in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi
Basins, Uttarakhand.
B 45. AHEC submitted their report to MoEF in December
2011 and Wit finalized its report in December 2012. AHEC
made some recommendations on Geology, seismology, soil
erosion, sedimentation etc. Some of the major
recommendations of the study covered the aquatic biodiversity
C profile, critically important fish habitats including
recommendation on Fish Conservation Reserve at Nayar River
and Bal-Ganga, Tehri Reservoir Complex. Wll made
recommendations on impact on aquatic biodiversity and their
habitats, terrestrial component of biodiversity and details about
D these in the river basins. Recommendations were also made
covering environmental flows, conservation, reserve, strategic
option of regulating impact of hydropower projects of different
categories and impact on aquatic biodiversity and terrestrial
biodiversity in the above mentioned basins.
E 46. We have gone through the Reports and, prima facie,
we are of the view that the AHEC Report has not made any
indepth study on the cumulative impact of all project components
like construction of dam, tunnels, blasting, power-house, Muck
disposal, mining, deforestation etc. by the various projects in
F question and its consequences on Alaknanda as well as
Bhagirathi river basins so also on Ganga which is a pristine
river. Wll in its Report in Chapter VIII states as follows:
"Para 8.3.2 Present and future scenario
G The scenario building for assessing impacts on
biodiversity values portrays very distinctively the present
and futuristic trends of the impact significance of
hydropower developments in all the sub-basins in the larger
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 841
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
landscape represented by the Alaknanda and Bhagirathi A
basins.
It becomes apparent that because of the fact that
many of the projects are already in stage of operation and
construction, the reversibility in significance of impacts on B
terrestrial biodiversity is not possible in sub-basins.
Decline in biodiversity values of Bhagirathi II sub-basin
have significantly been compounded by Tehri dam.
The scenarios provide adequate understanding to
make decisions with respect to applying exclusion C
approach across the two basins for securing key
biodiversity sites (such as critically important habitats) and
prevent adverse impacts on designated protected areas.
Based on five different scenarios that have been D
presented the most acceptable option suggests that the
decision with respect to 24 proposed Hydro Electric
Projects may be reviewed."
47. Wll report also states that out of total 39 proposed E
projects, 24 projects have been found to be significantly
impacting biodiversity in the two sub-basins and the combined
footprint of all 24 projects have been considered for their
potential to impact areas with biodiversity values, both aquatic
and terrestrial, critically important habitat of rare, endangered F
and threatened species of flora and fauna and IWPA projected
species.
48. B.K. Chaturvedi Committee, after referring to both the
Reports, in Chapter Ill (Volume I, April 2013) stated as follows:
G
"3.66 The River Ganga has over a period of years suffered
environmental degradation due to various factors. It will be
important to maintain pristine river in some river segments
of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi. It accordingly recommends
that six rivers, including Nayar, Bal Ganga, Rishi Ganga, H
842 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A Assi Ganga, Dhauli Ganga (upper reaches), Birahi Ganga
and Bhyunder Ganga, should be kept in pristine form and
developments along with measures for environment up
gradation should be taken up. Specifically, it is proposed
that (a) Nayar River and the Ganges stretch between
B Devprayag and Rishikesh and (b) Balganga - Tehri
Reservoir complex may be declared as Fish Conservation
Reserve as these two stretches are comparatively less
disturbed and have critically important habitats for long-
term survival of Himalayan fishes basin. Further, no new
c power projects should be taken up in the above six river
basins. In the IMG's assessment, this will mean about 400
MW of Power being not available to the State.
3.67 Pending a longer term perspective on the Ganga
Basin Management Plan, following policy needs to be
D followed to implement the hydro power projects on the
River Ganga on Bhagirathi and Alaknanda basins:
(i) No new hydropower projects be taken up beyond
69 projects already identified (Annex-VIA-VID).
E
(ii) New hydropower projects may be permitted to be
constructed with limitations as in Paras 3.52-3.54 .
above and giving priority to those projects already
under construction.
F (iii) New hydropower projects which are still under
investigation or under development are not being
proposed for implementation. However, two such
projects can be considered and a view taken after
technical assessment by the CEA.
G
Based on the above, projects at Annex-VID may
need a review and decision till after long term
Ganga basin study by llT Consortium.
3. 70 The River Ganga has been a pristine River.
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 843
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
Over a period of years, it has been used for A
irrigation, drinking water and other purposes. The
efforts to keep it in the pristine form have been
minimal. The IMG felt that it will be necessary to
take measures for ensuring that several parts of it
which have so far not been impacted continue to B
be in the pristine form. Secondly, it consider
necessary to take measures on pollution,
particularly in the upper reaches and the two basins
of Bhagirathi and Alaknanda. The IMG, therefore,
recommends that six rivers, including Nayar, Bal c
Ganga River, Rishi Ganga, Assi Ganga, Dhauli
Ganga (upper reaches), Birahi Ganga and
Bhyunder Ganga rivers should be kept in pristine
form no further hydropower developments should
take place in this region. Further, environment D
upgradation should be taken up in these sub-basins
extensively."
49. In the Executive Summary of Chaturvedi Report, on the
question of 'Environmental Impact of Projects', reads as follows:
E
4.17 Development of new hydropower projects has
impact on environment, ecology, biodiversity, both
terrestrial & aquatic and economic and social life.
69 hydropower projects with a capacity of 9,020.30
MW are proposed in Bhagirathi and Alaknanda F
basins. This includes 17 projects which are
operational with a capacity of 2,295.2 MW. In
addition, 26 projects with a capacity of 3,261.3 MW
(including 600 MW Lohari Nagpala hydropower
project, work on which has been suspended by G
Government decision) which were under
construction, 11 projects with a capacity of 2,350
MW CEA/TEC clearances and 16 projects with a
capacity of 1,673.8 MW under development.
4. 18 The implementation of the above 69 H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 11 S.C.R.
A hydropower projects has extensive implications for
other needs of this society and the river itself. It is
noticed that the implementation of all the above
projects will lead to 81 % of River Bhagirathi and
65% of River Alaknanda getting affected. Also
8 there are a large number of projects which have
very small distances between them leaving little
space for river to regenerate and revive.
50. The above mentioned Reports would indicate the
C adverse impact of the various hydroelectric power projects on
the ecology and environment of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river
basins. The cumulative impact of the various projects in place
and which are under construction on the river basins have not
been properly examined or assessed, which requires a detailed
technical and scientific study. fit
0
~lll
51. We are also deeply concerned with the r~nt tragedy,
which has affected the Char Dham area of Uttarakhand. Wadia
Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIG) recorded 350mm of rain
on June 15-16, 2013. Snowfall ahead of the cloudburst also has
E contributed to the floods resulting in the burst on the banks of
Chorabari lake near Kedarnath, leading to large scale calamity
leading to loss of human lives and property. The adverse effect
of the existing projects, projects under construction and
proposed, on the environment and ecology calls for a detailed
F scientific study. Proper Disaster Management Plan, it is seen,
is also not in place, resulting in loss of lives and property. In
view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined
to give following directions:
G (1) We direct the MoEF as well as State of Uttarakhand
not to grant any further environmental clearance or
forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project
in the State of Uttarakhand, until further orders.
(2) MoEF is directed to constitute an Expert Body
H
ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v ANUJ 845
JOSHI [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
consisting of representatives of the State A
Government, Wll, .Central Electricity Authority,
Central Water Commission and other expert bodies
to make a detailed study as to whether
Hydroelectric Power Projects existing and under
construction have contributed to the environmental B
degradation, if so, to what extent and also whether
it has contributed to the present tragedy occurred ·
at Uttarakhand in the month of June 2013.
(3} MoEF is directed to examine, as noticed by Wll in
its report, as to whether the proposed 24 projects C·
are causing significant impact on the biodiversity
of Alaknanda and Bhagirath River basins.
(4} The Disastet'Management Authority, Uttarakhand
would submifa\>R'eport to this Court as to whether D
they had ariy Oi~a'ster Management Plan is in place
in the State 6f0ttcfrakhand and how effective that
plan was for combating the present unprecedented
tragedy at Uttarakhand.
E
52. Reports would be submitted within a period of three
months. Communicate the order to the Central and State
Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand.
53. In view of above, civil appeals and transferred cases
are disposed of. F
K.K.T. Appeals & Transferred Cases disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "environmental clearance"Sign in to search