LexALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. versus ANUJ JOSHI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 11 S.C.R. 784 ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. v. ANUJ JOSHI & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6736 of 2013) AUGUST 13, 2013 [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. ·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 D 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.