Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

  CONTEMPT PETITION NO 245 OF 2014    

IN  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.6736 OF 2013

Anuj  Joshi & Anr.     ……Petitioners

Versus

Chief Conservator of Forests & Others                          …. Respondents

  O R  D E R    

Uday Umesh Lalit J.

1. This contempt petition under Sections 2(3) and 15 of the Contempt of Court  

Act, 1971 read with Article 129 of the Constitution of India alleges violation of  

directions contained in judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 passed by this Court  

in Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited vs. Anuj Joshi and others1 (C.A.  

1  (2014)1 SCC 769

Page 2

2

No.6736/2013 with Civil Appeal No.6746-6747/2013 and Transferred Case No.55  

to 57 of 2013).  Four persons are arrayed as alleged contemnors in this petition.  

However,  during  the  course  of  arguments,  the  petitioners  gave  up  their  case  

against alleged contemnor Nos.3 and 4.  We are also satisfied that no case is made  

out  against  them and as  such the proceedings against  them are  dropped.   We  

therefore,  confine  ourselves  in  respect  of  alleged  act  of  contempt  on  part  of  

alleged contemnor Nos.1 and 2.  

2. In the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013 this Court had passed certain  

directions in paragraph 51.  We may quote said paragraph 51 :

“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 3

3

(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,  Uttrarakhand  would  submit a Report to this Court as to whether they had any Disaster  Management Plan is in place in the State of Uttarakhand and how  effective  that  plan  was  for  combating  the  present  unprecedented  tragedy at Uttarakhand.”

3. It is alleged in the present petition as under:

“That  it  has  come  to  petitioners’ knowledge  that  forest  land  for  Vishnugad-Pipalkoti  Project  has  been  transferred  to  Tehri  Hydro  Development  Corporation  (THDC).   The  current  status  of  the  project as displayed on website of THDC states that “G.O. by GoUK  for transfer of 80.507 ha of forest land has been issued vide letter  dated  6th December,  2013.”   According  to  news  report  dated  23.12.2013  work  contract  for  the  construction  of  Vishnugad- Pipalkoti projects has been awarded recently.  These activities can  be undertaken only after Government of Uttarakahand issues Forest  Clearance.  The petitioner has sent Right to Information request for  copies  of  Forest  Clearance  regarding  Vishnugad-Pipalkoti  and  Kotlibhel  1A to Respondents  Nos 1,2 and 3 on 26.2.2013 which  remain unreplied on the date of filing this petition.  Though Stage 1  and  Stage  2  Forest  clearances  were  issued  to  the  Vishnugad- Pipalkoti  project  before  13.08.2013,  however,  State  Government  appears to have issued Forest Clearance after 13.08.2013 which is in  contempt of the judgment of this Hon’ble Court.”

Page 4

4

4. Insofar  as  the  aforesaid  alleged violations  are  concerned,  the  following  

persons are arrayed as alleged contemnor Nos. 1 and 2:

1. S.S.Sharma,  Principal  Chief  Conservator  of  Forests,  Forest  Department,  State of Uttarakhand, 85, Rajpur Road, Dehradun.

2. R.S.T.Sai,  Managing  Director,  Tehri  Hydro  Development  Corporation, Pragatipuram,  Rishikesh,  Uttarakhand.

5.     The  respondent  no.1  in  his  affidavit  in  reply  submitted  that  the  

concerned Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Project was cleared as far back as on 02.06.2006,  

that the documents annexed to the contempt petition themselves show that Stage  

1 clearance in respect of 80.507 Hectare of forest land (‘forest land’ for short)  

was accorded by MoEF on 03.06.2011 subject to fulfillment of certain conditions  

and that upon compliance of the conditions, final approval for transfer of forest  

land was accorded by MoEF on 25.04.2013.  It was further stated that vide letter  

dated 06.12.2013, the approval of diversion of  forest land was communicated by  

Additional  Secretary,  Uttarakhand to Additional Chief  Conservator  of  Forests,  

Uttarakhand  and  that  actual  approval  was  accorded  much  before  the  

pronouncement of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013. It was submitted as  

under:

Page 5

5

“That the projects mentioned in the petition where forest land  allegedly  has  been  transferred  to  Hydro  Projects  were  all  cleared  by  Ministry  of  Environment  and  Forests  (MoEF)  much before the judgment dated 13.08.2013 was pronounced.  The averments made by the petitioners are not only incorrect,  untrue but are totally misleading and have been made with  sole purpose to prejudice this Hon’ble Court against the State  Government.   By  making  false  and  misleading  averments,  petitioner has indulged in gross abuse of process of Court.  By  making  a  misleading and  false  statement  in  the  Court,  the  Petitioner  has  tried  to  sensationalize  the  issue  making  this  Hon’ble Court  to believe that  State Government is flouting  the judgment of this Hon’ble Court.”  

6. We have perused the record and heard Shri Bharat Jhunjhunwala, Applicant  

No. 2 in support  of  the petition and Mr.  Mohan Parasaran and Ms.  Rachana  

Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents. The letter dated 06.12.2013 from  

Additional  Secretary,  Uttarakhand  has  simply  communicated  the  conditions  

stipulated in the approval dated 28.05.2013. The approval was well before the  

judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.  Plainly, the letter dated 06.12.2013 has not  

taken any decision after 13.08.2013 but has merely communicated the decision  

taken well before 13.08.2013.  There is thus no violation of any of the directions  

contained in para 51 of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.  Further, the  

alleged contemnor no.1 has simply received the communication dated 06.12.2013,  

while copy of that communication was marked to General Manager, Tehri Hydro  

Development Corporation Ltd.  In our view, the alleged contemnors Nos.1 and 2  

could not be said to have committed any violation of the directions contained in

Page 6

6

judgment and order dated 13.08.2013.

7. We, therefore, dismiss this contempt petition.    

………………………….J            (Dipak Misra)  

…..………………………J              (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi January 15, 2016

Page 7

7

1A-For Order             COURT NO.09               SECTION X                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS  CONMT.PET.(C) No. 245/2014 In C.A. No. 6736/2013   ANUJ JOSHI & ANR                               Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS & ORS                 Respondent(s) Date : 15/01/2016 This petition was called on for pronouncement of  ORDER today. For Petitioner(s)                      Mrs. Santosh Singh,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)  Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Abhinav Raghuvanshi, Adv.  Mr. Abhinandan Banerjee, Adv.                     

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit  pronounced  the order of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice  Dipak Misra and His Lordship.

Contempt  petition  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed non-reportable order.

         (VINOD KUMAR)        (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

  COURT MASTER       COURT MASTER    (Signed Non-Reportable order is placed on the file)