http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
for abandoning the Project, Surprisingly, the continuance of the Project
was entrusted to a Committee of Secretaries. The Committee re-assigned the
task to the Department of Mines. The Department of Mines relied on the
opinion of Prof. Jaikrishna who is an earthquake Engineer when Dr. V.K.
Gaur who is seismologist had given a dissenting opinion and so also the
foreign expert Dr. N. Brune.
It is after this re-appraisal of Project from safety point of view by the
Department of Mines based on the expert opinion of earthquake Engineer
Prof. Jai Krishna, clearnance given was given on 19.7.1990 to the Project
by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. Since by this time the
Environment Protection Act 1986 with Environment Protection Rules framed
therefunder had already come into force making it a statutory requirement
to obtain clearance from the Environment Department for undertaking the
Project of such dimension affecting environment, ecology and human beings,
only a conditional clearance was granted to the Project. The various
conditions subject to which the environmental clearance to the Project was
granted have been reproduced in the opinion of learned Brother S. Rajendra
Babu J.
The final condition stated thus: if the completion of studies, formulation
of Action Plan and their implementation to be scheduled in such a way that
their execution is pan passu with the engineering works is not adhered to,
all engineering works of the Project should be stopped and this condition
will be enforced under the Provision of Environment Protection Act 1986.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests wrote a letter on 12.4.1991
expressing dis-satisfaction on failure to comply with the conditions on
which environmental clearance was given. The respondent-Corporation was
directed to submit comprehensive Environmental Plan for effective
implementation failing which remedial or prohibitive action under the Act
of 1986 was proposed.
On 5.1.1991 the petitioner gave a notice under Section 19B of the Act to
the Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Forests stating that the
result of non-fulfillment of condition of clearance of the Project by the
Corporation, direction should be issued to stop the Project work.
Significantly, after service of this notice on 21.10.1991 an earthquake
measuring 6.1 on Richter scale hit the Garhwal region causing massive
damages to Uttarkashi and Chamoli villages killing 2,000 people. Damage was
also caused to constructions for dam already made and Tehri town itself.
The Power Ministry, however, maintained that half finished Dam works, were
not damaged. This earthquake which shook Garhwal region naturally revived
dabates and protests on the location of the Dam and its safety in such a
highly earthquake prone region. The petitioners again raised the question
as to whether the Dam as designed and completed would withstand likely
earthquakes of more than 6.1 on Richter scale. The present petition was
filed on 7.12.1991 in which issues of safety of the Dam, its adverse impact
on environment, displacement of people and their rehabilitation have all
been raised. Specific issue has been raised that due to non-fulfillment of
the condition of environmental clearance, there is no legal justification
to allow further construction works at the Dam site.
In the communication dated 21.10.1994, Additional Director, Ministry of
Environment clearly mentioned that after grant of clearance in 1990, ’the
status of implementation of various safeguard measures were lagging far
behind’. It was also pointed out that there is an urgent need to evolve
monitoring mechanism for the Tehri Dam Project. On 5.12.1995 through an
intervention application a leading Human Righ Activist of Garhwal Shri
Sunder Lal Bahuguna sought opportunity of participation in the case by
producing on the soot studies of the impact of the Project on the
environment and the people of the region.
On the orders of this Court made in this petition on 17.7.1996 the
Government set up two Expert Committees; one on the safety aspects and
Page 27 of 37
Select target paragraph3
Connect to a paragraph
Connect to an entity
Disable highlights
Add to table of contents