[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court docket Thursday directed establishing of a high-powered committee of the Cupboard secretary, secretaries of ministries of jal shakti, energy and setting & forests together with chief secretary of Uttrakhand to rethink the knowledgeable panel’s report recommending approval for 28 hydro energy initiatives.
It questioned Centre’s choice to not settle for the report, and to permit solely seven of the initiatives with out giving any motive.“It’s important to present the decision-making course of is rational,” it mentioned.
What compelled you to solely enable 7 hydel initiatives: SC to Centre
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Okay V Viswanathan mentioned the knowledgeable panel comprised members from numerous fields and govt didn’t give any motive for not accepting the report. The bench mentioned it can’t query the choice however can actually look at the decision-making course of.
“It’s important to fulfill that the report was duly thought of and causes got to simply accept or reject the report. What compelled you to solely enable seven initiatives? When an knowledgeable committee was appointed on the path of the courtroom then you must present causes for not accepting it,” the bench informed further solicitor normal Aishwarya Bhati, who was showing for the Centre.
Bhati informed the bench there have been variations of opinion amongst totally different ministries — energy and setting & forests on one aspect and jal shakti on the opposite — and there was consensus on solely seven initiatives as a result of which they have been authorised. Moreover, she added, these initiatives have been at a sophisticated stage of building.
The hydro energy initiatives within the state got here underneath judicial scrutiny after the 2013 floods. Taking suo motu cognisance, SC had banned additional building of all such initiatives. Taking into consideration the massive investments made by corporations in seven initiatives, SC had requested the Centre to nominate an knowledgeable committee to check the environmental and ecological affect of the initiatives. The seven initiatives 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 knowledgeable committee which authorised the initiatives have been additionally concerned in clearing the initiatives 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 courtroom mustn’t give credence to knowledgeable panel suggestions for approving the initiatives, which might additional injury the setting.
The courtroom requested the panel of secretaries to think about all elements 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 courtroom.
It questioned Centre’s choice to not settle for the report, and to permit solely seven of the initiatives with out giving any motive.“It’s important to present the decision-making course of is rational,” it mentioned.
What compelled you to solely enable 7 hydel initiatives: SC to Centre
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, Prashant Kumar Mishra and Okay V Viswanathan mentioned the knowledgeable panel comprised members from numerous fields and govt didn’t give any motive for not accepting the report. The bench mentioned it can’t query the choice however can actually look at the decision-making course of.
“It’s important to fulfill that the report was duly thought of and causes got to simply accept or reject the report. What compelled you to solely enable seven initiatives? When an knowledgeable committee was appointed on the path of the courtroom then you must present causes for not accepting it,” the bench informed further solicitor normal Aishwarya Bhati, who was showing for the Centre.
Bhati informed the bench there have been variations of opinion amongst totally different ministries — energy and setting & forests on one aspect and jal shakti on the opposite — and there was consensus on solely seven initiatives as a result of which they have been authorised. Moreover, she added, these initiatives have been at a sophisticated stage of building.
The hydro energy initiatives within the state got here underneath judicial scrutiny after the 2013 floods. Taking suo motu cognisance, SC had banned additional building of all such initiatives. Taking into consideration the massive investments made by corporations in seven initiatives, SC had requested the Centre to nominate an knowledgeable committee to check the environmental and ecological affect of the initiatives. The seven initiatives 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 knowledgeable committee which authorised the initiatives have been additionally concerned in clearing the initiatives 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 courtroom mustn’t give credence to knowledgeable panel suggestions for approving the initiatives, which might additional injury the setting.
The courtroom requested the panel of secretaries to think about all elements 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 courtroom.
[ad_2]
This Publish could include copywrite
