NEW DELHI: Supreme Courtroom Thursday directed establishing of a high-powered committee of the Cupboard secretary, secretaries of ministries of jal shakti, energy and surroundings & forests together with chief secretary of Uttrakhand to rethink the professional panel’s report recommending approval for 28 hydro energy tasks.
It questioned Centre’s choice to not settle for the report, and to permit solely seven of the tasks with out giving any motive.“You need to present the decision-making course of is rational,” it mentioned.
What pressured you to solely permit 7 hydel tasks: SC to Centre
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ok V Viswanathan mentioned the professional panel comprised members from numerous fields and govt didn’t give any motive for not accepting the report. The bench mentioned it can not query the choice however can actually study the decision-making course of.
“You need to fulfill that the report was duly thought-about and causes got to just accept or reject the report. What compelled you to solely permit seven tasks? When an professional committee was appointed on the course of the court docket then it’s a must to present causes for not accepting it,” the bench advised extra solicitor common Aishwarya Bhati, who was showing for the Centre.
Bhati advised the bench there have been variations of opinion amongst completely different ministries — energy and surroundings & forests on one facet and jal shakti on the opposite — and there was consensus on solely seven tasks on account of which they have been authorized. In addition to, she added, these tasks have been at a complicated stage of building.
The hydro energy tasks within the state got here beneath judicial scrutiny after the 2013 floods. Taking suo motu cognisance, SC had banned additional building of all such tasks. Bearing in mind the massive investments made by corporations in seven tasks, SC had requested the Centre to nominate an professional committee to review the environmental and ecological affect of the tasks. The seven tasks have been Tehri Stage II (on Bhagirathi river), Tapovan Vishnugad (Dhauligangan river), Vishnugad Pipalkoti (Alaknanda), Singoli Bhatwari and Phata Buyong (Mandakini), Madhyamaheswar (Madhmaheshwar Ganga) and Kaliganga II (Kaliganga).
Opposing the findings of the report, it was submitted by advocate Prashant Bhushan that members of the professional committee which authorized the tasks have been additionally concerned in clearing the tasks earlier than the flood catastrophe. He mentioned that one other panel headed by veteran environmentalist Ravi Chopra had blamed dams for exacerbating the 2013 catastrophe and the court docket shouldn’t give credence to professional panel suggestions for approving the tasks, which might additional harm the surroundings.
The court docket requested the panel of secretaries to contemplate all features and provides a listening to to all stakeholders and take a choice inside six months. It directed the committee to file minutes of its assembly earlier than the court docket.
It questioned Centre’s choice to not settle for the report, and to permit solely seven of the tasks with out giving any motive.“You need to present the decision-making course of is rational,” it mentioned.
What pressured you to solely permit 7 hydel tasks: SC to Centre
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Ok V Viswanathan mentioned the professional panel comprised members from numerous fields and govt didn’t give any motive for not accepting the report. The bench mentioned it can not query the choice however can actually study the decision-making course of.
“You need to fulfill that the report was duly thought-about and causes got to just accept or reject the report. What compelled you to solely permit seven tasks? When an professional committee was appointed on the course of the court docket then it’s a must to present causes for not accepting it,” the bench advised extra solicitor common Aishwarya Bhati, who was showing for the Centre.
Bhati advised the bench there have been variations of opinion amongst completely different ministries — energy and surroundings & forests on one facet and jal shakti on the opposite — and there was consensus on solely seven tasks on account of which they have been authorized. In addition to, she added, these tasks have been at a complicated stage of building.
The hydro energy tasks within the state got here beneath judicial scrutiny after the 2013 floods. Taking suo motu cognisance, SC had banned additional building of all such tasks. Bearing in mind the massive investments made by corporations in seven tasks, SC had requested the Centre to nominate an professional committee to review the environmental and ecological affect of the tasks. The seven tasks have been Tehri Stage II (on Bhagirathi river), Tapovan Vishnugad (Dhauligangan river), Vishnugad Pipalkoti (Alaknanda), Singoli Bhatwari and Phata Buyong (Mandakini), Madhyamaheswar (Madhmaheshwar Ganga) and Kaliganga II (Kaliganga).
Opposing the findings of the report, it was submitted by advocate Prashant Bhushan that members of the professional committee which authorized the tasks have been additionally concerned in clearing the tasks earlier than the flood catastrophe. He mentioned that one other panel headed by veteran environmentalist Ravi Chopra had blamed dams for exacerbating the 2013 catastrophe and the court docket shouldn’t give credence to professional panel suggestions for approving the tasks, which might additional harm the surroundings.
The court docket requested the panel of secretaries to contemplate all features and provides a listening to to all stakeholders and take a choice inside six months. It directed the committee to file minutes of its assembly earlier than the court docket.
