Page 1 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6736 OF 2013@

(SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.362 OF 2012)

ALAKNANDA HYDRO POWER CO. LTD. ……APPELLANT

Versus

ANUJ JOSHI & ORS. …….RESPONDENTS

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos.6746-6747 of 2013

(Arising out of SLP(C) No.5849-5850 of 2012)

and

T.C. (C) No.55 to 57 of 2013

J U D G M E N T

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2.Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) located in Tehri /

Pauri Garhwal district of Uttar Pradesh was a project envisaged

by the then Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (UPSEB) on

river Alaknanda, which was basically run-of-the-river scheme.

Page 2 2

3.The Techno-Economic approval of the scheme was

granted for 200 MW by the Central Electricity Authority (CEA), a

competent authority exercising powers under Section 29 of the

Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, in its meeting held on 6.11.1982,

subject to the environmental clearance from the Ministry of

Environment. SHEP was later segregated from twenty two

other Ganga Valley projects. A separate Environment Impact

Assessment (EIA) was made on the SHEP on 9.2.1985. No

adverse affect had been noticed on environment in that

assessment on setting up of the Project. On the contrary, it

was felt that such a scheme would add to the richness of the

scenic beauty by creation of beautiful lakes attracting more

tourists and also meet the energy requirements of the State

and could be completed within a short span of five years.

Dhari Devi Temple, it was noticed, was likely to be submerged

in water, therefore was also considered while considering the

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It was suggested that

temple would be raised and created with a pleasing

architecture suiting the surroundings.

Page 3 3

4.The Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) granted

Environmental Clearance for the project to UPSEB vide its letter

dated 03.05.1985 subject to certain safeguards. The project

involved diversion of forest land to the extent of 338.38

hectares which was cleared by the Forest Department vide

proceeding No. 8-227/86-PC dated 15

th

April, 1987, in

accordance with Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act,

1980. The Project involved construction of concrete gravity

dam affording a gross storage of 8 Mcum water conductor

system designed for 660 cumecs and a power house with an

installation of six units of 55 MW each. UPSEB later carried out

a detailed study and submitted a report stating that taking into

consideration the peaking capacity, the installed capacity of the

project would be increased from 200 MW to 330 MW. CEA

approved and granted the Techno-economic clearance in the

enhanced capacity of 330 MW vide its letter dated 18.12.1987.

Planning Commission vide its letter dated 29.01.1988

accorded the investment approval. UPSEB started

the work but due to the paucity of funds the project could not

make any effective progress.

Page 4 4

5.The Government of India, in the meanwhile, had

liberalized the policy to encourage private participation in

power development. Consequently, the UP Government

following the above mentioned policy decided to invite private

investment in the development of energy sector especially with

regard to the Srinagar Hydro Electric Project. Consequently,

the State Government had entered into a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) with M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. on 27

th

August, 1994 for development of the project and in terms of

the MOU, M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. had established a

generating company ‘Duncan North Hydro Power Co. Ltd.’. The

project was an ongoing project and most of the infrastructure

required for the execution of the project had already been

arranged by the State Government. The Department of Energy

and Government of Uttar Pradesh then wrote to the MoEF by

letter dated 04.09.1997 to transfer the environmental

clearance earlier granted to the UPSEB to the Duncans so that

the safeguards against environmental degradation while

clearing the project might be implemented by the Duncans.

6.M/s Duncan submitted a revised EIA report and DPR to the

MoEF on 25.01.1996 and it was also conveyed that the project

Page 5 5

of the enhanced capacity of 330 MW had to be transferred to

the Duncans. MoEF following the letters dated 25.01.1996 and

18.06.1998 on the subject transferred environmental clearance

to Duncans for 330 MW on 27.07.1999 subject to the condition

that the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance

already granted and any other conditions, if stipulated in future

for protection of the environment would be fulfilled by Duncans.

CEA also issued the Techno Economic clearance for

implementation of the Project vide it letter dated 14.06.2000 to

Duncans.

7.The Duncans had also given up the project after carrying

out some work and in its place came the appellant - Alaknanda

Hydro Power Company Ltd. (AHPCL). Request was then made

to the MoEF by AHPCL for transfer of the environmental

clearance granted to 330 MW Srinagar Hydro Electric Project in

its favour. Request was favourably considered by the MoEF and

vide communication J-12011/6/96/ IA-I dated 27

th

March 2006

MoEF transferred the environmental clearance in favour of

AHPCL stating that it was with the approval of the competent

authority.

Page 6 6

8.First respondent along with few others filed Writ Petition

(PIL) No. 137/2009 before the High Court of Uttarakhand at

Nainital to quash the above mentioned order and sought a CBI

inquiry relating to the enhanced capacity of 330 MW mentioned

in the letters dated 27.07.1999 and 27.03.2006. Direction was

also sought for against AHPCL to stop the construction of the

Hydro Power Project and also for other consequential reliefs.

Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.04.2011 with a direction to

AHPCL to approach the MoEF for a specific decision as to the

clearance for increased capacity of generation and increased

height of the dam. The MoEF was directed to take a decision

within a period of three months. Court, however, noticed that

the clearance had already been given by the MoEF in the year

1985 which stood transferred in favour of AHPCL for

construction of the dam for generation of 200 MW of electricity

and 63 metre height of the dam. The Court also ordered that

the construction of dam for the said height and for generation

capacity of 200 MW would not be stopped but the construction

beyond that limit could be proceeded only after clearance is

sought from the MoEF.

Page 7 7

9.MoEF as directed by the High Court considered the entire

matter afresh and rendered a specific decision dated

03.08.2011clarifying that transfer letter dated 27.03.2006 in

favour of AHPCL was for 330 MW. The operative portion reads

as follows:-

“The matter has been reviewed by the Ministry and

it is to clarify that while transferring the

environment clearance dated 3

rd

May, 1985 of the

Project in the name of Uttar Pradesh State

Electricity Board (UPSEB) to M/s. Duncans North

Hydro Power Company Limited vide this Ministry’s

letter No. 12011/6/96-IA-I dated 27.7.1999 (copy

enclosed), the Ministry had reviewed that increased

capacity from 200 MW (4X50 MW) to 330 MW (5X66

MW) and associated parameters like change in dam

height from 73m to 90m from the deepest

foundation and FRL from EL 604.0m to 605.5m.

The Ministry also noted that there was a change in

the submergence from 300 ha to 324.074 ha,

however Forest land remained the same i.e. 338.36

ha dated 15

th

April, 1987 which will be the final

Forest Land for the Project. Therefore, the final

parameters for the project are as follows:-

(i)Submergence area – 324.074 ha

(ii)Forest land for diversion – 338.86 ha

(iii)Capacity – 330 MW (4X82.5 MW)

(iv)Dam height from the deepest foundation – 90

m

(v)Dam height for the river bed level – 66 m

(vi)FRL – EL 605.5 m

(vii)MDDL – EL 603.0 m

(viii)Dam top Road level – 611.0 m

In view of the above, I am directed to clarify that

the transfer of environment clearance from DHPCL

to Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited

Page 8 8

(AHPCL) vide this Ministry’s letter No. J-12011/6/96-

IA_I dated 27

th

March, 2006 is of 330 MW capacity

with the above mentioned parameters. The

Ministry has further noted the change in the units

from 6X55 MW to 4X82.5MW, as approved by CEA.

This has approval of the Competent Authority.”

10.MoEF though clarified the position as directed by the High

Court, the first respondent herein along with one Dr. Bharat

Jhunjhunwala preferred Writ Petition (PIL) No. 68 of 2011 before

the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital on 09.08.2011

challenging the order dated 03.08.2011.

11.Writ Petition was disposed of by the High Court directing

AHPCL to place the documents mentioned in Schedule IV to the

Notification dated 27.01.1994 before MoEF and the Ministry

was directed to take steps to hold a public hearing as

envisaged in the Notification. Further, it was also ordered that

the notice should mention that the public hearing would be

given at Dhari Devi Temple premises and that the

Commissioner, Pauri Garhwal to be present at the public

hearing. Further, Court also noticed that the construction work

had progressed to a great extent and at no stage, there was

any objection to the construction of the project having a

Page 9 9

capacity of 200 MW and, therefore, did not stop the

construction, however, it was made clear that the same would

be subject to the decision taken by the MoEF.

12.AHPCL, aggrieved by the above mentioned judgment, has

preferred this appeal by raising the core issue with regard to

the applicability of EIA Notification dated 27.01.1994 in a case

where the project had been granted environmental clearance

for 200 MW on 3.05.1985 and thereafter for 330 MW by the

MoEF on 15.4.1987 and approved by CEA on 18.12.1987,

followed by the sanction accorded by the Planning Commission

on 29.1.1988.

13.Respondents 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP

(Civil) No. 362 of 2012 also filed SLP (Civil) Nos. 5849-5850 of

2012 challenging the order of the High Court dated 3.11.2011

and the order dated 5.12.2011 passed on the review petition

contending that the finding recorded by the High Court that

they had not questioned the environmental clearance for 200

MW, was incorrect. They also wanted the stoppage of the

project till the procedure laid in the EIA Notification 2006 is

complied with including the holding of a public hearing.

Page 10 10

14.Mr. M.L. Lahoty, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant – AHPCL submitted that EIA Notification dated

27.01.1994 (as submitted upto 07.07.2004) would operate only

prospectively and that too only to those projects which are

either ‘new’ or ‘expansion or modernisation’ of the existing

project is proposed after 1994 Notification. Learned counsel

made reference to the judgment of this Court in Narmada

Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Others (2000) 10

SCC 664 and submitted that the Notification would operate only

prospectively. Learned counsel pointed out that public hearing

was expressly excluded by para 4 of the Explanatory Note to

the Notification in respect of projects like Srinagar Hydro

Project where neither large displacement is involved nor is

there severe environment ramification. Further, it was also

pointed out that the expansion of the project from 200 MW to

330 MW was granted in the year 1987 prior to the notification

and even the original EIA of 1994 would not apply. Further, it

was also pointed out that Amendment Act 77 of 2004 was

incorporated simultaneously with the explanation along with

two Entries Nos. 31 and 32 to bring within its purview the “new

construction projects” and “new industrial estates”. Learned

Page 11 11

counsel pointed out so far as the Hydro Projects are concerned,

they are not covered by the said two newly introduced Entries

as from the very inception of 1994 notification, Hydro Power

Projects are covered by Rule 2 of Schedule 1 and therefore the

explanation so inserted also has no application. Consequently,

the concept of ‘plinth level’ is also not applicable as it goes with

the applicability of the Explanation.

15.Learned counsel also pointed out that the environmental

clearance even otherwise was issued in the light of the specific

decision of MoEF dated 03.08.2011 clarifying that the transfer

letter of 27.3.2006 in favour of AHPCL was for 330 MW.

Learned counsel in support of his contention made reference to

the judgment of this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd.

v. Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 338. Learned counsel also

pointed out that the project in question was conceptualized

more than three decades back. As on date the project stands

almost completed and more than Rs.4000 cores had been

invested and therefore, there is no question of holding a public

hearing at this stage. Further, it was also pointed out that

State Government had ascertained views of the local

inhabitants, public representatives, Gram Panchayat,

Page 12 12

Shopkeepers, Temple Pujaris, Trust, devotees etc. and it was

considering their views, the MoEF granted environmental

clearance and also forest clearance for the project.

16.MoEF in the counter affidavit filed on 25.7.2012 stated

that the project in question was granted environment clearance

in the year 1985 and hence it would not come under the

purview of EIA Notification of 1994 or EIA Notification of 2006

which replaced the EIA Notification of 1994. Further, it was

stated that the construction of project was already in an

advance stage and hence public hearing would be an empty

formality, since the purpose of public hearing is to know the

concerns of the affected people and to incorporate their

concerns appropriately into the Environment Management Plan

(EMP) for the project and it is after incorporation of the

concerns and revising/modifying the EMP, the final EMP would

be submitted to the MoEF for granting environmental clearance

to the project. MoEF has, therefore, taken the stand that since

environmental clearance to the project had already been

granted in the year 1985 prior to the coming into force of the

Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 and the EIA Notification of

1994, no public hearing was necessitated.

Page 13 13

17.Shri Lahoty also pointed out that so far as the issue of

Dhari Devi temple is concerned, the Joint Committee had

endorsed and recommended that upliftment of the temple

adhering to the INTACH plan is the best option and has found

wide acceptability amongst Temple Samiti, Pujari, local

inhabitants as well as local statutory authorities. Elaborate

arguments were also addressed by the learned counsel on

muck Management and submitted and that they had

substantially complied with the proposed directions under

Section 5 of the Environmental Protection Act. Arguments were

also addressed on the Catchment Area Treatment Plan and

submitted that an amount of Rs.22.30 crores was deposited

with the Forest Department way back in 2007-09. Further, it

was also pointed out that the AHPCL had spent about 40 crores

for rehabilitation and resettlement of the affected people in the

catchment area. For Greenbelt Development, it was pointed

out that an amount of Rs.2.30 crore was made available to the

State of Uttarakhand by AHPCL. Learned counsel, therefore,

submitted that the respondents are unnecessarily creating

hurdle in the completion of the project and litigation is not in

Page 14 14

public interest but for advancing the private interest of the

respondents.

18.We may indicate while going through the averments made

in the writ petition as well as the impugned judgment and the

pleadings of the parties, it is seen that the question that was

primarily raised before the High Court was with regard to the

necessity of a public hearing and also whether the sanction had

been accorded to construct the project with the capacity of 330

MW. This Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan case (supra)

has held that the 1994 Notification applies only prospectively,

in any view so far as this case is concerned the environmental

clearance cannot be an issue in view of the specific stand taken

by MoEF and the orders dated 03.08.2011 passed by MoEF

which can also be considered as an ex post facto approval.

SHEP, it may be noted, 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.4,000 crores has

been spent. If public hearing is found necessary then the same

should have held before granting environmental clearance.

The purpose of public hearing, it may be noted, is to know the

Page 15 15

concerns of the affected people and to incorporate their

concerns appropriately into the EMP and it is after incorporation

of the concerns and revision/modifying plan, the final EMP

would be submitted to the MoEF for granting environmental

clearance. Environmental clearance, in the instant case, had

been granted in the year 1985 and the project is an ongoing

project which is now nearing completion and, therefore, no

purpose would be achieved by way of a public hearing at this

stage. We also notice from the various Committees’ reports

and the report dated 3.5.2013 that they had met the temple

trustees, priests and residents of the locality, they had not

raised any objection for not holding a public hearing. Further,

the State of Uttarakhand has also never canvassed for a public

hearing nor any complaint was received by the temple

authorities or the worshippers raised any complaint of not

holding any public hearing there. We, therefore, set aside the

direction given by the High Court directing the MoEF to hold a

public hearing.

19.We find that a new dimension has been added to this

litigation by initiating certain proceedings by group of litigants

before the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi. MoEF also, on

Page 16 16

30.06.2011, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 5 of

the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 passed a stop work

order directing AHPCL to attend certain environmental issues

which included (i) mounting Dhari Devi temple at a higher

elevation as per the Plan prepared by INTACH (ii) maintain and

manage muck at the various muck disposal sites by providing

retention wall, slopes, compacting and terracing etc. (iii)

develop greenbelt (iv) Catchment Area Treatment (v)

undertaking Supana Query restoration (vi) maintain minimum

environmental flow etc.

20.The second respondent and few others then approached

NGT vide Appeal No. 9 of 2011 praying for some rigours orders

against AHPCL. The appeal was, however, disposed of by NGT

directing MoEF to take a final decision within a period of eight

weeks. No decision was taken by the MoEF within the time

granted by the NGT which led AHPCL filing M.A. No. 103/2012

before the NGT to revoke Section 5 directions 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 not disposing of the

Page 17 17

matter within the time granted by it. The AHPCL submitted

that in spite of the fact that it had complied with all the

requirements stipulated in the notice dated 30.06.2011,

unnecessarily the project was held up causing huge financial

loss to it. AHPCL also sought a direction to transfer all the

cases from NGT to this court to be heard along with the appeal.

Consequently, all those related matters were transferred to this

case Court and were heard along with these appeals.

22.We asked the Secretary, MoEF, when the matter came for

hearing, as to whether the conditions stipulated in its order

dated 30.06.2011 had been complied with by the project

proponent. Committee headed by Dr. B.P. Das was constituted

by MoEF to examine whether the project proponent had

complied with the conditions stipulated in the environmental

clearance granted in May 1985 as well as Order dated

30.06.2011 and the copy of the Das Committee report of

August 2012 has been made available.

23.Reference was also made to the B.K. Chaturvedi

Committee Interim Report, as well as the final report, with

regard to the environmental flow of Alakhnanda, Bhaghirthi and

Page 18 18

other tributaries of Ganga which has also made some reference

to this project as well. After noticing Das Committee Report

and after hearing learned counsel on either side, this Court

thought it appropriate to constitute a joint team consisting of

officials of MoEF as well as State Government so as to conduct

an on the spot inspection of the project area in question and to

examine whether the project proponent had complied with all

the conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance of May

1985 as well as Order dated 30.06.2011 of the MoEF, which

also referred to the issue of the protection of Dhari Devi

Temple. The joint team was directed to give an opportunity of

hearing to second respondent as well. We have taken such a

course to give a quietus and finality to the various issues which

are long standing.

24.The Joint Team consisted of Professor R. Ramesh National

Centre Coastal Zone Institute, Chennai, Mr. Gambhir Singh,

Chief Conservator of Forests, Garwhal, Prof. R. Sakthivakivel,

International Water Management Institute, Mr. Lalit Kapur,

Director, MoEF and Dr. Arun Kumar, CSO, AHEC, IIT Roorkee as

a Chairman of the Committee. This 5-members Committee

visited the project site including MUCK disposal sites on May 1

st

Page 19 19

and 2

nd

2013 and heard the second respondent as well as the

AHPCL. The Committee also visited Dhari Devi temple site and

met trustees, priests and few residents of village Dhari. The

Committee also visited the catchment area. The Committee

examined as to whether the AHPCL had complied with the

conditions stipulated in the environmental clearance of May

1985 and also the conditions stipulated in forest clearance of

April, 1987. The Committee also examined whether the AHPCL

had complied with the conditions communicated under Section

5 of Environment (Protection) Act 1986 vide letter dated

30.06.2011, also issues with regard to Dhari Devi Temple. The

Committees, after considering all those aspects, submitted its

report on 03.05.2013. The operative portion of the same reads

as follows:

“2.Compliance of Conditions stipulated In

Environmental Clearance of May, 1985 .

1.Fuel Wood should be provided to the construction

stage so as to prevent indiscriminate falling of trees

in the neigbouring areas. The budgeted estimate

should therefore, be suitably augmented.

The AHPCL has informed that they have made

arrangements through their contractor to supply

cooking gas for all the workers of the project. Nearly

three to four hundred cylinders are used by the

workers of all contractors for cooking requirements.

Page 20 20

In case of non-availability of gas, kerosene is used on

limited occasions. No fuel wood is used for cooking or

any other purpose. In case of any exigency wood is

purchased from authorized Government/Forest

departments by the contractor.

2.Critically eroded areas in the catchment should be

identified for undertaking time bound soil

conservation program in the first phase, concurrently

with the construction works. The catchment area

treatment plans be worked out expeditiously.

Uttarakhand Forest Department has provided a status

on the CAT plan and green belt matter and is placed

at Annexure – 2.

Uttarakhand Forest Department is executing the CAT

plan through its four Divisions viz. Narendranagar,

Rudraprayag, Garhwal and Civil - Soyam Pauri Forest

Division. The proposed outlay of CAT plan for five

year period was Rs.22.03 crores deposited by the

AHPCL in three instalments (last in April 2009) to the

Nodal Officer who in turn transferred this amount to

the CAMPA fund with Govt. of India. In 2010, the

funds were transferred to the CAMPA society of

Uttarakhand Govt. for execution of proposed works.

To bring uniformity and for providing directions for

finalization of CAT plans in participatory mode, PCCF

Uttarakhand vide letter No. 238/PA and Kha-2023/13-

2(2) dated 25 March 2011 issued guidelines for

implementation of CAT plans in participatory mode.

Overall framework for reviewing CAT plans was

approved by steering committee of UK CAMPA in its

3

rd

meeting on 16

th

May 2011. Further, the PCCF vide

office Memo NO. 174/13-2(2) dated 03.08.2011 issued

preliminary guidelines with respect to creation of a

Project Management Unit (PMU) for implementation of

the CAT Plan. The funds for CAT plan are being

allocated as per original proposal. However, micro-

plans are being prepared in participatory mode by the

Page 21 21

respective Divisions of the Forest department

following the Procurement Rules, 2008.

In pursuance to the above mentioned facts

preparatory phase for the CAT plan execution was

started in 2011-12 during which identification of sites,

consultations with village communities, preparation of

micro-plans by PRA method and awareness

campaigns were carried out. In 2012-13, nursery

raising, advance soil works were carried out together

with preparatory activities. Total 133 villages have

been identified for the CAT plan and Division wise

distribution of which is Narendranagar Forest Division

– 40 villages, Rudraprayag Forest Division – 41

villages, Garhwal Forest Division – 21 villages and

Civil-Soyam Pauri Forest Division – 31 villages. Out of

the 133 villages micro-plans have been prepared for

76 villages and division wise status of preparation of

micro-plans in Rudraprayag Forest Division – 34

villages, Garhwal Forest Division – 21 villages and

Civil Soyam Pauri Forest Division – 31 villages. During

the financial year 2012-13, implementation of micro

plans was started in 10 villages and during current

financial year approximately 60 villages are being

taken up for this purpose.

Nursery activities have been selected at Division

level. The actual requirement of the plants is

expected to be known on completion of all micro-

plans. Based on estimates saplings are already being

raised in nurseries as Narendranagar Forest Division –

1.5 lacs saplings, Rudraprayag Forest Division – 5.4

saplings, Garhwal Forest Division – 1.0 saplings and

Civil-Soyam Pauri Forest Division – 1.3 saplings.

Through these nurseries afforestation is being taken

up through micro planning of the planned villages in

the catchment.

A total sum of Rs.46.22 lacs has been spent so far by

the department during the financial years 2011-12

and 2012-13 under the budget provided by the

project.

Page 22 22

Further from other sources of funding i.e. 13

th

Finance

Commission and FDA etc. the forest department of

Uttarakhand has treated 882 Ha area as well as

constructed 81 check dams and 10 water ponds in

the catchment of the project.

3.Afforestation should be undertaken on a large

scale in the project area and a 50m wide green belt

created around the periphery of the reservoir.

For afforestation the response has been same as

above in 2.

Compensatory afforestation as the Indian Forest

Conservation Act (1980) was completed in an area of

347 ha in district Lalitpur of Uttar Pradesh (the then

combined State) after the forest clearance accorded

in the year 1987.

Based on the estimates provided by Forest

department in June 2012 for a sum of Rs.652.49 lacs

to be implemented in six years, AHPCL has deposited

first year budget of Rs.203.6 lacs with the state forest

department for creating Green Belt around the rim of

the reservoir of Srinagar HEP in August 2012.

The state forest department is expecting the Srinagar

hydropower project to be commissioned in Dec.

2013/Jan.2014 and only after filling the reservoir, they

intend to assess the requirement of site above the

submerged area, the selection of species, the type of

soil works etc. and creating the Green Belt

accordingly. Therefore they intend to start the green

belt activities only after works of water reservoir are

completed and is filled. The work in the private land

shall be taken up for green belt development through

participatory approach with the land owners.

4.Geo-morphological studies be undertaken in the

catchment to formulate plans for the stability of

Page 23 23

slopes on reservoir periphery through engineering

and biological measures.

Geological Survey of India (GSI) has been appointed

as the agency for carrying out the Geo-morphological

Studies. Total 9 villages have been identified. These

are Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour, Gandasu,

Farasu, Mehargon, Paparasuand and Maliyasu. The

studies for 7 villages are completed.

Recommendations received for 5 villages namely

Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour, Gandasu and

implemented by the AHPCL. As informed by AHPCL,

the recommendations for the displacement of the

houses in the rim area of the reservoir have been

complied with. The balance reports are expected to

be received from GSI soon.

Measures comprises of engineering and biological

aspects in green belt area are being implemented by

state forest department.

5.A monitoring committee should be constituted, in

consultation with the Department of Environmental to

oversee the effective implementation of the

suggested safeguards.

The AHPCL has been submitting the half yearly

compliance reports to the Regional Office of MoEF,

Lucknow. The Regional Office also visited the project

site from time to time. The committees of Dr. BP Das

in June 2011, Dr. J.K. Sharma in June 2012, Dr. BP Das

in Aug 2012 appointed by MoEF and Shri ADN Rao in

Dec.2012 appointed by NGT have visited the project

site and submitted the reports.

The committee is of the opinion that AHPCL should

monitor the project during construction and post

construction for various parameters of water quality,

aquatic biodiversity, landslides in the rim area, inflow

and outflow, impacts on water tables and springs and

submit the reports to the State Government and MoEF

regularly.

Page 24 24

There should a monitoring mechanism at the state

level which should have the data for practicing

adaptive management and such monitoring may be

carried out in association with project affective

society.

3.Compliance of conditions stipulated in

Forest Clearance (FC) of April, 1987.

1.Legal status of land will remain unchanged.

No change has been reported.

2.Compensatory afforestation will be raised over

and equivalent non forest land.

Compensatory afforestation as per the Indian Forest

Conservation Act (1980) was completed in an area of

347 ha in district Lalitpur of Uttar Pradesh (the then

combined State) after the forest clearance accorded

in the year 1987.

3.The oustees will be rehabilitated as per plan

submitted in the state government.

Since there were no human oustees in the

submergence area no rehabilitation plan was

prepared by the State government. However,

Geological Survey of India (GSI) was appointed by

AHPCL for carrying out the Geo-morphological Studies

for 9 villages identified as Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari,

Kaliyasour, Gandasu, Farasu, Mehargon, Paparasu

and Maliyasu. As informed by AHPCL, the

recommendations for the displacement of the houses

in the rim area of the reservoir have been complied

with for the recommendation received from GSI so

far. The balance reports are expected to be received

from GSI soon.

Dhari Devi temple coming under the submergence

area has been reported separately.

Page 25 25

4.The project authority will establish fuel wood

depots and the fuel wood be provided to construction

labor and staff free of cost, or its cost deducted from

the salaries and wages to be paid to the staff and

labor.

The AHPCL has informed that they have made

arrangements with the local gas supplier to supply

cooking gas for all the workers of the project. Nearly

three to four hundred cylinders are used by the

workers of all contractors for cooking requirements.

In case of non-availability of gas, kerosene is used on

limited occasions. No fuel wood is used for cooking or

any other purpose. In case of any exigency wood is

purchased from authorized Government/Forest

departments by the contractor.

4.Compliance of conditions communicated

under Section 5 of EP (Act) 1986 vide letter

dated 30.06.2011.

1.To preserve the religious sanctity and

character of the Dhari Devi Temple, a modified

plan will be prepared in collaboration with

INTACH, a Conservation Architect, the local

Temple Samity and the representative of GSI.

The Plan should, inter alia, examine how part of

rock on which the platform of the deity has

been constructed, along with the rock that

formed its backdrop, shall be mounted at a

higher elevation in such a way that it maintains

contact with the base rock from which it is

raised.

2.Only after modified Plan as specified above

has been prepared, the construction shall be

resumed at Dhari Devi Temple.

As reported by AHPCL a modified Temple Plan was

prepared in collaboration with INTACH, Temple

Samithi and Geological Survey of India and submitted

Page 26 26

to MoEF on 12.09.2011 and further intimated to MoEF

on 09.02.2012 for continuation of works as per

provisions of para 14(ii) of Section 5 notice.

Earlier committees which visited sites during 16-17

th

June, 2012 and 29-30

th

August, 2012 and B.K.

Chaturvedi Committee report April 2013, have all

recommended construction of temple works as per

INTACH scheme. The committee visited the temple

site and found the work of raising the platform was in

advance stage of construction with certain changes

made by temple priest and trustees.

3.The muck slope at the edge of the river

shall be adequately protected by a retaining

wall of at least 1-2 m height to be 1m above

HFL corresponding to a flood of 2500 to

3000m

3

/sec in the river.

4.The existing slope of the muck disposed off

is around 40-45

o

and shall be flattened to 35

o

.

The walls shall be constructed partially upto a

maximum of 2m height and need to be

completed to the top with surface protection

before July 2011 when monsoon precipitation

becomes intense. This is considered expedient

to prevent sloughing, sliding of the critically

steep much slope and to arrest flow of the

muck into the river. The wall shall be

constructive over a length of almost 1 km

stretch at three major sites i.e. the dam,

desilting basin and power house. This would

lead to adequate environmental protection.

5.Muck shall be compacted and Terraces shall

be formed where so ever possible.

As per plan approved by the State forest department

there are 10 muck disposal sites in the project area

out of which only sites 8 & 9 are permanent and

others are temporary meant only for construction

duration. A total volume of 66.1 lacs cubic meter of

Page 27 27

muck was estimated, out of which 16.79 lacs cubic

meter of muck has been utilized for back filling

purpose. Further 12.5 lacs cubic meter is

contemplated to be utilized from muck site 6, 7 and

10 for back filling. 37.62 lacs cubic meter is planned

to be left over at site 3 (2.01 lacs cubic meter), 4(4.22

lacs cubic meter), 6(4.96 lacs cubic meter), 7(2.39

lacs cubic meter), 8(8.8 lacs cubic meter), 9(12.48

lacs cubic meter) and 10(2.77 lacs cubic meter) for

land shaping and grading. Total muck utilization as

on date as informed by AHPCL is estimated to be

about 44%.

A review of water quality parameters (Temperature,

pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Biological Oxygen Demand)

provided by the State Pollution Control Board,

Uttarakhand for the year 2011-12 and 2012-13

measured in Alaknanda at Rudraprayag i.e. upstream

of Srinagar project and in Alaknanda at Deoprayag

i.e. downstream of Srinagar project indicates that

there is negligible difference in the water quality

parameters due to project construction activity.

Slope dressing and toe walls are constructed/being

repaired at temporary sites. Some construction

material is stored on site No.6 and the same is

planned to be removed after completion of words.

Soil from site No.4 is planned to be removed before

monsoon, 2013 as the batching plant has been

removed now. Soil from site no.7 is being removed

now. Slope dressing, Terracing, Toe walls would be

completed in location nos. 8 and 9 where much

disposal is going to be permanent.

Angles of muck disposal sites 4,6,7,8 & 9 were got

measured by AHPCL and are reported as follows: 4 –

21

o

/25

o

, 18

o

/33

o

, site 6 – 28

o

/29

o

, 32

o

/32

o

, site 7 –

33

o

/29

o

, 37

o

/36

o

/27

o

, site 8 – 31

o

,32

o

, site 9 –

35

o

/36

o

/35

o

/37

o

, 35

o

/32

o

.

Slopes of muck disposal areas (angle of repose) are

given as 45

o

at para 18(3) page no.16 of Report on

Page 28 28

“Muck Disposable and Management of Srinagar

project” by IIT, Roorkee, November 2008. However

MoEF letter has suggested flattening the slopes up to

35

o

. The slopes measured and reported by AHPCL

appear to be in order.

Earthen cofferdam in front of power house is planned

to be removed after completion of power house for

joining the water from powerhouse to river through

tail water channel and soil to be utilized for back

filling and landscaping. This cofferdam was

synonymously referred to as Muck disposal site no. 10

at Power house location in the section 5 notice dt.

30.06.2011. Disposal Location no. 10 is well behind

the power house coffer dam and has no contact with

river water.

All the toe walls which got damaged at the muck

disposal sites during monsoon, should be repaired by

AHPCL especially for those sites where muck is being

stored permanently.

The photographs of all muck disposal sites of different

time along with approved muck disposal plan by

AHPCL is placed at Annexure – 3.

6.Appropriate protection by plantation and

gabions should be put only after slopes are

flattened to 35

o

, protected by retaining walls of

desired height. Thereafter, appropriate soil

cover of 1m shall be provided to raise

plantation for slope protection.

7.Muck disposal site wise restoration plan

with the targets shall be submitted

immediately to the MoEF.

In view of the ongoing removal of the muck from sites

and construction activity the plantation is expected to

be taken up thereafter.

Page 29 29

8.Green Belt development to be undertaken

simultaneously along with project construction.

Based on the estimates provided by Forest

department in June 2012 for a sum of Rs.652.49 lacs

for implementation in six years, AHPCL has deposited

first year budget of Rs. 203.6 lacs with the state

forest department for creating Green Belt around the

rim of the reservoir of Srinagar HEP in August 2012.

The state forest department is expecting the Srinagar

hydropower project to be commissioned in Dec

2013/Jan 2014 and only after filling the reservoir, the

forest department intend to assess the requirement

of sites above the submerged area, the selection of

species, the type of soil words etc. and creating the

Green belt accordingly. Therefore they intend to start

the green belt activities only after works of water

reservoir are completed and is filled. The private land

shall also be taken up for green belt development

through participatory approach with the land owners.

9.For expediting Geo-morphological studies

by Geological Survey of India (GSI) and

implementation of recommendations before

Dam gets operational. AHPCL shall pursue with

GSI and take up the mitigation measures

immediately.

Geological Survey of India (GSI) has been appointed

as the agency for carrying out the Geo-morphological

Studies. Total 9 villages have been identified. These

are Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari, Kaliyasour, Gandasu,

Farasu, Mehargon, Paparasu and Maliyasu. The

studies for 7 villages are completed.

Recommendations received for 5 villages namely

Dungripanth, Sendri, Dhari Kaliyasour, Gandasu and

implemented by the AHPCL. As informed by AHPCL,

the recommendations for the relocation of the houses

in the rim area of the reservoir have been complied

with. The balance reports are expected to be

received from GSI soon.

Page 30 30

Village: Dungripanth

Recommendation of GSI with status

House of Sri Hari Sankar Singh is to be relocated –

Complied.

The area falling between +605.90 and 611.00 both

Dungripanth and Dikholi villages may be monitored

from safety view point immediately after impounding

of reservoir – Shall be monitored accordingly

House of C.S. Bahuguna needs to be relocated to a

safe place – Complied.

Village : Sendri

Recommendation of GSI with status

4 houses located close to the outer edge of the ridge

need to be relocated to a safer place – Complied

Village – Dhari

Houses and land upto EL +616.00 sshall have to be

displaced/acquired – Complied

Village: Kaliyasour

There would not be major threat from the reservoir to

the stability of slopes where main settlement is

located – No action is to be taken

Village Gandasu

Suitable remedial measures for slopes at specific

locations are being recommended –

Action may be initiated after receipt of

recommendations

Village: Farasu

Studies conducted, report yet to be submitted.

Page 31 31

Village Mehargon

Studies conducted, report yet to be submitted.

10.The Restoration work for Supana Quarry

shall be undertaken simultaneously, leaving the

part which is being used for storage of building

material.

Committee observed from the site visit that storage

of the building material has been almost removed and

vacated site is being filled with muck.

11.AHPCL shall maintain a minimum

environmental flow as will be decided by the

Ministry on the basis of Study of IIT Roorkee on

the Cumulative Impact Assessment on

Alaknanda and Bhaghirathi Basin.

As per the approved Environmental Management Plan

of the project, AHPCL is required to release a

minimum of 5 cumecs of water from the Dam through

out the year in the river section of water.

Ministry of Environment and Forest constituted an

Inter-Ministerial Group (IMG) headed by Shri B.K.

Chaturvedi to consider the issue related to

hydropower projects and environmental flows in June

2012. The committee has submitted its report in April

2013 after considering the report from IIT Roorkee,

Wildlife Institute of India and others as available.

The MoEF is expected to take a decision on this and

convey to the project proponent at appropriate time

for compliance.

12.Requisite clearances shall be sought by

AHPCL for Alaknanda River Front Development

Scheme before proceeding further on this

scheme.

Page 32 32

13.AHPCL shall submit a detailed Action Plan

on the above mentioned directions with time

targets along with a Bank Guarantee of Rs.1

crore in favour of the State Pollution Control

Board, Uttarakhand. The Bank Guarantee shall

be forfeited in case of non compliance by

AHPCL.

AHPCL informed that the proposed scheme is not a

part of approved EMP/EC of the project. This was an

additional proposal from AHPCL. However, neither

proposal nor word has been taken up so far.

A Bank Guarantee of Rs.1 core was submitted

through Uttarakhand on July, 2011.

5.TOR II: The Committee will also submit a full

and complete picture of the project at present.

AHPCL has provided the statement of physical and

financial progress of various work of the Srinagar

project as on March 31, 2013 and is given at

Annexure 4. The summary of the same is as below:

Civil Works: diversion tunnel, coffer dams, dam and

spillway, head race tunnel, forebay tank and byepass

channel, bridges on the channel, penstock, power

house building, switchyard are 100% completed. The

cross drainage works of Munjh Kot nallah are 93%

completed.

Hydro mechanical works : dam and spillway, head

race tunnel, forebay and byepass and draft tube are

100% completed.

Electro-mechanical works: 3 units are 100%

completed whereas unit 4 is under progress.

6.TORIII: In the context of Dhari Devi

Temple, which is coming under submergence of

the reservoir, the Committee will suggest best

possible option regarding how to protect the

Page 33 33

Dhari Devi Temple without disturbance at its

present location.

In the recent time there have been several

committees who have gone through the issue of the

submergence of Dhari Devi temple and a numbers of

alternative to prevent the submergence of the Dhari

Devi Temple were studied. These are as follows:

(a)Architectural Heritage Division of Indian National

Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) has

prepared a plan in consultation with Dhari Devi

Temple Trust, Geological survey of India and AHPCL in

Sept 2011.

(b)Dr. B.P. Das Committee Aug 2012 recommended

that “In view of the compelling Technical, Social,

Religious and Sentimental Reasons narrated in para

4.2, the feasibility of constructing a dry well structure

to protect the rock mound in situ and “Maa Dhari

Devi Idol” in its existing position is not feasible. The

team therefore recommends for continuation of works

of restoration of the temple as per INTACH proposal”.

(c)B.K. Chaturvedi Inter Ministerial Group (IMG)

appointed sequel to the third meeting of National

Ganga River Basin Authority (NGRBA) in April 2012

submitted its report in Sept 2012 where the IMG has

recommended that best solution for saving the

temple appears to be accepting the recommendation

of two member committee comprising of Chairman

Central Water Commission and Chairman Central

Electricity Authority represented by its Member

(Hydro). The two member committee examined the

following option:

(i)Construction of an enclosure bund around

temple and surrounding ghat and access road

upto the level of 611m on the banks.

Page 34 34

(ii)Construction of an concrete well of about 30

meter diameter and 18 meter height around the

temple.

(iii)Relocation of the temple to a safe location on the

left bank of the river.

(iv)Raising the temple above the highest flood level

at its current location and to install the idol at

higher elevation at the same spot with access to

the temple through a pedestrian bridge from the

left bank.

(v)Construction of 30km long power channel and

diversion dam in the upstream of existing dam.

Keeping in view the limitations and infeasibility of

implementing the first three options the committee

recommended the fourth option i.e. “Raising the

temple above the highest flood level at its current

location and to install the idol at higher elevation at

the same spot with access to the temple through a

pedestrian bridge from the left bank.”

This committee visited the Dhari Devi temple on May

02, 2012 and interacted with trustees, priests of the

Dhari Devi temple and few residents of village Dhari

who were In favour of raising the temple above the

highest water level. In fact the committee observed

that the elevated platform of temple is in advance

stage of construction and the preparations are under

way for shifting the deities to the elevated location.

The trustee, priests and resident who the committee

interacted are of the opinion of early completion of

the temple at the elevated location.

Dr. B. Jhunjhunwala expressed apprehensions against

moving the Dhari Devi temple to a higher elevation,

as it is against the “Rights of Worship”. He proposed

the option of Construction of 30 km long power

channel and diversion dam in the upstream of

existing dam.

7.TOR IV: The committee will gather evidence

through photography/videography

Page 35 35

The photographs taken during site visit are available

at annexure – 5

8.TOR V: The Committee will give personal

hearing to Shri Bharat Jhunjhunwala

accompanied by his wife & representatives of

the project proponent i.e. AHPCL who will place

their views and records if any, before the said

Committee.

The committee gave personal hearing to Shri Bharat

Jhunjhunwala accompanied by his wife as well as

project proponent (AHEC) on May 01, 2013 and heard

patiently. The points raised by Shri Bharat

Jhunjhunwala are addressed as below:

a.Sale of power outside the area

The project clearances were accorded in the year

1985 and 1987 during the period of undivided Uttar

Pradesh. The power purchase agreement of the

project is with Uttar Pradesh Govt. utility and free

power @ 12% of power generated shall be available

to Uttarakhand Government and is in line with the

Uttar Pradesh state re-organization Act 2000.

b.Conditions attached to Environmental Clearance 1985

Not in the purview of the committee. He may request

to the MoEF for the safe.

c.CAT Plan

The status on the CAT plan has been given above

under the EC and FC clearance.

d.Compensatory afforestation

The status on the afforestation has been given above

under the FC clearance.

e.Green Belt

The status on the green belt has been given above

under the EC and FC clearance.

Page 36 36

f.Geo morphological studies

The status on these studies and resettlement of the

likely to be affected persons has been given above.

g.Dhari Devi Temple

The response is given under TOR 3

h.Muck Disposal

The status of muck disposal sites is elaborated above

along with annexure 3 of photographs of all 10

locations.

i.Stop work order

As informed by AHPCL that in view of NGT order of

M.A. No. 103/2012 in Appeal No. 9 of 2011 dated Aug

07, 2012 they are continuing the construction of

work.

Committee also heard AHPCL through a power point

presentation. The AHPCL requested the committee

that their project may be allowed to be commissioned

as earliest as possible.

9.RECOMMENDATIONS:

The committee after verifying the conditions and

progress of the work at site and hearing of Dr. B.

Jhunjhunwala along with his wife and project

proponent AHPCL and interaction with others in the

project area recommends following:

1.The muck disposal restoration may be done at the

earliest. The necessary covering with top soil,

plantation and toe wall for the permanent disposable

site no. 8 & 9 be carried out at the earliest.

2.The catchment area treatment plan and green belt

plan being executed by State Forest department be

expedited.

3.An effective monitoring mechanism at the state level

which should have the data for practicing adaptive

Page 37 37

management be created and such monitoring may be

carried out in association with project affective

society.

4.As the project is in close proximity to habitations

having several national and state

institutions/organization, the ongoing construction

activities may be completed at the earliest.”

25.Report is now being questioned by the MoEF, in spite of

the fact, that they constituted the joint team which included the

Director, MoEF as its representative. MoEF, in their written

submission, raised an objection with regard to the proposal to

shift Dhari Devi temple to a higher place which according to the

MoEF would wound the religious feeling of large sections of

Hindus. The MoEF felt that the project proponents plan to lift

the temple up on column and preserve it under guidance of

INTACH which could not possibly be a viable solution in view of

the recent judgment of this Court in Orissa Mining

Corporation v. MoEF [(2013) 6 SCC 476] which says that the

religious faith, customs and practices of tribals have to be

preserved and protected. MoEF in its affidavit dated 6.5.2013

also took that position. The Principal Secretary and State of

Uttarakhand filed their response on 10.05.2013 with respect to

the affidavit filed by the MoEF on 06.05.2013 and the Report

Page 38 38

submitted by the Joint Team. Forest Department of

Uttarakhand also filed their note indicating their stand.

Detailed written submission has also been filed by the second

respondent on 10.05.2013 with regard to the non-compliance

of various directions given by the MoEF in its notice dated

30.06.2011 by AHPCL.

26.Dr. B. Jhunjhunwala - party in person submitted that the

High Court was right in directing a public hearing following the

1994 Notification, the necessity of the same, according to him,

has been highlighted by this Court in G. Sundarrajan v.

Union of India and Others, the judgment of which is

reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620. Dr. Jhunjhunwala has also

highlighted the necessity of keeping Dhari Devi temple on the

spot at its present location. Dr. Jhunjhunwala further submitted

that Right to Worship stands at a higher pedestal than Right to

Life under Article 21 and any disturbance of the temple would

violate the Right to Worship at Dhari Devi temple without any

hindrance as guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of

India. Dr. Jhunjhunwala also suggested that the temple could

be saved by making a canal instead of reservoir at the

impugned project and the sacred rock in situ by constructing a

Page 39 39

dry well of sufficient height and diameter around it and

providing pilgrim access to it by building an approach road.

27.We have gone through the affidavits filed by the State of

Uttarakhand and we find they have wholeheartedly accepted

the B.P. Das Committee Report and the report dated 3.5.2013

submitted by the Joint Team and also the B.K. Chaturvedi

interim report dated September 2012. When this Court

constituted the Committee on 25.4.2013, this Court directed

the inclusion of the State Government representative as well,

so that the State Government can express its views on various

issues including the issue relating to Dhari Devi temple. State

Government in their affidavit, it may be noted, have not

questioned the suggestions made by the Committee in its

report dated 3.5.2013. Consequently, we have to take it that

the State Government has no objection whatsoever with regard

to the suggestion made by the joint Committee in its report

dated 03.05.2013 i.e. raising the temple above the highest

flood level at its current location and to install the idol at higher

elevation at the same spot with access to the temple through a

pedestrian bridge from the left bank. The Committee

specifically stated in the report that they had visited Dhari Devi

Page 40 40

temple site and met trustees, priests of the temple and few

residents of village Dhari and no objection was raised either by

the trustees or priests of the temple on the suggestion made by

the joint team in the report dated 03.05.2013.

INTACH Report:

28.We also find that the Architectural Heritage Division of

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) has

prepared a plan in consultation with Dhari Devi temple trust,

Geological Survey of India and AHPCL and which was submitted

to the MoEF on 12.9.2011, which has been accepted by all the

subsequent Committees appointed.

Dr. B.P. Das Committee Report

29.MoEF in compliance with the order passed by this Court in

SLP 362 and 5849 of 2012 in Writ Petition No. 68 of 2008 dated

27.07.2012 constituted B.P. Das Committee vide his Order

dated 17.08.2012 to verify whether AHPCL has complied with

the conditions of the environmental clearance granted in May

1985 and directions of the order issued under Section 5 of

Page 41 41

Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986 dated 30.06.2011 and to

examine the feasibility of well option of Dhari Devi Temple.

30.We have already referred to in detail the steps taken by

AHPCL to comply with the environmental clearance granted in

1985 and the conditions stipulated in the MoEF Order dated

30.06.2011, which has also been noted by the Joint Team

constituted on the basis of the directions of this Court. B.P. Das

Committee has elaborately examined the issue regarding

restoration of Dhari Devi Temple in Paras 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 5.2.1,

6.0 of its report of August 2012 and ultimately came to the

conclusion that the proposal made by INTACH be accepted.

The paragraphs mentioned above are extracted hereunder for

easy reference:

“4.0Restoration of Dhari Devi Temple

The Team visited the temple premises and

surroundings on 29

th

August 2012. Discussions were

held with the officials of AHPCL, office bearer of

Aadhyashakti Maa Dhari Pujari Nyas, Shri V.P. Pandey,

President along with Shri Vivek Pandey, Secretary and a

Pujari namely Shri Manish Pandey. A number of local

people and people representing different

organizations/groups were present during the

Page 42 42

discussions. The following emerged as a result of

discussions and interactions.

4.1Upliftment scheme for Dhari Devi temple

prepared in collaboration with INTACH

·In accordance with the directions issued by MoEF vide

dated 30.06.2011; the project proponent had got a

restoration plan for Dhari Devi Temple prepared by

INTACH. The construction, as per this plan, had

already begun. Fourteen pillars out of eighteen have

been erected upto 10-15 meters of heights. No

Temple work was in progress on the day of site visit.

·In addition to main Deity ie Maa Dhari Devi, the Plan

contains provision for installation of other deities

namely; Hanuman, Shiva, Havan Room, Prayer Hall,

Mother rooms (2nos), office room and adequate

space for passage and congregation of devotees. A

total plan area of 544 sq. Mtr. Has been envisaged in

the design of the temple at 611 meter Elevation and

at 614 meter Elevation, as per the scheme

formulated by INTACH.

·The Group explained to the Temple Samity about the

concept and design of Kudala Sangam Temple in

Karnataka where a well structure has been built to

house a Samadhi. There was vehement opposition

from the Temple Samiti and the people gathered in

an around the temple to this concept. All the

Page 43 43

assembled people expressed that confinement of

deity in a well is totally unacceptable to them. The

Temple Samiti explained that Maa Dhari Devi is

presently facing a village called Dhari Village and

offering its blessing to the villagers and thus,

protecting them from the perils and penury of

different sorts. Under no circumstances the deity

should be hidden and kept in the well which will

cause obstruction to Maa Dhari Devi from viewing

Dhari village. It was explained by them that the top

of the sanctum sanctorium shall have to be kept

open to sky and therefore, a well structure will pose

many a problems.

·It was learnt from the Temple Samiti that Maa Dhari

Devi is not part of the base rock. It is placed on a

marble/tiled platform on the rock. The President of

Temple Samiti also informed that about 20-22 years

back, the deity had once lifted from its earlier

position.

·The Temple Samiti expressed their anguish and

resentment at the prolonged delay in completing the

temple in its new form as per the INTACH design.

They, along with the local people also informed that

they might execute the remaining work through Kar

Seva if an early decision in their favour is not

forthcoming. They stated that they were fed up in

facing Committees after Committees on this issue.

Page 44 44

·The Temple Samiti as well as local people expressed

the view that in case of Kudala Sangam in Karnataka

State, a Samadhi has been housed in the well. They

opined that there is no parity of reasoning and

therefore, these two are not comparable. Thus, the

concept of well structure of Kudala Sangam is not for

a temple and the same cannot be considered

appropriate for adoption in case of Dhari Devi

Temple. They further informed that the temple

rehabilitation plan prepared by INTACH is in

conformity with temple architecture prevalent in

Northern Part of India. They further informed that

the temple plan was approved by the State Govt. Of

Uttarakhand during year 2009.

·The people also raised security, safety issues and

difficulty in movement of devotees as the

congregation would be much more in case of Maa

Dhari Devi temple than Kudala Sangam. The entry

and exit access for a well structure would be through

spiral stairs along the stenning wall which are

disadvantageous and accident prone.

4.2On the feasibility of “Protecting the sacred

rock in situ by constructing a dry-well of

sufficient height and diameter around it and

providing pilgrims access to it by building an

approach way and a stair case on the inner wall

of the dry-well.”

Page 45 45

The team considered the following two alternative

options:

i)To protect the “Maa Dhari Devi idol” along with the

sacred rock mound (Shila) by constructing a bigger

diameter dry well.

ii)To protect the rock mound (Shila) by constructing a

smaller diameter dry-well in conjunction with the

“Maa Dhari Devi Idol” upliftment scheme prepared

in collaboration with the INTACH.

For the reasons and constraints mentioned below the

team is of the view that both the proposals are not

feasible.

·A plan area of 544 sq. Meter has been worked out and

provisioned for the temple complex. For a circular

structure such as dry well, this will entail a Bigger

diameter (exceeding 50 meter) in order to

accommodate staircases, space for deities and other

associated facilities. This has been examined by

Tata Consulting Engineers also, on behalf of the

AHPCL. In view of very large diameter, the dry well

structure would encroach into the river where its

width is already narrow. The construction of dry-well

structure will therefore, need temporary diversion of

river water requiring structures like cofferdam etc.

Fresh EIA study and EC for river diversion

arrangements may be required and thereby delaying

Page 46 46

the temple construction/rehabilitation work and

impounding of the reservoir.

·The concept of a “Small Dry-well” of around 15m in

diameter is not feasible as four columns (out of

eighteen) enclosing an area of 10mX15m around the

deity planned from structural consideration that

emerges out of INTACH restoration plan, will be fully

interfering with the 15m well. This dry well from

consideration of structural safety to resist uplift of

17m (anticipated HFL of 609.5 at the temple due to

backwater rise minus base level of 593 m) will need a

solid reinforced concrete (RC) raft of 20 to 22m

diameter, which would mean shattering and

removing the entire rock mound below the deity by

the action of Drilling and Blasting. Even an annular

raft will interfere with the central four columns and

shatter the sacred rock during blasting operations.

This will defeat the very purpose of protecting it.

·During field visit, neither the puja samiti / the head

priest nor the large number of devotees gathered

there expressed their desire to go down to the lower

level of the rock mound, once Maa Dhari Devi is

installed at EL 614.00 and all other deities will be

installed to complete the religious paraphernalia.

The Puja Samity and the people at large expressed

that they would feel hurt and anguished if the lower

Page 47 47

rock is encircled by a large well barring an open

exposure.

·The size and nature of sub-structure and its foundation

of the well will depend on the geological strata and

formation of river bed which will govern the actual

quantum of work for erecting the structure. Detailed

sub-soil study will be necessary for this.

·Safety arrangements covering a number of aspects

have to be provided such as for emergency

evacuation, fire hazards etc. in case a well option is

though of. It will also impede future expansion of the

temple premises which may be essential to cater for

the increasing number of devotees visiting the

temple.

·As the top of the well would have to be kept open, the

well will be subjected to heavy rain and occasional

cloud burst that may endanger the safety of deity

and devotees. In addition, poor ventilation and

stampede like situation cannot be ruled out. In the

net, the well structure will hinder smooth “darshan”

and movement of devotees.

·Structurally, the well will be subjected to huge uplift

pressure making the well unsafe and unstable. This

will also entail huge thickness of wall and heavy

founding rafts and thus, making construction

Page 48 48

complicated as drilling, blasting and grouting of rocks

will be a necessity.

·The devotees strongly object to any concept of well

and expressed that confinement of Deity Maa Dhari

Devi in a well is totally unacceptable to them. The

devotees strongly fell that under no circumstances

the Deity Maa Dhari Devi should be hidden and kept

in a well. They desire that Maa Dhari Devi should

continue to face the Dhari village and offer blessings

to the villagers and thus protect them from perils and

penury of all sorts.

·The well structure will go against the local aesthetic

and cultural heritage as prevalent in the region.

In view of the compelling Technical, social, religious,

and sentimental reasons, the scheme of constructing a

big/small dry well structure to protect “Dhari Devi Idol”

and the surrounding sacred rock mound in its existing

position is not feasible.

5.2.1Dhari Devi Temple Rehabilitation Scheme

(submission of modified plan for construction

commencement)

There has been adequate compliance by the Project

Proponent and they have proceeded as per advice /

directions given vide MoEF letter dated 30.06.2011.

The project proponent has also informed the MoEF in

February, 2012 about their program to resume the

Page 49 49

works as per modified temple restoration plan that has

been prepared in collaboration with INTACH, a

Conservation Architect, involving local Temple Samity

and a representative of GSI. The AHPCL informed the

MoEF about resumption of works on the Temple

restoration accordingly.

6.0Conclusion on Dhari Devi Temple

Restoration Proposal.

The group is of the view that the architecture of temple

in southern part of India and in Northern part of India is

altogether different. The INTACH proposal takes care of

the people’s acceptability of the temple in terms of

design, plan, facade and overall architecture of the

temple.

The project proponent has gone ahead with the

construction of the uplifting proposal of the temple in

compliance with the directions given under Section 5 of

EP (Act), 1986 on 30.06.2011. They have followed the

directions/ advice given under relevant paras of the

order of the MoEF.

In addition to the engineering and construction related

impediments in building a well structure which will

encroach into the main course of the river where it is

narrow. There has been tangible progress in the

construction of the temple as per restoration plan

Page 50 50

prepared by INTACH and which has got the acceptance

of the Temple Samiti and the local citizen.

The Group does not consider it appropriate to thrust an

option against the faith, belief, expectation of the local

people/stakeholders and which is contrary to cultural

heritage of the region. It merits mention that they are

totally opposed and appeared contemptuous to the

very concept of a well structure for housing the deity.

A portion of the base rock is planned to be cut and

placed at new location to form the Deity’s backdrop.

The Group noted that the Temple Samiti and others are

in accordance with the overall plan of restoration of

Dhari Devi Temple as suggested by INTACH.

The Group also apprehends public unrest, agitation

leading to law and order problem in the event of

thrusting upon them the option of well structure and

other action causing prolonged delay in putting the

temple restoration issue, in accordance with INTACH

plan in rest.”

B.K. Chaturvedi Committee Report

31.MoEF constituted an inter-ministerial group (IMG) under

the Chairmanship of Shri B.K. Chaturvedi, Member, Planning

Commission on 15

th

June, 2012 to review and consider certain

issues related to environmental flows, environmental impact of

Page 51 51

the hydro-power projects in the upper reaches of river Ganga

and its tributaries such as Bhagirathi and Alaknanda. MoEF

also vide its office memorandum dated 20.7.2012 requested

the Chaturvedi Committee to review the cumulative impact on

flow of river as also the social impacts of the relocation of Dhari

Devi Temple situated upstream of the project. A two-Member

Committee consisting of Chairman, Central Electricity Authority

and Chairman, Central Water Commission, both of them are

members of the IMG, was constituted to consider the issue with

regard to Dhari Devi Temple and to make suggestions. The

interim report dated 07.09.2012 (Volume II) of the two-Member

Committee on Dhari Devi Temple reads as follows:

12.3Construction of Dhari Devi Temple on raised

platform

·The proposed structure of Dhari Devi temple on a

raised platform on concrete columns above HFL (at

El. +614 m) has been designed by IIT Roorkee and

has got necessary clearance / permission of the State

Government.

·During the visit, discussions were held with several

local people and priest of the temple. All the people

met with the Committee were found very positive

towards the construction of Dhari Devi temple on a

Page 52 52

raised platform. There was no objection on raising

the temple at higher elevation and so the project

works can go on, it was felt by them.

·The construction of Dhari Devi temple on raised

platform would cost to the Developer of Rs.9.0 crore

only.

·It has been reported by the local residents that this

temple has submerged earlier at several times during

high floods. Even on 3

rd

August, 2012 the water level

reached up to the floor level of the temple (+593 m)

and lower part of the temple was filled with silt and

floating debris, as it may seen in the following

photograph taken during visit.

·Even if, the dam would not have been constructed,

there is always a possibility of submergence of the

temple during high flash floods.

13.Recommendations of the Two Member

Committee

Based on above findings, the recommendations of the

TMC are as under:

·Considering the significant progress of the project, the

Section 5 may be withdrawn by MoEF at the earliest

so that the project works are resumed at site keeping

in view the national interest of hydro power sector,

benefits of local people, project specific local area

Page 53 53

development, feelings/views of project affected

people, etc. otherwise it would be an end to hydro

power development in Uttarakhand as well as in the

country.

·Since an expenditure of over three thousand crore

rupees have already been incurred on the project,

any delay in commissioning would add to heavy

burden of interest during the construction (IDC) and

escalate the cost of the project and would make the

tariff chargeable to consumers completely unviable.

·During the discussion with villagers, it was observed

that barring few individuals, everyone is anxious to

see completion of the project as early as possible.

They are in favour of construction of Dhari Devi

temple on raised platform above HFL at the earliest.

·Discussions were held with the officers of UJVNL and

they were also keen in completion of this project in

view of the power shortages in Uttarakhand. The

Government of Uttarakhand would get 12% free

power from the project on its commissioning.

14.Conclusion

·The idea of construction of a 30km power channel in

lieu of existing dam cannot be accepted at this stage

on account of (i) geological and geotechnical

investigations not done, (ii) enormous cost of the

power channel and new diversion dam, (iii) issue of

Page 54 54

forest clearance and land acquisition, (iv) minimum 5

years of construction time, (v) very high tariff to be

paid by the purchaser.

·The Dhari Devi temple is not included in the protected

monuments of Archaelogical Survey of India and it is

a local temple to be worshipped by nearby villagers

only. All the local villagers and the priest of the

temple are in agreement with the project authorities

to raise the temple on RCC structure above HFL.

·Option of providing a well surrounding the temple is

neither practical nor acceptable to locals.

32.Final Report was submitted by B.K. Chaturvedi Committee

on April 2013 (Vol 1) before MoEF, inter alia, reiterating its

interim report on Dhari Devi Temple. Das Committee,

Chaturvedi and Joint Team constituted on the basis of direction

of this Court have, therefore, fully endorsed the views made by

INTACH on Dhari Devi Temple. We find no reason to differ from

the views expressed by the expert committee, which was

submitted hearing all the affected parties, including the

Trustees of the Temple, devotees, Pujaris etc. Committee

reports to that extent stand accepted.

Page 55 55

33.We are also not impressed by the argument that by

accepting the suggestions of all the expert committees to raise

the temple as such to a higher place, would wound the religious

feelings of the devotes or violate the rights guaranteed under

Article 25 of the Constitution. Sacred rock on which the

temple exits is still kept intact and only the height of the

temple increased so that the temple would not be submerged

in the water. In Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF , this

Court was examining the rights of Schedule Tribes and the

Traditional Forest Dwellers under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in

the light of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. This Court

held that those articles guarantee the right to practice and

proposals not only in matters of faith or beliefs, but all rituals

and observation. We are of the view that none of the rights of

the devotees of Dhari Devi Temple has been affected by raising

the level of the temple, which remains attached to the Sacred

Rock.

34.MoEF proceedings dated 30.06.2011, Report of the Das

Committee as well as the Joint Team dated 3.5.2013 refer to

the issue of muck management and disposal, catchment

Page 56 56

treatment area plan and green belt and also the safety of the

Dam.

Safety of the Dam

35.Dam safety and security is a matter of paramount

importance, failure of which can cause serious environmental

disaster and loss of human life and property. Proper

surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of dams is

essential to ensure for safe functioning of the Dams. The

Central Water Commission (CWC) is a premier technical

organisation of India in the field of water resources. The

Commission is also entrusted with the general responsibilities

of initiating, coordinating and furthering, in consultation with

the State Governments concerned, schemes for control,

conservation and utilisation of water resources throughout the

country for the purpose of flood control, irrigation, drinking

water supply and water power development. Safety of dams, in

our country, is the principal concern of the State Government.

The State Government has also to carry out investigation,

planning, design, construction and operation. AHPCL says, so

far as SHEP is concerned, engineering and technical

Page 57 57

parameters of the dam are clearly narrated in the detailed

project report which, in turn, are assessed by CEA in

consultation with the CEC and GSI. The norms and regulations

laid down by the concerned authorities, and whether those are

strictly followed or not, have to be assessed and monitored by

the Nodal Agency, CEA/Ministry of Power as well as the GSI.

Safety and security of the people

36.Safety and security of the people are of paramount

importance when a hydro electric project is being set up and it

is vital to have in place all safety standards in which public can

have full confidence to safeguard them against risks which they

fear and to avoid serious long term or irreversible

environmental consequences. The question as to whether the

recent calamities occurred at Uttrakhand on 16.6.2013 and,

thereafter, due to cloud burst, Chorabari Lake burst due to

unprecedented rain and consequent flooding of Alaknanda river

etc. has affected the safety of SHEP has also to be probed by

the MoEF, State of Uttarakhand and Dam Safety Authority etc.

Page 58 58

Muck Management and Disposal

37.Construction of SHEP involving excavation of earth and

rock has generated large quantum and with the objective to

protect the disposal areas from further soil erosion and develop

the surrounding areas in harmony with the environment, the

muck disposal plan is formulated. Muck disposal plan gives

quantification of muck, identifies location and activities wherein

muck is generated, during excavation and blasting operation

and quantifies muck generated from the activities with

relevance to disposal areas. The Das Committee visited the

project site and submitted a status report on 29-30 August,

2012 which has dealt with muck disposal, details of which have

already been dealt with in the earlier part of the Judgment.

Report of the Joint Committee dated 03.05.2013 also refers to

the AHPCL’s action plan regarding muck management and

disposal and recommended that remaining work, particularly,

of the permanent site No.8 and 9 be carried out at the earliest.

AHPCL has given the details of the work carried out for muck

disposal. Failure of removal of muck from the project site may

also cost flooding of the project areas, causing destruction to

the environment and to the life of property of the people.

Page 59 59

MoEF and State Government and all other statutory authorities

would see AHPCL takes proper action and steps for muck

management and disposal.

Catchment Area Treatment (CAT)

38.CAT is required to be carried out by the project developer

along with R & R and greenbelt activities, primarily to mitigate

the adverse environmental impact created by the project

construction. CAT is also resorted to reduce the inflow of silt

and prevent sedimentation of reservoirs. CAT management

involves steps to arrest soil erosion, rehabilitation of degraded

forest areas through afforestation, controlling landslide and

rockfalls through civil engineering measures and long time

maintenance of afforestation areas. Silt inflows in river water

not only result in reduction in storage capacity of dams, but

also lead to increased wear and tear of turbines. Therefore,

CAT is of crucial importance with regard to hydro electric

projects. CAT plan has been prepared by the Uttrakhand

Forest Department and the Project Proponent has paid the

estimated amount of Rs.22.30 crores to the State Forest

Department towards implementation of CAT Plan.

Page 60 60

39.We may, in this connection, refer to the brief note

submitted by the AHPCL wherein they have referred to

landslide which occurred in the catchment area of dam Manari

Bhali Stage-I in August 1978 blockading the Bhagirathi River

with a dam of muck, about 40 KM upstream of dam. This dam

of muck breached on its over after 12 hours and the monsoon

water accumulated during this period gushed out in form of a

wall of water about 20 meter high. The flood receded after a

few hours, but the dam did not suffer any damage. It was

pointed that during this flash flood period boulders up to 250

tonnes in weight had hit and rolled over the dam. The

discharge in the river had risen to 4500 Cum per sec. Further it

was also pointed out that in August 2012, partly constructed

Srinagar Dam also faced similar type of flood. This time due to

cloud bursts and breaching of coffer dams in the project

upstreams, the water level at the Dam rose by 17 meters, but

after the flood receded, no damage to the dam was noticed.

The discharge in the river had risen to 6500 Cum per sec.

AHPCL, therefore, maintains the stand that the structure

of the dam is strong enough to bear the pressure not less than

6500 Cum per sec of water discharge.

Page 61 61

40.The Principal Secretary of Forest Department, Government

of Uttarakhand submitted in a short affidavit dated 10.05.2013,

explaining the steps they have taken. The primary

responsibility is on the Forest Department to carry out

effectively the CAT Plan. Proper steps would be taken by the

concerned authorities, if not already taken. MoEF, State

Government and all other authorities will see the same is fully

implemented at the earliest, so also the recommendations

made by the Joint Team with regard to CAT.

Green Belt Development

41.AHPCL, it is seen, has deposited first year budget of

Rs.203.6 lakhs to the State Forest Department for green belt

rim of the reservoir in August 2012. Although green belt area is

earmarked the technical documents based on the maximum

flood level in the reservoir, the rim of the reservoir, could only

be determined and developed after reservoir is impounded.

Proper steps would be taken by the Forest Department of

Uttarakhand to carry out the green belt development area in

question. The MoEF, the State Government etc. would see that

Page 62 62

the proper steps would be taken by all the authorities including

the AHPCL to give effect to the directions given by the Joint

Team.

42.Going through the reports of Das Committee, Chaturvedi

Committee as well as the Joint Team and after perusing the

affidavits filed by the parties, we find no reason to hold up the

project which is almost nearing completion. MoEF, AHPCL,

Government of Uttarakhand, Forest Department would take

immediate steps to comply with all the recommendations made

by Joint Team in the report dated 03.05.2013 and also oversee

whether AHPCL is complying with those directions as well.

43.Under such circumstances, the Appeal in SLP (C) No.

362/2012 would stand allowed and the judgment of the High

Court stands set aside. Consequently the SLP (C) Nos. 5849-

5850 of 2012 would stand dismissed. All the Transferred

matters from NGT are also disposed of as above.

Court’s concern

Page 63 63

44.We are, however, very much concerned with the

mushrooming of large number of hydroelectric projects in the

State of Uttarakhand and its impact on Alaknanda and

Bhagirathi river basins. Various studies also indicate that in

the upper-Ganga area, including Bhagirathi and Alaknanda

rivers and their tributaries, there are large and small hydro

power dams. The cumulative impact of those project

components like dams, tunnels, blasting, power-house, muck

disposal, mining, deforestation etc. on eco-system, is yet to be

scientifically examined. MoEF undertook two studies in the

recent past:

(i)Assessment of Cumulative Impact of Hydropower

Projects in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins which was

entrusted by National River Conservation Directorate

(NRCD) of MoEF to the Alternate Hydro Energy Centre

(AHEC), IIT Roorkee vide proceedings dated July 14,

2010.

(ii)MoEF also vide their proceedings dated 23

rd

July, 2010

authorized Wild Life Institute of India (WII), Dehradun to

make an assessment on cumulative impacts of

“Hydroelectric Projects on Aquatic and Terrestrial

Page 64 64

Biodiversity in Alaknanda and Bhagirathi Basins,

Uttarakhand.

45.AHEC submitted their report to MoEF in December 2011

and WII finalized its report in December 2012. AHEC made

some recommendations on Geology, seismology, soil erosion,

sedimentation etc. Some of the major recommendations of

the study covered the aquatic biodiversity profile, critically

important fish habitats including recommendation on Fish

Conservation Reserve at Nayar River and Bal-Ganga, Tehri

Reservoir Complex. WII made recommendations on impact on

aquatic biodiversity and their habitats, terrestrial component of

biodiversity and details about these in the river basins.

Recommendations were also made covering environmental

flows, conservation, reserve, strategic option of regulating

impact of hydropower projects of different categories and

impact on aquatic biodiversity and terrestrial biodiversity in the

above mentioned basins.

46.We have gone through the Reports and, prima facie, we

are of the view that the AHEC Report has not made any indepth

study on the cumulative impact of all project components like

Page 65 65

construction of dam, tunnels, blasting, power-house, Muck

disposal, mining, deforestation etc. by the various projects in

question and its consequences on Alaknanda as well as

Bhagirathi river basins so also on Ganga which is a pristine

river. WII in its Report in Chapter VIII states as follows:

“Para 8.3.2Present and future scenario

The scenario building for assessing impacts on

biodiversity values portrays very distinctively the

present and futuristic trends of the impact significance

of hydropower developments in all the sub-basins in

the larger landscape represented by the Alaknanda

and Bhagirathi basins.

It becomes apparent that because of the fact that

many of the projects are already in stage of operation

and construction, the reversibility in significance of

impacts on terrestrial biodiversity is not possible in

sub-basins. Decline in biodiversity values of Bhagirathi

II sub-basin have significantly been compounded by

Tehri dam.

The scenarios provide adequate understanding to

make decisions with respect to applying exclusion

approach across the two basins for securing key

biodiversity sites (such as critically important habitats)

Page 66 66

and prevent adverse impacts on designated protected

areas.

Based on five different scenarios that have been

presented the most acceptable option suggests that

the decision with respect to 24 proposed Hydro Electric

Projects may be reviewed.”

47.WII report also states that out of total 39 proposed

projects, 24 projects have been found to be significantly

impacting biodiversity in the two sub-basins and the combined

footprint of all 24 projects have been considered for their

potential to impact areas with biodiversity values, both aquatic

and terrestrial, critically important habitat of rare, endangered

and threatened species of flora and fauna and IWPA projected

species.

48.B.K. Chaturvedi Committee, after referring to both the

Reports, in Chapter III (Volume I, April 2013) stated as follows:

“3.66The River Ganga has over a period of years

suffered environmental degradation due to various

factors. It will be important to maintain pristine river

in some river segments of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi.

It accordingly recommends that six rivers, including

Nayar, Bal Ganga, Rishi Ganga, Assi Ganga, Dhauli

Ganga (upper reaches), Birahi Ganga and Bhyunder

Page 67 67

Ganga, should be kept in pristine form and

developments along with measures for environment

up gradation should be taken up. Specifically, it is

proposed that (a) Nayar River and the Ganges

stretch between Devprayag and Rishikesh and (b)

Balganga – Tehri Reservoir complex may be declared

as Fish Conservation Reserve as these two stretches

are comparatively less disturbed and have critically

important habitats for long-term survival of

Himalayan fishes basin. Further, no new power

projects should be taken up in the above six river

basins. In the IMG’s assessment, this will mean

about 400 MW of Power being not available to the

State.

3.67 Pending a longer term perspective on the

Ganga Basin Management Plan, following policy

needs to be followed to implement the hydro power

projects on the River Ganga on Bhagirathi and

Alaknanda basins:

(i)No new hydropower projects be taken up beyond

69 projects already identified (Annex-VIA-VID).

(ii)New hydropower projects may be permitted to be

constructed with limitations as in Paras 3.52-3.54

above and giving priority to those projects already

under construction.

(iii)New hydropower projects which are still under

investigation or under development are not being

proposed for implementation. However, two such

Page 68 68

projects can be considered and a view taken after

technical assessment by the CEA.

Based on the above, projects at Annex-VID may

need a review and decision till after long term Ganga

basin study by IIT Consortium.

3.70 The River Ganga has been a pristine River.

Over a period of years, it has been used for

irrigation, drinking water and other purposes. The

efforts to keep it in the pristine form have been

minimal. The IMG felt that it will be necessary to

take measures for ensuring that several parts of it

which have so far not been impacted continue to be

in the pristine form. Secondly, it consider necessary

to take measures on pollution, particularly in the

upper reaches and the two basins of Bhagirathi and

Alaknanda. The IMG, therefore, recommends that

six rivers, including Nayar, Bal Ganga River, Rishi

Ganga, Assi Ganga, Dhauli Ganga (upper reaches),

Birahi Ganga and Bhyunder Ganga rivers should be

kept in pristine form no further hydropower

developments should take place in this region.

Further, environment upgradation should be taken

up in these sub-basins extensively.”

49.In the Executive Summary of Chaturvedi Report, on the

question of ‘Environmental Impact of Projects’, reads as follows:

4.17Development of new hydropower projects has impact

on environment, ecology, biodiversity, both terrestrial &

Page 69 69

aquatic and economic and social life. 69 hydropower

projects with a capacity of 9,020.30 MW are proposed in

Bhagirathi and Alaknanda basins. This includes 17

projects which are operational with a capacity of

2,295.2 MW. In addition, 26 projects with a capacity of

3,261.3 MW (including 600 MW Lohari Nagpala

hydropower project, work on which has been suspended

by Government decision) which were under

construction, 11 projects with a capacity of 2,350 MW

CEA/TEC clearances and 16 projects with a capacity of

1,673.8 MW under development.

4.18 The implementation of the above 69 hydropower

projects has extensive implications for other needs of

this society and the river itself. It is noticed that the

implementation of all the above projects will lead to

81% of River Bhagirathi and 65% of River Alaknanda

getting affected. Also there are a large number of

projects which have very small distances between them

leaving little space for river to regenerate and revive.

50. The above mentioned Reports would indicate the adverse

impact of the various hydroelectric power projects on the

ecology and environment of Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river

basins. The cumulative impact of the various projects in place

and which are under construction on the river basins have not

Page 70 70

been properly examined or assessed, which requires a detailed

technical and scientific study.

51.We are also deeply concerned with the recent tragedy,

which has affected the Char Dham area of Uttarakhand. Wadia

Institute of Himalayan Geology (WIG) recorded 350mm of rain

on June 15-16, 2013. Snowfall ahead of the cloudburst also has

contributed to the floods resulting in the burst on the banks of

Chorabari lake near Kedarnath, leading to large scale calamity

leading to loss of human lives and property. The adverse

effect of the existing projects, projects under construction and

proposed, on the environment and ecology calls for a detailed

scientific study. Proper Disaster Management Plan, it is seen,

is also not in place, resulting in loss of lives and property. In

view of the above mentioned circumstances, we are inclined to

give following directions:

(1)We direct the MoEF as well as State of Uttarakhand

not to grant any further environmental clearance or

forest clearance for any hydroelectric power project

in the State of Uttarakhand, until further orders.

Page 71 71

(2)MoEF is directed to constitute an Expert Body

consisting of representatives of the State

Government, WII, Central Electricity Authority,

Central Water Commission and other expert bodies to

make a detailed study as to whether Hydroelectric

Power Projects existing and under construction have

contributed to the environmental degradation, if so,

to what extent and also whether it has contributed to

the present tragedy occurred at Uttarakhand in the

month of June 2013.

(3)MoEF is directed to examine, as noticed by WII in its

report, as to whether the proposed 24 projects are

causing significant impact on the biodiversity of

Alaknanda and Bhagirath River basins.

(4)The Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand

would submit a Report to this Court as to whether

they had any Disaster Management Plan is in place in

the State of Uttarakhand and how effective that plan

was for combating the present unprecedented

tragedy at Uttarakhand.

Page 72 72

52.Reports would be submitted within a period of three

months. Communicate the order to the Central and State

Disaster Management Authority, Uttarakhand.

53.In view of above, civil appeals and transferred cases are

disposed of.

…………………………… ..J.

(K.S. Radhakrishnan)

……………………………..J.

(Dipak Misra)

New Delhi,

August 13, 2013