Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Anuj Joshi & Ors. - STPL india

2013 STPL(Web) 626 SC 5Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd. Vs. Anuj Joshi & Ors.Department way back in 2007-09. Further, it was also pointed out that the AHPCL had spent about 40crores for rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected people in the catchment area. For GreenbeltDevelopment, it was pointed out that an amount of Rs.2.30 crore was made available to the State ofUttarakhand by AHPCL. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the respondents are unnecessarilycreating hurdle in the completion of the project and litigation is not in public interest but for advancingthe private interest of the respondents.18. We may indicate while going through the averments made in the writ petition as well as the impugnedjudgment and the pleadings of the parties, it is seen that the question that was primarily raised before theHigh Court was with regard to the necessity of a public hearing and also whether the sanction had beenaccorded to construct the project with the capacity of 330 MW. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolancase (supra) has held that the 1994 Notification applies only prospectively, in any view so far as this caseis concerned the environmental clearance cannot be an issue in view of the specific stand taken by MoEFand the orders dated 03.08.2011 passed by MoEF which can also be considered as an ex post factoapproval. SHEP, it may be noted, is an ongoing project for which environmental clearance was granted asearly as in the year 1985 and forest clearance in the year 1987. Further, about 95 % of the work is alreadyover and nearly Rs.4,000 crores has been spent. If public hearing is found necessary then the same shouldhave held before granting environmental clearance. The purpose of public hearing, it may be noted, is toknow the concerns of the affected people and to incorporate their concerns appropriately into the EMPand it is after incorporation of the concerns and revision/modifying plan, the final EMP would besubmitted to the MoEF for granting environmental clearance. Environmental clearance, in the instantcase, had been granted in the year 1985 and the project is an ongoing project which is now nearingcompletion and, therefore, no purpose would be achieved by way of a public hearing at this stage. Wealso notice from the various Committees’ reports and the report dated 3.5.2013 that they had met thetemple trustees, priests and residents of the locality, they had not raised any objection for not holding apublic hearing. Further, the State of Uttarakhand has also never canvassed for a public hearing nor anycomplaint was received by the temple authorities or the worshippers raised any complaint of not holdingany public hearing there. We, therefore, set aside the direction given by the High Court directing theMoEF to hold a public hearing.19. We find that a new dimension has been added to this litigation by initiating certain proceedings bygroup of litigants before the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. MoEF also, on 30.06.2011, in exerciseof powers conferred under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 passed a stop work orderdirecting AHPCL to attend certain environmental issues which included (i) mounting Dhari Devi templeat a higher elevation as per the Plan prepared by INTACH (ii) maintain and manage muck at the variousmuck disposal sites by providing retention wall, slopes, compacting and terracing etc. (iii) developgreenbelt (iv) Catchment Area Treatment (v) undertaking Supana Query restoration (vi) maintainminimum environmental flow etc.20. The second respondent and few others then approached NGT vide Appeal No. 9 of 2011 praying forsome rigours orders against AHPCL. The appeal was, however, disposed of by NGT directing MoEF totake a final decision within a period of eight weeks. No decision was taken by the MoEF within the timegranted by the NGT which led AHPCL filing M.A. No. 103/2012 before the NGT to revoke Section 5directions 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 notdisposing of the matter within the time granted by it. The AHPCL submitted that in spite of the fact that ithad complied with all the requirements stipulated in the notice dated 30.06.2011, unnecessarily theproject was held up causing huge financial loss to it. AHPCL also sought a direction to transfer all thecases from NGT to this court to be heard along with the appeal. Consequently, all those related matterswere transferred to this case Court and were heard along with these appeals.Supreme Court Judgements @ www.stpl-india.in