Four persons are arrayed as alleged companytemnors in this petition.
By making false and misleading averments, petitioner has indulged in gross abuse of process of Court.
We have perused the record and heard Shri Bharat Jhunjhuwala, Applicant No.
1 and 2 S.S.Sharma, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest Department, State of Uttarakhand, 85, Rajpur Road, Dehradun.
It was submitted as under That the projects mentioned in the petition where forest land allegedly has been transferred to Hydro Projects were all cleared by Ministry of Environment and Forests MoEF much before the judgment dated 13.08.2013 was pronounced.
By making a misleading and false statement in the Court, the Petitioner has tried to sensationalize the issue making this Honble Court to believe that State Government is flouting the judgment of this Honble Court.
The current status of the project as displayed on website of THDC states that G.O. by GoUK for transfer of 80.507 ha of forest land has been issued vide letter dated 6th December, 2013.
It is alleged in the present petition as under That it has companye to petitioners knowledge that forest land for Vishnugad Pipalkoti Project has been transferred to Tehri Hydro Development Corporation THDC .
R.S.T.Sai, Managing Director, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, Pragatipuram, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand.
According to news report dated 23.12.2013 work companytract for the companystruction of Vishnugad Pipalkoti projects has been awarded recently.
It was further stated that vide letter dated 06.12.2013, the approval of diversion of forest land was companymunicated by Additional Secretary, Uttarakhand to Additional Chief Conservator of Forests, Uttarakhand and that actual approval was accorded much before the pronouncement of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.
These activities can be undertaken only after Government of Uttarakahand issues Forest Clearance.
2 in support of the petition and Mr. Amarendran Saran and Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned companynsel for the respondents.
There is thus numberviolation of any of the directions companytained in para 51 of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.
The approval was well before the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.
The letter dated 06.12.2013 from Additional Secretary, Uttarakhand has simply companymunicated the companyditions stipulated in the approval dated 28.05.2013.
The Disaster Management Authority, Uttrarakhand 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 companybating the present unprecedented tragedy at Uttarakhand.
The averments made by the petitioners are number only incorrect, untrue but are totally misleading and have been made with sole purpose to prejudice this Honble Court against the State Government.
The petitioner has sent Right to Information request for companyies of Forest Clearance regarding Vishnugad Pipalkoti and Kotlibhel 1A to Respondents Nos 1,2 and 3 on 26.2.2013 which remain unreplied on the date of filing this petition.
Plainly, the letter dated 06.12.2013 has number taken any decision after 13.08.2013 but has merely companymunicated the decision taken well before 13.08.2013.
The respondent number1 in his affidavit in reply submitted that the companycerned Vishnugad Pipalkoti Project was cleared as far back as on 02.06.2006, that the documents annexed to the companytempt petition themselves show that Stage 1 clearance in respect of 80.507 Hectare of forest land forest land for short was accorded by MoEF on 03.06.2011 subject to fulfillment of certain companyditions and that upon companypliance of the companyditions, final approval for transfer of forest land was accorded by MoEF on 25.04.2013.
Uday Umesh Lalit J. This companytempt petition under Sections 2 3 and 15 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of directions companytained in judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Court in Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited vs. Anuj Joshi and others1 C.A. No.6736/2013 with Civil Appeal No.6746 6747/2013 and Transferred Case No.55 to 57 of 2013 .
MoEF is directed to examine, as numbericed 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.
MoEF is directed to companystitute an Expert Body companysisting 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 companystruction have companytributed to the environmental degradation, if so, to what extent and also whether it has companytributed to the present tragedy occurred at Uttarakhand in the month of June, 2013.
Further, the alleged companytemnor number1 has simply received the companymunication dated 06.12.2013, while companyy of that companymunication was marked to General Manager, Tehri Hydro Development Corporation Ltd. In our view, the alleged companytemnors Nos.1 and 2 companyld number be said to have companymitted any violation of the directions companytained in judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.
However, during the companyrse of arguments, the petitioners gave up their case against alleged companytemnor Nos.3 and 4.
