Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    IA 2 of 2009 and Reply Filed by GoAP PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ravindra Reddy Bhuma

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    IA 2 of 2009 and Reply Filed by GoAP PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ravindra Reddy Bhuma
    19 views110 pages

    Original Title

    IA 2 of 2009 and reply filed by GoAP.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    19 views110 pages

    IA 2 of 2009 and Reply Filed by GoAP PDF

    Uploaded by

    Ravindra Reddy Bhuma

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 110
    AFFIDAVIT FILED BY STATE OF ORISSA IN L.A.NO. 2 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO. 4 OF 2007 FOR STAY OF T.A.C. CLEARANCE GRANTED BY C.W.C TO ISPP ON 20.1.2009 AND REPLY AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON 23.11.2009. O/o. The Chief Engineer, ISPP Unit, Dowlaiswaram. 36 BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION L.A.NO 2 OF 2009 IN 0.8. NO 4 OF 2007 IN THE MATTER OF: STATE OF ORISSA VERSES STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS.. PETTIONER . DEFENDANTS. Reply by the State of Andhra Pradesh to |.A No.2/2009 filed by the State of Orissa_in 0.S. 4 of 2007. 1, Shailendra Kumar Joshi S/O Shankerlal Joshi Principal Secretary ( Projects) , Irrigation &CAD Department R/O Hyderabad do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: That {am the Principal Secretary ( Projects) , Irrigation &CAD Department of the 1* respondent herein and Defendant 1 in 0.8.4 of 2007, on the file of this Hon'ble Court and | am well acquainted with the facts of the case. | have gone through the application filed by the Applicant / Plaintiff and deny the various averments made -therein except those which are specifically admitted here under. The Applicant / Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the various averments therein. 1. . Itis submitted that in para 1 of the Application, the State of Orissa / Plaintiff stated about the prayer in the Application seeking i { Opies stay of the Clearance given by. the Technical Advisory Committee. (herein after called TAC) of the Central Water Commission, (herein after called CWC) in respect of Indira Sagar Polavaram Project on 20" January, 2009 and injunction restraining the 1* Respondent, the State of Andhra Pradesh from, proceeding further with the Construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project for the various points raised therein, 2." It'ls submitted that in para 2 of the Application, the applicant herein extracted the reliefs prayed for in 0.S. 4 of 2007 for the various reasons/grounds mentioned in the Plaint, as well. as the ‘eplication In the said Suit. This, Respondent / Defendant.1 filed the Written Statement and also reply to the replication and craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to the contents of the same and also the replies to. the various averments raised’ by the Applicant / Plaintiff. In addition to what is stated in the Written Statement and reply to the replication, the following lo stated in answer to various averments made in this Application. 3: With regard::to. the averments made in para 3 of the Application, it is. submitted’ ‘that the TAC. of Central Water Commission (CWC) in its. 95" meeting held on. 20-01-2009 considered the Techno Economic viability of Polavaram Project. |The allegation. of the. Applicant that the representatives of the States of Orissa and Chattisgarh were not invited though the. said wavy ev evvuuUyUY 88 two States are directly affected by the Project deviating frr hormal practice is not at all correct! Its relevant to point out tt ‘he CWC conducted several Inter State meetings in respect Consituction of Indira Sagar Polavaram Project, where “presentatives of States of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa ai Chattisgarh have participated and atter taking into consideratic ‘he Views expressed by the party States, CWC Tecorded i minutes including the findings of CWC and communicated th Same to the parties concemed, The Stale of Andhra Prades Prepared and submitted a Detailed Project Report (DPR) to cw. and copies of the same were sent to the party States of Oris. and Chattisgarh. Basing on the views expressed by the part States and concemed Directorates of CWC, minutes of meeting were ‘ecorded, including the findings of CWC. The cwc Prepared a note for placing it before TAC, basing on the findings Tecorded in the Inter State meetings held earlier and after scrutiny Of the Detailed Project Report (OPR) submitted by the State ot Andhra Pradesh. The TAC after going through the detailed note Submitted by CWC and (in case any clartication is Necessary) the views of the respective Directorates and the Project Proponent \where ever necessary have been taken into consideration and arived at the decision. As per the practice of the CWC, apart from inviting the concerned officials of various departments, the Z.. foncemed Project Proponent State whose Project is under a a a consideration alone is called for:the meeting: In the meeting held on 20-01-2009 the Projects relating to 6 other States were also considered by the TAC and the representatives of the respective States alone were called for when. its) Project was considered, | Hence the allegation that the representatives of the State of ‘Andhra Pradesh alone are invited while: the representatives of State of Orissa and Chattisgarh who are directly affected, bythe Project were not invited contrary to the normal practice is not at all correct; As: staied supra the normal practice. Is that. the representatives of the State concerned with the Projects alone are, invited. 4,” With regard to the averments made in.paras 4 & 9 it is submitted that, it is. a fact that CWC gave TAC Clearance with certain diréctions and the State of Andhra Pradesh will adhere to the said directions and. proceed with. ‘the construction of Indira ‘Sagar (Polavaram) Project.| 5. With regard to the averments made in para 7 that the Applicant State addressed “a letter dt. 24-01-2009 to CWC pointing out inter-alia five objections as stated in the said para and no reply has been received, hence the Plaintiff is compelled to approach this Hon'ble Court for stay of the clearance granted is completely misleading. The State of Orissa is only inventing a round to approach this Hon'ble Court and stall the construction "Jo = of.the Project on some pretext or other. All the objections which were pointed out, in its letter dated: 24-01-2009 were considered by the concemed authorities during several Inter State meetings held earlier and basing on the views expressed by the concerned authorities and different Directorates in CWC, the CWC prepared ‘a note and circulated it to Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The.TAC in the meeting held on 20-01-2009 in the presence of | concerned other Central Authorities as well as representatives of the concerned Project and after detailed examination of the note submitted by CWC and also by taking the views of the authorities where ever necessary, granted clearance for the Project. It is submitted that to the five points mentioned in para 7 of the Application. which have been mentioned in the letter of the Applicant dt. 24-01-2009 addressed to CWC, the following is submitted. In so far as point No.1 is concemed, the allegation that ‘embankments are not permanent solution for effectively | containing submergence during floods and the discussion on this | issue at the Inter State meetings at Central Water Commission | (CWC) and Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) had not been considered either by Central Water Commission (CWC) or MOTA is not at all correct. It is submitted that a meeting was held by | Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) on 03-04-2007 wherein the representatives of States of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Chattisgarh were present apart from the concemed officials. In the said meeting the views expressed by the States of Andhra Pradesh, Orissa and Chattisgarh were discussed and arrived at a decision to have a categorical technical view from CWC * Whether construction of embankments’ would prevent all kinds of submergence in the States of Orissa and Chattisgarh as well as any impact on the drainage system and consequently would prevent the displacement of people in these two States and after receipt of the same, the Ministry would be in a position to take a view on the clearance of R&R Plan and the same may be provided on 9" or 10" April, 2007 ". Basing on the same, CWC has intimated to Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) by its letter dated: 11-04-2007 stating that construction of embankments is an established practice of flood management in the country and large tracts of land have been provided with a reasonable degree of protection from floods within India and also in various other countries by embankments. Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) by its proceedings dated: 17-04- 2007 granted R&R Clearance after taking into consideration the views expressed by the concerned States and the recommendations of CEC as well as the report of CWC dated: 11-04-2007. It is clear from the above that the authorities as concerned adverted to the issue raised by the parties and arrived at the decision. In-so far as point No. 2 is concerned, it is submitted that itis clear from the minutes of the Inter State meeting held on 29-10- 2007 that the concen of backwaters in two limbs of Godavari (.e, Sabari and Sileru) covering in the State of Orissa expressed by its representatives was clarified by CWC stating that the design flood at the Project site is a cumulative effect of flood of all reaches of river. and the backwater studies carried out independently by CWC also confirmed the studies carried out by Government of Andhra Pradesh. In so far as point No.3 is concerned it is submitted that as per pata 18.6.2.3 of CWC guidelines 2000 for preparation of DPRs, it is clearly stated that the acquisition may be done up to FRL only. The guidelines for preparation of DPR and Project estimates, further prescribe that for acquisition of land the effect of backwater need not be taken into consideration. The area which comes under submersion up to FRL +150 ft comes to 648.05 Ha in Orissa and 795.59 Ha in Chattisgarh. For the area coming under submergence between FRL and back water level which is above +150 ft, the States can have the: option either for compensation or for protection with protective embankments Which can be exercised at the appropriate time during i | a2 o construction of Project as provided in the interstate agreement dated 2.4.1980, In‘so far as point No.4 is concerned, it is submitted that the contention of the petitioner that design capacity of the spillway is inadequate is not at all correct. The agreement dated 02.04.1980 between the States of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh (now Chattisgarh) and Orissa which has been made part of the GWDT Award, provides that the Polavaram Project spillway should be designed for a flood discharge capacity of 36.0 lakh cusecs at pond level of + 140 ft. ‘As per the criteria laid down in BIS Code 11223 — 1995 “Fixing the spillway capacity of the Dam’, Polavaram dam is required to be designed for Probable Maximum Flood (PMF). The CWC has estimated PMF for Polavaram Project as 141535 cumecs (about 50 lakh cusecs) and recommended it as the design flood for the Project. This is required to ensure safe passage of flood during an extreme event and thereby ensuing safety of the dam. However Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is not to be used for estimation of submergence due to backwater effects. The Rastriya Barh Ayog (RBA) 1980 has recommended for 1 in 100 year return period flood for protection of urban area and in 25 years return period flood for rural areas. Therefore the backwater studies carried out for a discharge of 36 lakh a4 a i clisécs which corresponding to 1 in 500 year return period flood is Much on higher side than the norms of RBA. This aspect has been made clear to the representatives of Orissa and Chattisgarh States by CWC in the Interstate meeting held'on' 29.10.2007. This position is also reiterated by CWC in the form of an affidavit filed before this Hon'ble Court in LA.No.1572 & 1578 of 2006 and 2190/2008 in WP(C) No.202 of 1995. The same was filed as Annexure D-6 along with the Written ‘Statement filed by this Respondent/Defendant No.1. According to CWC the design inflow flood adopted for the dam is PMF (about 50 lakh cusecs). This has been done from the safety point of view of the proposed dam and with this there is no violation of the GWOT Award. The FRL has been kept as 150ft in accordance with the Award of the tribunal. The representatives of Orissa in the Interstate meeting held on 29.10.2007 expressed that the backwater studies be carried out for PMF condition, the CWC clarified that as per existing provision the maximum design flood adopted for backwater studies is a 100 year flood. It was also clarified that in spite of the above, a flood of 36 lack cusecs (500 year flood) has been considered for backwater studies as per Godavari Tribunal Award, changing the design flood to about 50 lakh cusecs (PMF) and still 45 ae using 36 lakh cusecs flood for backwater studies does not violate the provisions of the Award. In point No. 5, the applicant State alleged that due to change in the design flood from 36 lakh cusecs as envisaged in Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) Award, to 50 Lakh cusecs by the CWC there is necessity for change of the operation schedule of the reservoir which was prescribed in the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal (GWDT) Award in July 1980 is not at all correct. It is also relevant to point out that itis clearly stated in the agreement dt. 2-4-1980 which forms part of the Award wherein Clause (3) reads as follows. “3. On receipt of flood warning from the upper sites and or due to anticipated inflows into the reservoir requiring regulation, the pond levels shall be regulated as follows:- (2) the pond level of RL+145 (one hundred and forty five) feet shall be lowered progressively as the inflows exceed 3 (three) lakh cusecs so as to restrict the pond level to RL+140 (one ‘hundred and forty) feet for an. inflow of 10 (ten) lakh cusecs. (b)For inflows higher than 10 (ten) lakh cusecs the pond level shalll be further lowered, so that it does not exceed RL +130 (one hundred and thirty) feet for an inflow of 20 (twenty) lakh cusecs. i (¢ )For inflows higher than 20 (twenty) lakh cusecs, all the gates shall be opened fully. \) < (,d) The pond level can be built up progressively in the receding floods to RL+140 (one hundred and forty) feet if the linflow drops down to 10 (ten) lakh. cusecs and to RL+145 (one hundred and forty five) feet if the inflow drops down to 3 (three) ‘Takn cusecs or less, but during the months of July and August, the Pond level shall not exceed RL+145 (one hundred and forty five) feet, (2 )On or after first September, whenever the inflow in the Polavaram Reservoir is 1 (one) lakh cusecs or less, the storage at Polavaram can be built up beyond RL+145 (one hundred and forty five) feet, subject to aforementioned depletions at (a) to (c) in the case of higher inflows.” In view of the above, there is no question of change in operation schedule; but it is only to minimize the submersion in the upstream States. It is also clear from the operation schedule mentioned therein that for inflows higher than 10 lakh Cusecs, the pond level shall be further lowered so that it does not exceed RL (+) 130 ft for an inflow of 20 lakh cusecs and for inflows higher than 20 lakh cusecs all the gates shall be opened fully. Hence, whenever the flood occurs over and above 20 lakh cusecs, all the i ao Hye gates shall have to be opened fully to minimize the effect of submergence. | 8, ‘With regard fo the averments made in para 8 itis submitted that wine TAC meeting held on .20-1-2009, the letter dt. 20-1- 2009 writen by Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) was also. taken. into consideration. along with the views of the commissioner (PR), member. (WR&P), and the Joint Secretary from) Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA). and. also the Principal Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh and finally accepted the. Project proposal. with certain. observations. As per the: observations made while clearing the project by TAC, the State of Andhra Pradesh shall give to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) the details of the protection bunds along Seber and Sileru to prevent the submergence in Chattisgarh and Orissa in accordance with orders of High Court of Orissa and conditions imposed by Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA), and Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) and take their concurrence before construction of these protection embankments. The Environmental Appraisal Committoe (EAC) of Minietry. of Environment and Forests (MOEF) considered the. details submitted by the State of Andhra Pradesh in respect of protection bunds ‘in Sabari and Silera and the committee opined that the Which is highest competent authority of Government of India 48 as has already approved the proposal) of Government of Andhra Pradesh for construction of embanknients after taking the various relevant technical factors into consideration and after the approval given| by the CWC, the Government of Andhra Pradesh approached’ the MoEF for environmental clearance for construction of embankments. The committee also noted that the present proposal is for the construction of Protective embankments along with rivers Sabari and Sileru with a view to avoid any land submergence in the states of Orissa & Chattisgarh, as directed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa. It is also noted that the project was already given environmental clearance for the other components during 2005. and construction of embankments now proposed does not change the scope of the project which was cleared earlier. Therefore the contention of the plaintiff that if bunds were Proposed, it would be treated as a change in the scope of the Project and proposal would need fresh appraisal and in the absence of fresh appraisal by MoEF, the clearance itself is vitiated and cannot be acted upon is not at all correct and hence denied. 7: |The averments in para 9 of the application that in the summary record of discussions of TAC, it is wrongly mentioned bei a9 that the Environmental Clearance was accorded by Ministry of rvronment and Forests (MOEF) with the Stipulation to adhere to Hon’ ble High Court of Orissa dt. 22-3-2006 in W.P No. 3669/2006 though the Environmental Clearance was accorded on 25-10- 2008 i -¢-, much earlier to the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Prissa dt.22-3-2006 is not correct. It is pertinent to Point out that the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) by its letter {81.25-4-2006 intimated that in addition to the Cohditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance granted on 25-10-2005 the following condition be added to the same, "I Is oben to the State of Andhra Pradesh to proceed with the Construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Multi purpose project afler complying with the requirements of all laws applicable in this regard, in such manner that no land / vilage / area situated within ‘the ‘Territory of the State of Orissa is submerged’, This is also clear from the Annexure-4 filed along with the application which is mentioned from page 38 onwards Hence, {here is absolutely no substance in the allegations made in para ©) of the application. 8. With regard to averments mad in para 10 of the application its submitted that scrutiny of DPR is a dynamic process in CWC. tis true that CWC has recommended the design inflow flood of 5 lakh cusecs for Polavaram Project to be used in the spillway i | 100 ag design during September, 2006. As per the GWDT Award the design of Polavaram Project is left to CWC. As per BIS code, the capacity of the spillway is to be checked for PMF. The CWC has checked the spilway capacity for 60 lakh cusecs. The CWC made it clear in the Inter State meeting held on 29-10-2007 Wherein’ it was clarified that “in accordance with the BIS code on fixation 6f spillway the design flow flood adopted for the ‘dam is PMF (about 50 lakh cusecs) and not 36 lakh cusecs which was 1 in 500 year return flood. This has been done from the view point of safety of the proposed dam and with this there is no violation of GWDT Award. The FRL has been Kept as + 150 ft in accordance with the Award of the Tribunal”. (vide minutes of the Interstate meeting held on 29.10.2007). The CWC has further clarified in the ‘affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in IA No.1572/06 & 1578/06 that, PMF is not to be used for estimation of submergence due to backwater effect. The Rastriya Barh Ayog (RBA) 1980 has recommended for 4 in 100 year retum period flood for protection of urban area and 1 in 25 year return period flood for rural areas. Therefore, the backwater studies carried out for a discharge of 36 lakh cusecs which corresponding to 1 in 500 year return period flood is much on higher side than the norms of RBA. 9. | With! regard to the averments made in para 11 it is submitted that, the designs of the structures form part of the ©) 46 detailed Project report of Polavaram Project and various directorates. in Cwco Scrutinized the same before approving it. Hence, the allegation that DPR does not Incorporate these designs is not correct. It is relevant to submit that in the instant cése the PMF Of 50 Lakh cusecs is arrived at which corresponds fo the return period of 5000 years. The spillway is designed for the PMF of 50 lakh cusecs. Hence, it is not correct to state that the Spillway is designed for a lower design flood of 36 lakh cusecs, The CWC has made it clear to the representatives of Orissa that the flood studies caried out for the project is adequate. In fact if all the upstream Projects are also taken into Consideration, the flood Peak will further reduce and the contention of the petitioner that the design flood of 50 lakh cusecs approved by the CWC is underestimated is baseless and not correct, 10. The averments in para 12 that gencrally embankments are not favoured in the case of projects involving large reservoirs as a flood control mechanism is not at all correct, It is also not correct {0 Point out by picking up some observations here and there from ‘Annexure (8) instead of taking into consideration the ultimate Wows on the overall effect of the construction of embankments, It is clear from the reading of the entire Annexure that construction of embankments is the best method to avoid submergence. The D y Applicant State is having the option either to have construction of fee ROR og! nbankmnents to. avoid submergence or to claim* ‘the ‘aaa i With regard to the averments made in para 14 of the. application i is submitted that the allegation that the respondent 4 oa of AP'is proceeding with utmost haste with the construction ‘ f the Project and the spillway of pe Project is already under f banetucin and.80% of the canal works is already completed is ie correct. It is submitted that Spnetnuction of a Major Project like the present one takes several: ae Tenders are called for the ct works Including spillway. The spillway is proposed in the arrow gorge portion between. ‘two ihlaeks. Only excavation work’ he locate the spillway in the gorge tortion Is under progress. ‘No ‘Concrete work of spillway is commenced i.e.,. only. preliminary Works are under progress. . As the actual spillway structure work is not yet commenced, the allegation of the petitioner that the work, is Commenced without, environmental clearance’ and | finalization of design fload is baseless and not correct. In regard to the canal works, only 30% of works'has’been carried out and the above: sald allegation regarding 80% of the: canal work is baseless and not correct. 12. With’ regard: to, the. averments. made in para 15 of the application that the condition stipulated while. granting clearance Of the project by TAC states that “The project authorities shall give lod ae MOEF the details of the proposed protection bunds along dod and’ Sileru to prevent submergence in Orissa and Chattisgarh in accordance with ordérs of Hon'ble High Court of embankments”. It is submitted that in compliance of the above Condition the details of the embankments are already submitted to { MOEF.' The Construction of embankments are not yet commenced, hence there is no violation of the condition laid down yy the CWC in the 95" meeting of its Advisory Committee held on 20-01-2009. 13. . With regard to averments made in para 16 of the application lit is submitted that the State of Orissa have concluded an ‘agreement. on 02-04-1980 which became part of the GWDT ‘Award.. It is clear from the agreement that “In order to protect the lands and properties above RL+150 (one hundred and fifty) fect in the territory of the State of Orissa likely to be affected due to construction of Polavaram Project, protective embankments with adequate drainage sluices, shall be constructed and maintained at the cost of Polavaram Project’. The CWC in its letter dated: 11-04-2007 clarified that the construction of embankments is an established practice of flood management in the country. Large tracts of land have been provided with a reasonable degree of protection from flood within India and various other countries by mt | I it ‘ bankments. However, adequate maintenance and draining nbankments, and to prevent water-logging in areas protected by mbankments. The only option available to the Plaintiff State is éither to accept for construction of embankments or to opt for Holi R&R plan, the expenditure of which is to be borne by the State of AP. Hence the contentions raised by the Plaintiff -State are Yntenable. ii ‘With regard to averments mate in paras 17 to 19 of the Appleaton, it is submitted that] in view of the facts & ircumstances stated above there are absolutely no grounds to jrant any interim relief in favour of the Petitioner J Plaintif Neither the balance of convenience nor a prima-facie case is in favour of the Plaintiff. No irreparable injury will be caused to the plaintiff even if the Interim relief is not granted. On the other hand, this respondent will be put to irreparable injury und damage in the event of any interim relief granted against it and the public interest will suffer, as taking up of this project is not only in the interest of State of Andhra Pradesh but also in national interest. Viewed from any angle it is manifestly evident that the Petitioner Plaintiff - State of Orissa has miserably falled in making out a prima facie case, warranting any interference or indulgence of this Hon'ble Court as such, the present injunction application is liable to be top loS~ ae gismissed. |For the various reagons stated above by this Resbordent; threfore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss this application with costs and pass such other Order of ofders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in (SHAILENDRA KUMAR JOSHI) Principal Secretary to Government (Projects) IRRIGATION & CAD DEPARTMENT ‘AP. Secretariat, Hydrabad. ',, Shailendra, Kumar Joshi S/O Shankerlal Joshi, Principal the circumstances of the case, Secretary (Projects), rigation & CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad do hereby verify and state that the contents of reply filed by the respondent No tare true to my iélowiedgb, derived from records and also based on legal advice. Settled by: be Mr. D.Sudershan Reddy. ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR JOSHI) Principal Secretary to Government Projects) Senior Advorate wiauion ea Geran Filed by} MrY.RAJAGOPALA RAO Advocate-on-Record for R1 ABA Ve “— 7 au Me it CgrrgsteD [ 8, NAGENGER-RAO. BSc. Pewsts ENOTARY 2 haVT OF AP, 'HUDA MATTRIVANAMS (SR_NAGAR POST) ee aan 6002 AON LZ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION LA. NO....2.....0P 2009 IN SUIT NO. 4 OF 2007 INTHE MATTER oF. State of Orissa Applicant/ Plaintiff, ” Versus Stace of A.P. & Ors, Respondents/defendants QREMICATION FOR STAY OF CPERATION OF CLEARANCE GRANTED BY THE TECHNICAL ADVISORY. COMMITTEE OF ‘THE SAGAR WATER COMMISSION IN RESPICY OF THE INDIRA RESTS A ROJECT ON 20"! JANUARY d009 ANC FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANT NO.i FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER WITH CONSTRUCTION WORK IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. PAPER- BOOK (FOR INDEX KINDLY SEB INSIDE) ADVOCATE FOR THE APPLICANT/PLAINTIFF: MR. R.S.JENA INDEX SRL.NO. PARTICULARS PAGE No. [1] Appreation tr Stay with affidavig, |Aamexurey— ———_____ | Annexure-{ True typed copy of the Proceedings of the meeting of the Technical Advisory Committee op the CWC ineld On 20.91.2009 |S: Annexure | True typed “copy of the acter dated 24.01.2009 from | 2728 Orissa to the Chief technical ciearance 4. /Annexure-3 Aa PEC copy of the letter dated 20.01 2009 from} 2930 Cie al tection, MoRF to Chis Rainont (Ao), ENG. im tespect of 95" meeting of Sn Advisory. ponmittee on Irrigation, Floor Conttel ond Multipurpose ! (oiets, stating the Environment Clearasee accorded | ‘0 the Polavaram Project on 25" Qetober 2005, [ansexuzea—————--______ | | Annexure-4 Annexure-4 Fis, OREM copy of the note circulated to the members of | 3144 the TAC during the meeting held on 20 January 2009, ~ | Annexure-6 True typed copy of the Design Flood study for Polavaram| 47—51 Project, Andhra Pradesh by CWC. nnexure-7 Hive typed copy of the Salient Features of the Polovaram | 5263 Project annexed to the note circulated during the meeting n 20.1.2009, 9. |Annexure-8 True typed Sopy of the paragraph 5.3.3 On pp. 28-31 of the 64—68 Report of the Working Group on the Flood Management for the Ninth Five Year Plan, dated August 1996, — ‘Annexure True typed onpy of the Annex. 5.1 titled “Effectiveness of Embankments—A Critivel Review appearing in the Theme Paper of the Water Resources Day 2001 prepared by IWRS" on pp. 204-205 of the Report of the Working Group on Flood Conuol Programme for the Tenth Five Year Plan, dated August 2001 Annexure-10 (Collectively) 1, True copy collected from Intemet in regard to Bihar Floods Himalayan Rivers. I. ‘True copy collected from Intemet in regard to Management of Floods in Bihar, IIL, Truc copy collected from Internet in regard to Kosi rising waters, dynamic Channels and urnan disasters. Annexur True copy download from Internet in regard to the News from the Hindu Polvacam Project daved 13.6.2008. ___| spittway and name of the contractor. Annexure-12 True photocopy of the Photograph of the board installed at the Polavaram Project site indicating date of construction of IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION LA. NO..24,....0F 2009 IN SUIT NO, 4 OF 2007 IN THE MATTER OF: State of Orissa Applicent/Plaintiff, Versus State of A.P, & Ors. Respondents/defendants TO HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA AND LORDSHIP'S COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA THE HUMBLE APPEAL OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED APPLICATION FOR STAY OF OPERATION OF THE CLEARANCE GRANTED By THE TECHNICAL ADvisory Comurrres OF THE CENTRAL WaTER COMMISSION IN RESPECT OF THe INDIRA SAGAR (POLAVARAM) PROJECT, ANDHRA PRADESH ON 20™ JaNUaRY, 2009 AND FOR INJUNCTION RESTRAINING DEFENDANT NO. 1 FROM PROCEEDING FURTHER WITH ‘CONSTRUCTION WORK IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT. ‘That for the detailed facts of the case the applicant craves eave to refer to and rely upon the contents of the Plaint and *) To declare that the first Defendant har no right or entitlement to undertake or proceed with the construction of Polavaram Project (now known as Indira Sagar Project) on Godavari river at Polavaram, ») To dectare the clearance of the Government of India Ministry of Environment & Forests dated 25.10.2005 as illegal, null and void, ©) To declare the tribal clearance given by the Secretary (ribal), Government of india, Ministry of Tribal Affairs , New Delhi as null and void. 4) To grant a permanent injunction Testraining the first defendant from undertaking or Proceeding with the ®) To declare the permission of Central Water Commission vide its letter No.6/125/2007 PAC (8) dated 11.4,2007 to Construct embankments as null and void and not based on Sny technical data. CWC has not done any investigation. Purther no data has been supplied to Plaintiff State of Orissa by CWC before giving its decision, related to the Polavaram Project (now known as Indira Sagar Project) on Godevari river at Polavaram being executed by the first Defendant, &) Pass a decree in terms of prayers; 4) or any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit; and §) Award costs of present proceedings in favour of Plaintiff, 3. That on 20% January, 2009, the Technical Advisory Committee of the Central Water Commission held its 95% meeting ‘0 consider the techno-economic viability of various Irrigation, Flood Control and Multipurpose Project proposals includ'ng the L \ Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project. It is pertinent to point out that while representatives of the State of Andhra Pradesh were present a8 ‘special invitees’, representatives of the States of Orissa and Chattisgarh were not invited though the said two states, apart from being co-basin states, are also states which are directly affected by the Project. This is a departure from normal practice, 4 That the Plaintiff-State however came to know from melia reports and CWC sources that at the said meeting a conditional clearance was given to the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Plaintiff- State thereupon approached the CWC and was given a copy of the Proceedings of the meeting held on 20‘ January, 2009. A true.copy of the said proceedings is annexed hereto as Annexure: 1. 5. That on perusal of the same will indicate that the Committce finally accepted the projec! proposals with the following ‘observations’: 1) The project authorities shall give to the MoEF the details of the proposed protection bunds along Sabari and Sileru to Prevent submergence in Orissa and Chattisgarh in accordance with orders of Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and condition imposed by MOTA and MoEF and takes their concurrence before construction of these protection embankments. 4) The project authorities shalt fulfil the stipulated conditions of MoEF and MoTA as Jaid down in their respective clearances, (embankments) would be sufficient to prevent submergence in the States of Orissa and Chattisgarh 7 That immediately. upon com ing to know of th2 grant of such clearance the Engineer in Chief, Water. Resources, Orissa Addressed a letter dated 24.01.2009 to the Chief Engineer, (Project Appraisal Organisation), CWC. A true Copy of the said letter is Snnexed hereto as Annexure-2, 6 In the said letter dated 24.01.2009, the State of Orissa has pointed out inter- alia that 1, Embankments are not permanent solutions for effectively containing submergence during floods, In this regard it was pointed out that the discussions on this issue at the interstate meetings at the CWC and Ministry of Tribal Affairs had not been considered either by the CWC or by the Ministry of Tribal Aftrirs. 2. The extent of submergence due to design flood (which had been revised 50 lakh cusecs from the original 36 lakh cusecs by the CWC itself) and the backwater effect along the Sabari and Sileru limbs (flowing through Orissa territory into the Godavari in Andhra Pradesh) had been finalised by the CWC without estimating the flood contributions from the said limbs separately, by any rational procedure or acceptable norms. 3, The Polavaram Project is likely to submerge about 2119.38 ha of land below RL of 179.85 feet in Naxalite affected Tribal areas of Malkangiri district in Orissa as per Remote Sensing data of April 2001 4. The design capacity of 36 lakh cusecs in the spillway of the project is inadequate, The water level in the upstream arcas during floods (of higher magnitude) would increase, due to the inadequate capacity of spillway arid thereby the backwater effect wov'ld be much more than what had been estimated, resulting in submergence of large areas in Orissa. F 5. Lue to a change in the design flood, (from 36 lakh cusecs as envisaged in the G.W.D.7. award to 50 lakh cusecs by the C.W.C.) there is necessity in change of the operation schedule for the reservoir, which was prescribed in the G.W.D.T. award in July 1980. It was therefore mandatory for the CWC to Finalise the revised reservoir operation schedule due to change in design flood in corsultation with co-basin States .e. Chattisgarh and Orissa, No reply has been received so far to the said communication, and hence the Plaintiff is compelled to approach this Hon’bie Court for stay of the clearance granted. 8 That it is also pertinent to point out that by its letter dated 20.1.2009, true copy whereof is annexed hereto us Annexure-3, the MOEF indicated that when Environmental Clearance was accorded on 25% October 2005, the construction of ‘the Bund was not considered by the then Expert Appraisal Committee and neither were details given in the 1.LA./E.M.P, report. The letter further indicated that if bunds were proposed on the river to stop submergence in Orissa and Chattisgarh, it would be treated as a change of scope of the project and that as per Condition No.6 of the Environmental Clearance dated 25.10.2005, the proposal would need fresh appraisal. The contents of the said letter have been noted in the minutes of the meeting dated 20.01.09. It is respectfully submitted that in the absence of a fresh appraisal by = the MOBF, the clearance itself is vitiated. The Present clearance therefore canno: be acted upon. ° That as per the letter dated 20.01.2009, of Additional Director MORE, addressed to the Chief Engineer (PAO), cwe, Environmental Clearance was accorded to Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Multipurpose project on 25.10.2008 on examination of the information submitted in the BIA/EMP report of the Government of AP by the Pxpect Appraisal Committee (ZAC) for River Valley and Hydro Electric Projects. But in the summary record of discussions of the meeting of the TAC, it is wrongly mentioned that the Environmental Clearance was accorded by M.O.B.F. with the stipulation to adhere to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa dated 22.03.2006 in W.P.No, 3669 of 2006. The Environmental clearance was accorded on 25.10;2005 i.e. much earlier to the direction of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa on 22.03.2006, 10. That it is also pertinent to point out that in the note sirculated to the members of the TAC for the meeting held on 20th Yanuary 2009, a true copy of which annexed hereto as Annexure- 4, 8 reference is made to a certificate enclosed at Appendix V-A, A ‘rue copy of the eaid certificate is annexed hereto as Annexure -5, Itis clear that the said certificate is dated 5.12.2005. On the said date the Probable Maximum Flood that was being worked on was 4 36 lakhs cusees. It is only subsequently, i.e. in September 2006 that the CWC recommended 50 lakh cusecs for spillway design. A “ue copy of the ‘Central Water Commission, Hydrology (South) Directorate, Design Flood Study for Polavaram Project (Andhra Pradesh)’ is annexed as Annexure-6, ‘Therefore when the note “tates that ‘all the design aspects have been duly appraised by the Central Water Commission’ the said appraisal was obviously for a design based only on a design flood of 36 lakh cusecs. This is further substantiated by the fact that in the ‘Salient Features’ of the Project which was circulated to the members of the TAC along with the note the maximum discharging capacity is shown as 36 lakhs cusecs. A true copy of the said Salient Features is annexed herewith as Annexure-7, Even the design flood of 50 lakhs approved by CWC is underestimated, due to consideration of low Probable Maximum Precipitation values. (PMP) 11, That it is further submitted that as per paragraph 7 of the CWC's own Guidelines for preparation of Detailed Project Report for Irrigation and Multipurpose Projects, designs of structures are to form part of the Detailed Project Report. The Detailed Project Report does not incorporate these designs. On the other hand, even in the DPR, Andhra Pradesh mentions that though the design flood is to be considered for 1000 years return period, they have considered a design flood of 36 lakh cusecs corresponding to a return period of 500 years for the spillway design. /o 12, That it is submitted that generally embankments, as a flood control mechanism, are not favoured in the case of projects involving large reservoirs, With regard to the desirability of building embankments as a measure for flood protection, it would be Spprepriate to bring to the attention of this Hon'ble Court, the report of the Working Group on the Flood Management for the Ninth Five Year Plan published by the Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, in August 1996, A true copy of paragraph 5.3.3, is annexed hereto as Annexure -8, A perusal of the Same would show that while indicating that embankments ‘are generally the cheapest, quickest and most Popular method of flood protection’ and indicating that embankments are the only feasible method of preventing ‘nundation by giving examples of the Krishna, Godavari, ‘some teaches of the Kos "etc., it also says that embankments are not an ‘unmixed blessing’ Six major drawbacks have been highlighted; * Effect on river regime, especially in aggrading rivers. * Reduction of cross-section area of flow causing general increase in flood sages upstream and downstream of the embanked section, Also ir meandering rivers in alluvial reach, the embankments are continuously threatened by erosion. » Problem of erosion. * Cutting off the natural drainage from the Protected area into the river exvept through predetermined drainage sluices. * Drainage congestion at tributary junctions The next report titled The Report of the Working.Group on the Flood Control Programme for the Tenth Five Year Plan (2002-2007, published by the Central Water Commission, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, in August 2001, appeared to take “ more favouralie view towards embankments. A true copy of Annex 5.1 of the said Tenth Report titled ‘Effectiveness of Embankments ~ A Critical Review &ppearing in Theme Paper of | Water Resources Day 2001 prepared by IWRS’ is annexed as Annexure-9, However, as if to vindicate the doubts and Teservations indicated in the earlier report, the Kosi tragedy Happened as recently as in August 2008, In the wake of the said ‘ragedy experts have commented on the adequacy and desirability of construction of embankments as a flood control measure, ‘True Copies of the same are annexed hereto collectively as Annexure-10, Strangely, the deliberations of the Technical Advisory Committee on 20" January 2009, do net indicate any discussion of the Kosi *Perience. In the wake of such a monumental tragedy the least frat an expert body like the CWC was expected to do, was to consider the Kosi experience before taking one view or other. In the respectful submission of the State of Orissa this failure itself, vitiates the clearance granted by the Technical Advisory Committe of the CWC. 14. That it appears that the Respendent, State of Andhra Pvades] 1S Proceeding with utmost haste with the construction of th Project. The spillway of the project ie already under constructior and 80 % of the canal works is already complete, True copies o media reports in this regard ace annexed hereto as Annexure-11 ‘The Plaintiff also seeks to place on record a photograph taken or 11/02/09 of a board installed on site which would indicate that the date of start of construction of spillway was 23.03.2005. A true copy of the same is annexed’ hereto as Annexure-12. It ic necessary to point out that as of the said date, Environmental Clearance had not been accorded and the design flood for the spillway had not been finalised by the CWC. It was finalised only in September 2006. 15. That it is further relevant to point out that even though the CWC has granted clearance subject to fulfilment of certain conditions namely furnishing the details with regard to the Proposed embankments, and other conditions stipulated therein, the State of A.P. is proceeding with the construction without compliance with those conditions, 18. That the Plaintity Will suffer irreparable log and injury if the rellef® a8 prayed for hereunder are not granted, 19. That the balance of Sonventence is entirely in favour of the Plaintiffs, iY Defendant No. 1 from proceeding further with construction Work in respect of the Project ») Grant an injunction restraining Defendant No.1 frora Proceeding further with tie construction work in respect of the said pr aject. ©) Grant ad-interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayers aJ‘and b) and 4) Pass such other and further orders as may he deemed fit in the interest of justice. (RS. JENA) : Advocate for the Plaintiff/Applicant. Settled By: Mr. Raju Ramachandran Sr. Advocate. Date: Place: \s IN THE SUPREME CouRT oF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION LA. No, -0f 2009 In Suit No. 4 of 2007 IN THE MATTER oF; ATHE MATTER OF; State of Orissa Applicant/Plaintif, Versus State of A.P. & Ors, Respondents/defendants AFFIDaviT |, Sh. C.V, Prasad, 8/0. Radha Mohan Patnaik, aged about 57 years presently posted Chief Engineer Planning, Government of Orissa, Water Resources Department, Bhubaneswar, Orissa at 1 That I have been authorized by the Plaintiff-State of Orissa to file accompanying application for stay since 1 am well Conversant with the facts of the ease. Therefore, I am competent to swear this affidavit. 2.” That the Accompanying application has been drafted by the Counsel for the plaintiff-State of Orissa under my instructions on the basis of the office records, The contents of the said application tb may kindly be read as a part of this affidavit which are not Tepeated here for the sake of brevity, S. That the annexures filed thereto are true to their originals, Qovcrniss eg DEPONENT VERIFICATION 13 Fea a Verified at New Delhi on 13 N96 February 2009, the contents of the affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, that nothing material has been concealed therefrom nor any part of it is false. DEPONENT Arey Dies aekar es © ——> fewockes NOTARY Pubs Rego hoc2i8 oF we opeent oy Posoncy vy NS OOF THE 95" MEETING OF THe sowsony | MLD Oy apHPN IRRIGATION, FLogg Sook Tt ON On UKTIPURPURPOSE PRoveery 1 OW 20 JANUARY, 2008 FOO. CONSIDERATION OF TECHNOWcoenG Or PROJECT PRoBoe NS A) CONFIRMATION OF THE, MINUTES OF THE 94”, MEETING: The Summary Record of Discussions of the 94! Advig ‘Commities Meeting was circulated Commies net OPA WER os ae Se fan Mamba-Secretrynteneet ee Senay roca neno h ue t a 820 am onmitos conse ‘Summary Record of Discussions of the 94" Advisory ‘Committee meeting. ef BRON PROAECT PROPOSAL Wenu-rur ur eng CONSIDERATION OF THE 95™ anvisony COMMITTEE: 2, Protection of Siaimert Area trom th Scam,” °F TNF Biahinerutra (construction of nd SPAS onte une), Moriguon Disteh sae CE (PAO) introduced ho project proposal which envisages () Construction of three ros. land. $US with submerged nos Fe pune 280¥8 HEL (L780 m, Cab ane coe m), (3) Tie bund (68 km) and (0 RCC Porcupines (2508 ce att cation, * 198 and connected to 2-08 vide No, Fiver Brgheleetlon of Bhojlkhatl, Ostoigaon and Ulubart ares from ‘Mer Brahmaputra (onstruction Sf aad ser eg tle bund), Merigaon bi CE (PAO) in. xduced the project proposal which envisages (7 Gonstuction of the nos.tand spurs wan ‘Submerged nose and connected to Embankment above HEL (Ceasm, Boom eee the erosion of istrict, Assam; ROU Porcupines {°12 Nos at @lcstion). v1 og obinal scheme was accorded investment clesrance bythe Planning Commission {a Rs. 14.52 crore at Pl. 2002-08 vide No, 12 (a/oee WR, dl. 17..08, Subsequanty, nthe Sean aboa emmonere commites on Food Management Programme heer Sieg aly Since ioce Under the chairmanship of Secretary (Expenciute) Minty or elmata ae ee ooueTo4 19 evs he coat astinale cure prie level Accorerg) See inaueg ("S23 by he erojetautheriies and submited ta CWC lor exer owe ‘evleed estimate for Ra.27:92 crve(PL-2006) wth BC rallo'as 2961 CChaliman advised to aka up tho complevon of warke could be ensur project in the curtent fleancal year Ise so that ed belore the food seca ‘Aftor discussion, the Committe accepted the proposal 3 Protection af Malull Island trom Flood and ‘erosion, Phase-t& Ill, Assam; (CE (PAC) introduced the project proposal which envisages (21 Nos. of permeable spur, each 29 m eng. (Model Stdy tinalastion (©) Construction of 10 Nos. of spurs with bank revetment in a stretch of 1S ken, “The schers is being implemented by the Grehmaputra Board sOgebalimated cost ol the project proposal has beat thalizad for His, 116.02 crore (PL 2005-06) with B.C. rai 1.2601 : Chaiimen observed thatthe scheme should have been based on current srice love % setenate Re, Committee deterred the project wih the suggestion to prepere the cos! sstimate based on curant pice tvel © fiaising & Strendhening to Brahmaputra Dyke from Sleeikulghor to Tékellchuta tneluaing closing eto and enti-erosion moasuree (to prot Majull and Dhakak jood devastation by the Loknimpur Distt, Asam . E (PAO) introdueed the project proposal which envisegos {), Raising and sirengtnening of embankment fore feng et 13.9 km, (i) Gonsttuction of relrement bund with gsc-textle tubes of length 5000 m, {®) Construction of 2700 m ong plot ehannei and (AGC Poreupines (28116 Nos). “The estimalgs cost of the scheme has been finalized 08 Rs: 142.42 errs with BC rato of 7.02.1, [chatman observed thal Brahmapuira Board should superise the work intensively and the project shoul be taken up i the works can be completed Before the flood season ‘iter discussion, the project was accepted by thé Commitee. 9 Balsing, Strengthening and Construction of Bituminous Rosd over Eastern and Western Kos! Emuankmants, Bihar: CE (PAO) introduced the project proposal which envisages Raising, Stenainening and Cons 245 4h km (8) Consinuctiontesi fa wy in SPP" O8ch ros (amp) hg Nos- cf Tumi lations,” ) Consinicion age! Sheds. and vy eOvSION tor constriction Mransverse drains in ong Si slopes oF bath wear ts, aca re SC PrOPCSAl has begs Speralsodin GEOG and cant inaizes as WH BC rato as 20380 ©, 938.99 cro, wo ted, 0 Sine. Finangy eee. Memb (0), orc intimates ty Commutoe ats 280, 28a roo er mt as Been kept oy ue Par nhe buspar ares : © Commitee accopted the Projoet pxopcsat 9 ont Etenton et exeing tmbankments slong Shutany ani District, ae th Prooet pro , Sn Srentnenin ich ‘HH eh andr emaninont ihe engin or sg ano oh asi et ombarken tom za 41m 1025.00 km | of vunerata rons | ick song om toe (1 Ramrson ote Poth the embankmerts ang ‘embankments cr ORC Mas been aporeiseg in OF Sore with BC ratio 7 ae 2008-09, fh PAO) reduced the projec ‘Proposal which en (0 Constiuetion ot llot channels to cart * elscnarge of 10009 cus tm &ZOK ang broach eee im) §ORStucon of § mee eee s) Gosteraisn cra comuaea Spurs ang (Omer connectcn Imiscalaneous works, 2 project has bee Erote win BC ratio gant GE (PAO) intoduced me po i Sonsirveton fee © i oO Aestoratis of Kos! Barrage Gates, 8 COS! Of tha scheme hae iment for eet. 178. Necessary budget scree has sea acyan,CPSe"C ta eae underwater works shouls be completes before onset tthe logs season ‘Mor discussion, the Committe accepted th proposal, 8) __Kslo tvigation Project, Chhatisgarhy GF (PAO) ntreduced the project proposal which envisages (1343 mong main eather sees {iy $aele\dam ertnen) 610 m tong . {3 {82 dong spitway with total, of gales of ze 10 mx 14.25 m and (6) Main canal on righ tank 28.91 m tong oa dlecharge capacity of 284.58 cum, eA,e! the project is 24.396 he wih anne! om ‘rigetion of 22,'810 ha. Other benstits Include previeion of “ingng water ot 4.44 MoM to alga own and ia Veo i Industrial us iyo ee 8, Achmet ofthe reser les ithe ste of Orisa. The water ai hay he, Boles hs bean worked gue propa te for Chhattsgarh area ao among cohen cutee’ 88 $89.21 men, "Al resent hone Pe Interstate agreament ist ‘among co-basin STA hee ets Holo basin MoEF has acooded neces east? Tes beet 2, aGz0rsed oaranc fr RAR plan ea here mate of the cone tel2ed for Rs, 608.1 crore (PLZOtOy eae eS ee gern SY Ste Finance concurence tote proloe oy oe ovorded by the Govt of Chattisgarh ‘Alter clscussion, the Committe accepted the propose, 10) Ginmatsaion of Bata River tram RO 10290 to 18700 Mi: In Tehsil Paonte Sahib, District Simos, Himachal Preuesn, G5 (PAO) Intoduces the projct propose! witch envi wo Sng 12H0" of embanfeenis on bth: bank fom RO 10290 m to 19700 m and “ Stone ent nthe frm of we cated apron works on verde and ‘tone pitching of embankments over g stent The project has veer crore with BC. ‘Alter discussion, the Commitee accepted tne proposal, Nd providing 10 M wide 7) Revised Project Estimate for widening, strongthening , one Bu io ont ot ver’ erin 1M wide roadway on Alipur” Bund ‘en Gaghpalchazlabed, UP; ' CE (PAO) intrccucethe project propos which envisages (esi ofthe exisng Alou Bund onthe let dank of er Yemune rom 60 mio 120m/ora stretchol 1é km, 2) (9) Provnns Stengel er yu 2 net et bund eat eng cae ‘wuinerabe reaches in (")Constucing 10 m wide 135 ee, !9P Of Alu bund in three layers and blag "0P. e130 steno tes he (10m wide bse top ony om FO 15.5 km 10 RO 18.16 km, The ctginal scheme Sie SEPIONES by the Pancing sremmission vide Lr. No, 12 ina Soe par oe 2006 tar Wa gy OY se Basan revised eating het bot Borne SWE a8 per cron a, ‘veland the cost has bean mere Fi. 40.17 crore wn ‘lio as 34:1 MMe eseUssion, the Commitee '2c08pIed the proposal . 12) Inciraragar otavarany Project, Andra Pradesh, CE (PAO) introduced Pt0P0s01 which envy i) 70 m ton am with 897.50 m long gateg SpilWiay across (1gcNe" Godavert near pak A gross storage of 624s Soe GEA.S0TMC) at FAL af ot 2 ‘i 181 50 km 12108 Capacity of 230 cum a 174 km Teng phy Capacity of 397.10 cum ("Power House and SPpurenant Works with insta ‘capacity of 960 Mw, Sea oF the erooct is 2. lan poy Snel eaten ct «36 akn a, past? 8 Povsion of saga a, 2 ot 60 fr Vsakapaar toni Steel Femi B88G6s, revision for are 20.7 MC of water Jlghoa basin has ciso boat 1386.18 Projet comes vas or ect) Bare of Coders a “Tribunal Deon nego Oe preprsa rae gun SPhralsed in Gwe ans "cost has Seen tnalzed aes id tet one ae ENCRS trom MoTA ang ‘corded with few specie mentions 2 undor, "| Gnironment clerance was ecg ° Nor guae of Hen ble Fgh Cooney 6 ane 208 on a potion Wis fee oAc689 (2008 hed by Sha Lae is fran Pradesh o proceed vine srafaitucton of Indra Sagar (eo Mattpurpes F nareY99 with tne requremena re ret a such mann ae fendiiapearea situated wanes leriory ofthe ale of rissa s submerge, : "RAR clearance by Mota was accorded Wh spect stipulation ‘88 under: 6) nis CaaS 8 aces be rset oe org Slaeme Coe tit {870 eran vi Paton fon tee robe (8) The Cove Wiarer ‘ce (0 fetes clnrurc for diversion oa 3B ($478.00 ha noted tors 2re9 plus ‘ores Seemed forest oreo par Hon'ble Supreme Conn etiniton) of ‘orestlond was accorded ut ‘sectestipulation a undes® 2 athe fort eaarangs gin, ie ee, te Pinon! Secretary 10.Government (roles), rigation & Gary aiperiment, Andiva Pragaan hag rar purleated to Cratrmen’ Cece Seal Ne, 42137Ial tigate Lr 208 tad 101.2008 trey ees of Andhra Pradesh decuans rave tuna opie ject coe the vars Senet Aah adequate drainag elt eon ue an renee a Made iter of anne ee Bet The iho feb 08 te tate antes yet Ie orga ert aang ee / Sonmcaion rom Met ga aN passa cemnion cing” weet ead 2, Bara relearn ne ee peor rare nda sgay pcre Mutu Erofct may be suse Me scuda , Mloupo 2008 basey en et vomited in tne Seeded Sera with rooostnet, WBE examined bey Export Appraiser FAC) tor River Vatey-ae iaerovlecie Projects, SNe raggey Yolo feud for ma eran Haan itt Bo Ste Goverment of radesh has reauenscs 08 10.01.2003 ix XV) that by gnddlombankrnens, crises Ad umsing ‘and Chhattisgarh age ‘hore willbe Rodin tho river Was not considered topos t AS such, i bunds ae atlogurt Kw be treated C2 change mronmental clearance leer eee Or. 8. ah Protective bunas one 90 t© MOBF ihe dune: his. expleined that the project. the 8600 thal ab al ageh (Evironment) oly that ag intl roponént sna onstruction of tne Cam ch OTA Bnd MoZ™ wie ne Bojer IM SI10Aereomen died 2.4 1800) HNN Wale a8 charge th see 2 Project Commissioner (pay 1 1egIved that he proposed bunds are equivale Dumés_ As such hey may ne, " feqvice environment clearance Member (WPEP) 0 served thay minnoemeNeNs submergence in ines Sam "0" 19 te areas wih cen Used to be 2 prtencPel S821), EAD Deperim, ‘owt ihe protestin bunds fer foment MoEF. Mrs. A, Pant, Joint Sccrety ST population affected under Sigures reP2red a TAC no be same. Chiet Engineer ram) «68h claritid that alhough Rehabiitaton enc) Flesetiemont (Aan) of ‘) E ut there is no sateen, aure reporag renee Tae tbe tmlles and tl pee nee. The and renee Ie Project, anmeseens! a ne 8 Oud 19 have corain PePuat Tigures ore ae Ceteeed copy of caton 9 T ooy tle gas Been Crtlated io he ng oueee me canmgceetn Real aa pare (oes see 22 deetebaney. Ho water ees Under tne egal there is molchange ie “avr of tral tems ane kai pro ene flectes Under the project Placed at tha alenosal oft Aeyammens, "However, tne ere govemcs, gould undertake mel ot rameewves i the concemed ee ‘overnmenis desire ne rn cussed the propespis iq oti end ey accepted te projec, Proposal with ihe folowing assem POP 6 The projec e88 Bolton embantere . ree a caelimalion repo to MaTA tat tive leno as reper eet let atected Gy i deo ST population trom leerance of RR plan by Mars m onal sure mat here fo submergence o! any rissa"and Chhattegarh us bs ith ado 19) UtewalKlecium tigation Project, (Revised Estimate) Maharashtra; CE (PAO) introduesd the project Proposal which envis Agi long earthen dem win ly 08s Utawal river in Tepl basin fh $l cam across to butane la with a ridge cut ana (4781 kr tong right bank canal wan ‘locharge capacity of §.614 cumee, Cen a Sat Bone Be "ion tS ha ye pce unde Pine nara, een 10 yeers the project has boen under” iokers nse OKC caudate one Ser come eiharane NGUHed ABOU the purpoge ot age cul, WAS explained by the Project ‘seco ‘ter Gacussion, the Committe accopted the proposal PrOVEd by the Planning Leen tinalized tor Rs 101165, 's CCA of 4850 ha with ann 14) ower Panzara Medium irtigation Project, Maharashra; CE (PAO) introduced the 0 Construction gt? ann tigation of 7585 ha. in the drought Proleet proposal has been appralsed in caves {and the estimated cost revision of ‘ler dscussion, the Commitee accepted the propose 1) Nonelor Madhameshwor Project Revised Eatimate), Maharashtra; CE (PAO) brielly introduced the project proposal and Informed that the original Nandur rrgaoey Cave! was a ore-plannad pojet for iguing ao sas ta et Subsequent, the components was apna

    You might also like