http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA been examined by this Court in Sardar Sarovar Project’s case. It has been noticed therein that there are three stages with regard to the undertaking of an infrastructural project - the first of which is the conception or planning, second is decision to undertake the project and the third is the execution of the project. The conception and the decision to undertake a project has to be regarded as a policy decision. In Sardar Sarovar Project case it was also held that when two or more options are possible and the Government takes a policy decision it is then not a function of the Court to re-examine the matter by way of appeal. Necessary analogy could also be drawn from BALCO Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, [2002] 2 SCC 333. Once such a considered decision is taken, the proper execution of the same should be undertaken expeditiously. It is for the Government to decide how to do its job. When it has put a system in place for the execution of the project and such a system cannot be said to be arbitrary, then the only role which the Court has to play is to ensure that the system works in the manner it was envisaged. It is made clear in that decision that the questions whether to have an infrastructual project or not and what is the type of project to be undertaken and how it has to be executed, are part of policy-making process and the courts are ill-equipped to adjudicate on a policy decision so undertaken. However, a note of caution was struck that the Courts have a duty to see that in the undertaking of a decision, no law is violated and people’s fundamental rights as guaranteed under the Constitution are not transgressed upon except to the extent permissible under the Constitution. When a law has been enacted in relation to the protection of environment and such law is being given effect to and there is no challenge to such law, the duty of the Courts would be to see that the Government and other respondents act in accordance with law and there is no other obligation for the Court to examine further in the matter. We respectfully agree with the view expressed in the Sardar Sarovar project’s case and apply the same to the facts arising in this, case. Further, it was noticed in the aforesaid decision that in cases where a project is taken up of the present nature, the Court will certainly bear in mind that environmental concern should be examined not only with reference to the submerged areas but also its surrounding areas. The impact has to be examined on the project as a whole and at the same time it should also be noticed that the construction of a dam would result in multifold improvement in the environment of the areas where the canal waters will reach. The benefits which have been reaped by the people all over India with the construction of the dams are too well-known and, therefore, the Government cannot be faulted for deciding to construct the high dam on river Tehri with a view to provide water and electricity in the area as was the decision in the Sardar Sarovar project’s case also. In such situations, displacement of people residing in the proposed project sites and the areas to be submerged is an important issue. Therefore, a properly drafted relief and rehabilitation plan is absolutely required and the Government was also conscious of this particular fact. It, therefore, not only examined this matter on several occasions but also constituted an Expert Committee on 17.7.1996 to examine the environmental and rehabilitation aspects. Several times the matter was examined by the Government at different stages and follow up action plans also were actively considered by the Government. The report given by Hanumantha Rao Committee (HRC) was accepted by the Government subject to certain conditions and the project is being implemented in terms thereof. Therefore, at this penultimate stage of the proceedings, it is too late in the day to think as to why the decision was taken to construct the project or decisions have been taken to continue the project though at one stage it was thought it would not be appropriate to continue the same. With these clarifications, we will now proceed to the specific aspects of safety and conditional clearance. Page 3 of 37