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  15th 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 27th  

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 27th 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 3rd 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  15th 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 27th 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 1st

Page 19

19

and 2nd 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  3rd meeting on 16th 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. 13th 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 16-17th  June,  2012  and  29-30th 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  3000m3/sec in the river.

4. The existing slope of the muck disposed off  is around 40-45o and shall be flattened to 35o.  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 –  21o/25o,  18o/33o,  site  6  –  28o/29o,  32o/32o,  site  7  –  33o/29o,  37o/36o/27o,  site  8  –  31o,32o,  site  9  –  35o/36o/35o/37o, 35o/32o.

Slopes of muck disposal areas (angle of repose) are  given as 45o 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  35o.   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 35o, 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:

“4.0 Restoration of Dhari Devi Temple

The  Team  visited  the  temple  premises  and  surroundings on 29th 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.  

4.1 Upliftment  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.

4.2 On  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.

5.2.1 Dhari  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.

6.0 Conclusion  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 15th 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:

12.3 Construction 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 3rd 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 23rd 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 8.3.2 Present 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:   

“3.66 The 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:

4.17 Development 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