® REJOINDER REPLY ON BEHALF OF STATE OF ORISSA IN REPLY TO I.A.No.2 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.4 OF 2007 FILED BY STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH ON 27.09.2010. AND ANOTHER REJOINDER REPLY ON BEHALF OF STATE OF ORISSA IN REPLY TO I.A. NO. 2 OF 2009 IN O.S. NO.4 OF 2007 FILED BY UNION OF INDIA IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI ON 27.09.2010. O/o. The Chief Engineer, ISPP Unit, Dowlaiswaram.GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PREADESH IRRIGATION & CAD DEPARTMENT From To Dr. P, Rama Raju, Ph.D., ‘The Chief Engineer Chief Engineer, Indira Sagar Polavaram Project), Inter State and Water Resources, Invigation & C A D Department, Errummanzil, Dowelaswaram, HYDERABAD 1 East Godavari District, "P/0.8.4/07/Vol 1 O'S. 4 of 2007 filed by State of Orissa in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ~ On Construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project - Copy of Rejoinder Reply on behalf of Plaintif/State of Orissa in Reply to I.A.No.2 of 2009 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and Union of India in the Hon’ble Supreme Court - Reg, Ref:- Arising. A copy of Rejoinder Reply on behalf of PlantftState of Orissa in Reply to LA.No2 of 2009 filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh and another Rejoinder Reply on behalf of PlaintifState of Orissa in Reply to LA.No.2 of 2009 filed by Union of India in the Hon"ble Supreme Court of ©.S.No.4 of 2007 on Construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaratn) Project are herewith enclosed for favour of information. The Chief Engineet/ Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project is requested to prepare and communicate the replies forthe Rejoinder filed by State of Orissa at an early date Encl: as above, ‘Yours faithfully, ‘Sd/- P, Rama Raju / 16.10.2010, Chief Engineer, IS&WR. I. ty apa for Chief gine SEY Was eteIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION LA. 2 of 2009 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 4 OF 2007 INTHE MATTER OF: STATE OF ORISSA PLAINTIFF - VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. DEFENDANTS REJOINDER REPLY ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF/STATE OF ORISSA IN REPLY TO'LA.NO2 FILED BY UNION OF INDIA PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS: itis submited that the clearance granted by the CWC on 20.01,2009-is not sustainable in law, because the Polavaram barrage planned by the Defendant State’ of Andhra Pradesh is totally contrary to the letter and spirit of agreements of 1978 and 4980 signed between the States of Orissa and Andhra Pradesh, vihich have merged Into the decision of the Godawary Water Disputes Tribunal ‘of 1980. It is submitted that:The Plaintiff State of Orissa has a Constitutional right to protect its lands and forest against unwarranted interferences and therefore, the defendant State af Andhra Pradesh has no authority to submerge its territory or land by constructing the Polavaram barrage. However, in the spirit of maintaining a good neighbourly relations, the State of Orissa had agreed to the minimal submergence of its territory up to RL 150 ft and sought protection against larger submergence inter alia proposing the design of the spillway of the Polavaram barrage for 36 lacs cusecs to eshew the peak flood. But, if the peak flood is 48 lacs cusecs, as now estimated by the CWC (in fact it should be nearly 75 lacs cusecs aS per Orissa), then the basis ‘of the agreement has changed adverse to the interest of the State of Orissa. In view of this, the CWC instead of granting clearance on 20.01.2009, ought to have directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to re-design the spillway of Polawaram barrage in consultation with the State of Orissa to avoid larger backwater formation threatening unwarranted submergence in the territory of the Plaintiff State of Orissa.When the State of Orissa had agreed for the spillway capacity of 36 lacs cusecs, it was also an implied term that the flocd reaching the Polavaram barrage would have been moderated by the upstream project of Iechampalli on the main Gadebaxi river. However, such a contingency has not materialized because the Icchampalli Project has not come through due to disagreement between the States of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Thus, until the lechampalli project is constructed, the Polavaram barrage cannot be constructed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Clearance given by CWC is contrary to the rules of natural justice and the rules of fair play mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution, as the State of Orissa was not at all heard or consulted. When the ‘consequence of the Andhra Pradesh Project is submergence of the area in Orissa thereby jeopardizing the rights of the inhabitants of Orissa under Article 21 of the Constitution, the right of hearing and consultation is implicit before and during the designing of the Project.REPLY ON MERITS: "4-2. Paragraph No.1 and 2 need no comments 3. That in reply to paragraph 3, It is respectfully submitted that the Ministty of Tribal Affairs, Govt. of India is concerned with the issue of rehabilitation and re-settlement of the tribals affected by the project on account of submergencs as a constitutional requirement. So far as the letter of Ministry of Tribal Affairs dated 25.04.2007 and the letter of the CWC to MTA dtd 114.2007 are concemed the same have been dealt with in the plaint and replication and appropriate reliefs have been prayed for against the same in the plain. The .Applicant/Plaintiff craves “liberty of this Hon'ble Court to refer to the averments in the Plaint, Replication and the LAs in response to the averments in the paragraph under reply. TAC clearance dtd 20.1.2009 is the subject matter of dispute in the present .A. It is respectfully submitted that the Director of CWC has filed the reply on behalf of Defendant No.2 and 4 i.e. Govt. of India through the Ministry of Water Resources & Ministry of Tribal Affairs. In the Affidavit it is no doubt admitted that the design aspects of the project are left to the Central Water Commission. However but it has not been stated that the CWC has designed the project in accordance with undertaking givento the GWDT. Therefore it is submitted that the design aspect has not been done by the CWC, which is ex-facie in breach of the undertaking given to the Tribunal which .is part of thie Decision/ Final Order of the Tribunal. Therefore the project in question is in violation of the GWDT Award. Contents of paragraph 4 need no comments. ‘That the contents of paragraph 5 are strongly controverted and denied. ‘The contents of paragraph 6 need no comments. ‘That in reply to contents of paragraph 7, It is submitted that since CWC, an organ/agency/ instrumentality under MoWR of the Govt. of India, in breach of the undertaking allowed the Govt. of A.P. to design the project it was incumbent upon the Ministry of Water Resources and CWC to invite the Govt. of Orissa for. each and every meeting concemed with the Polavaram Project including the proceedings in the Technical’ Advisory" Committee meetings. The contents of paragraph 8 need no comments. That in reply to contents of paragraph 9, itis reiterated that the project as designed by Govt. of AP is in complete violation of or deviation from the parameters stipulated in the inter-State Agreements and the. provisions of the Decision/ Final Order of GWOT . Applicant craves leave of10. this Hon'ble Court to rofer the GWDT Award ‘and the pleadings in the Plaint, Replication and IA® in response to the para under reply. The averments in the para are wrong as alleged or otherwise. The contents of paragraph 10 need no comments. 41-45That the averments made in paragraphs 11 to 15 are misleading and therefore denied. It is respectfully submitted that the Applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to the pleadings in the Plaint, Replications and the averments made in IAs as well as the provisions of the Decision’ Final Order with all the Annexures of the GWOT. The averments in para 13 are misleading and the State of A.P. cannot be permitted to have Design flood contrary to or in deviation of the stipulation in the decision’ Final Order of the GWOT. Further it is stated that the various important and vital assumptions made and the Agreements drawn between the co-basin states and recorded in the GWDT award have not been considered while according TAC clearance by CWC to the Project. itis respectfully submitted that CWC has been simply referring to LS codes and the GWDT Award only to mislead this Hon'ble Court.16. 7. 18. 19. 20. 24 That the contents of paragraph 16 are wrong hence denied. That in reply to contents of paragraph 17, it is respectfully submitted that the clearance accorded vide letter dated 25.10.2005 by MoEF is not in accordance with. the provisions of the Environment Protection Act and the various Notifications issued thereunder. That the ‘contents of paragraph 18 are wrong hence denied. That in reply to contents of paragraph 19, it is respectfully submitted that the averments in the para under reply amounts to admission on behalf of CWC,MoWR and Govt of India that the Project formulation is in violation of or derogation of or deviation from the parameters stipulated in Decision/ Final Order of the GWDT. That the contents of paraytaph 20 are wrong hence denied, ‘That the contents of paragraph 21 need no comments.22. That in reply to contents of paragraph 22, it is respectfully submitted that the Applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to the correspondences made therein. In view of the above this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an appropriate order in the interest of justice. FILED BY (RS. JENA) ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT NEW DELHI DATED: Siypont Comms Lan rio: | Settled by Cabeeme Cours BeQebig Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh ikok_ Mer Senior Advocate 5D -\ RE-SETTLED BY: Mr. Raju Ramchandran ‘Senior Advocate pohve no-qgysiIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION LA. 2 of 2008 IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO. 4 OF 2007 IN THE MATTER OF: STATE OF ORISSA PLAINTIFF VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT |, Baidhar Panda S/o Late Padmacharan Panda, aged about 55 years, presently posted as Chief Engineer (Project, Planning & Formulation), Govt. of Orissa, Water Resources Department, Secha Sadan, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under.~ 4. That | have been authorized by the Applican/State of Orissa to- swear this affidavit in support of the accompanying Rejoinder Reply since | am well conversant with the facts of the case based on records. That | file the accompanying Rejoinder Reply on behalf of the State of Orissa to the counter affidavit filed by- the Union of India to the LA. No.2/2009 filed by the ApplicantPlaintiff. The contents of the said rejoinder reply(6 have béen drafted by the State Counsel under my instructions on the basis of the records. The contents of the said rejoinder reply may kindly be read as part and parcel of this affidavit which is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. Verified at New Delhi on this 22.2 day of September 2010. Vooiethen Pend DEPONENT 27 ereIN THE SUPREME COURT OF.INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION L.A. NO.2 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 4 OF 2007 IN THE MATTER O! STATE OF ORISSA PLAINTIFF VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. DEFENDANTS REJOINDER REPLY ON BEHALF OF STATE OF ORISSA TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN LA. NO.2 OF 2009 MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH: 1 ‘Ai the outset, it is necessary to point out that for an adjudication of the Suit as well as the present application, it is necessary for the Union of India to place its stand before this Hon'ble Court. Strangely, and inexplicably, however, despite considerable. lapse of time and despite opportunities sought by it and given, the Union of India has not filed its written statement to the Plaint. Although this Hon'ble Court had issued notice on this application as far back as on 9" Oct, 2009, the Union of India has filed its reply only on 30" June, 2010.2. Before giving reply to the "Reply by the State of Andhra Pradesh to I.A. No.2/2009", it is respectfully submitted that the following dates are very relevant for the purpose of proper adjudication of the present interlocutory application: ti) (i) Gil) (iv) w) The suit being 0.S. No. 4 of 2007 was filed by the State of Orissa along with A. No.1/2007 ‘on 9.10.2007. Summons Under Order XXIV, Rule 1 were issued by the Registry of this Hon'ble Court to all the Defendants on 16.1.2008. Defendant Nos..2 to 4, namely, Union of India, through, Secretary, Ministry of + Water Resources, Ministry of Environment, Government of India, through Secretary, and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, through Secretary had already been served on 418.1.2008, On 192.2008 Mr Y. Rajgopal Rao, Adv. entered appearance by filing vakalatnama on behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Defendant No.1. MOTA, Defendant No.4 filed its Written Statement verified on 2.7.2008.) (vil) (On 31.7.2008 when the Suit was listed in Chamber, following order was passed *Leamed Counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.1 submits, on instruction, that ‘eight weeks’ time is needed to file the written statement. Time prayed for is granted. So far as defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are concerned, Ms Sunita Sharma, advocate appears on behalf of Mr. D.S. Mahra, Advocate-on-record and undertakes to file vakalatnama within @ week from this date. Written Statement, so, far as defendant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, must be filed within eight weeks from this date. Reply affidavit be filed by the Plaintiff within four weeks from the date of filing of written statement.” State of A-P. filed its written statement dated 25.9.2008. On 16.1.2009, the State of Orissa filed replication v written statement of the A.P and on 30.4.2009, the State of Orissa filed replication to the written statement of MOTA, defendant No.4 also.ili) (e) &*) (x) (ii) (i) This application was filed on 18.2.2009 inter alia for stay of the clearance dtd 20.1.2009; The Applicant State filed another application, 1.A3 of 2009 on 7.7.2008 inter alia for stay of the in-principle approval wS.2 of Forest (Conservation) Act,1980 granted by MoEF, Govt of India; On 9.10.2009, this Hon'ble Court issued notice in LA\Nos 2-3 of 2009; ‘On 10.2009, the Applicant State filed another application, |LA.No.4of 2009 inter alia for stay of the proceedings in the MoWR,Govt of India for declaring Polavaram Project as ‘National Project” On 43.14.2010, this Hon'ble Court granted 4 ‘weeks time to Union of India to file counter affidavit in A.Nos 2-4 and written staement in the main suit; In the mean time the State of A.P-filed its reply to LA2 and LA vide its affidavits dtd. 23.11.2009 and LA4 vide its affidavit dtd. 9.2.2010. The Union of India, however, has not filed its written statement till date and filed its reply to LA2 only vide affidavit of Director,CWC which was served on the Applicant State on 30.6.2010; (wiv). On 28.7.2010, MoEF, Govt of India granted final approval u/S.2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act before showing cause fo this Hon'ble Court in LAS and in fact, this Hon'ble Court on 2.8.2010 granted further four weeks time to file Counter affidavit inter alia. in |,A3 to Union of India among other parties; (xv) On 69.2010, a copy of the Reply affidavit in 1.A3 of Union of India was served on the Applicant only after a written request was made for the same in view of media reports; ‘After filing of the suit and before the date of grant of clearance by TAC dated 20.1.2009, there was only one Inter-State meeting held by the CWC and that was way back on 29.10.2007 which ended by “Chairman, CWC suggested the basin States to convene a meeting at Chief Minister's level to narrow down the differences.” “summary Record of the Interstate Meeting held on 29,10.2007" has it recorded that : "Representatives of rissa mentioned that they were approaching Hon'ble Supreme Court. He mentioned that the environmentalclearance granted by Ministry of Environment & Forest earlier was with spillway design flood of 36 lakh cusecs and not for the PMF. Chairman, CWC clarified that til such time any specific directions are issued by Hon'ble Supreme Couirt the process of appraisal of Project will continue." In fact, by then the suit was already filed and the same was brought to the notice of CWC by letter representation dated 27.10.2007. Itis respectfully submitted that the act of grant of clearance by TAC of CWC is a clear attempt to make the pending suit infructuous. A bare look at the clearance dated 20.1.2009 would demonstrate that the TAC has merely accepted the proposals of GOAP, discussed .in the inter-State meetings held prior to filing of the Suit even though they had already been challenged in the Suit. As a matter of fact, the TAC in its clearance modified and/or altered the Order dated 22.3.2006 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C ). No.3869(2006) as Is clearly evident from the record of proceedings of the TAC. It cannot be disputed that the construction of Polavaram dam in its present formulation would have the direct effect of submerging areas including forest and tribal inhabited 16areas in the State of Orissa. This danger of submergence is clear and present. Even though, Orissa is directly affected, admittedly, neither TAC invited it for the said meeting nor CWC chose to give any intimation of the same. Neither the letter dated:10. 1.2009 of the Principal Secretary to Government (Projects), Irrigation & CAD Department, Andhra Pradesh to Chairman, CWC, nor the communication from MoEF dated 20.1.2009, nor the TAC note circulated for this project was supplied to the Applicant Orissa at all. The record of proceedings does not even mention about the pendency of suit in this Hon'ble Court. In the circumstances, it is respectfully submitted that, the clearance granted by the TAC clearance is null and void ab initio and of no effect or consequence. Therefore, the TAC clearance of the Polavaram Project deserves and ought to be stayed forthwith. It is respectfully submitted that the. clearance granted by the CWC on 20.01.2009 is not sustainable in law, because the Polavaram project planned by the Defendant State ot Andhra Pradesh is totally contrary to the letter and spirit of agreements of 1978 and 1980 signed between the States of Orissa and Andhra Piadesh, which are integral part of Dethe Decision/ Final Order of the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal of 1980. It is submitted that: a. _ The Plaintiff State of Orissa has a Constitutional right to protect its lands and forest against unwarranted interferences and therefore, the defendant State of ‘Andhra Pradesh has no authority to submerge its territory or land by constructing the Polavaram project. b. However, in the spirit of maintaining a good neighbourly relations, the State of Orissa had agreed to the minimal submergence of its territory up to RL 450 ft and sought protection against larger submergence inter alia proposing the design of the spillway of the Polavaram project for 36 lacs cusecs to eshew the peak flood. But, if the peak flood is 60 lacs cusecs, as now estimated by the CWC (in fact it may go above 70 lacs cusecs as estimated by experts in this field like T.Hanumantharao,Ex EIC,GoAP), then the basis of the agreement has changed adverse to the interest of the State of Orissa, In view of this, the CWC instead of granting clearance on 20.01.2008, ought to have directed theState of Andhra Pradesh to re-design the spillway of Polavaram project in consultation with the State of Orissa to avoid larger backwater formation threatening unwarranted submergence in the territory of the Plaintiff State of Orissa. ‘When the State of Orissa had agreed for the spillway capacity of 36 lacs cusecs, it was also an implied term that the flood reaching the Polavaram project ” would have been moderated by the upstream project of Inch mpalli on the main Godavari river. However, such a contingency has not materialized because the Inchampalli Project has not come through due to disagreement between the States of Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Thus, until the Inchampalli project is constructed, the Polavaram project cannot be constructed by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Clearance given by CWC is contrary to the rules of natural justice and the rules of fair play mandated by Article 14 of the Constitution, as the State of Orissa was not at all heard or consulted. When the consequence of the Andhra Pradesh Project is submergence of the area in Orissa thereby jeopardizing the rights of the inhabitants of Orissaunder Article 21 of the Constitution, the right of hearing and consultation is implicit before and during the designing of the Project. PARAWISE REPLY: Para 1 Para 2 Contents are matters of record Itis stated that the alleged “reply to the replication” is unknown to law- substantive as well as procedural and therefore cannot form part of the record of the case either as pleading or otherwise. Therefore, the alleged “reply to the replication’ cannot be looked at all for. any purpose whatsoever. Further, it is. stated that subsequent to the filing of the present Interlocutory Application, the Applicant has filed two more Interlocutory Applications, namely, 1LA. No. 3 of 2009 and 1A. No.4 of 2009 praying for following reliefs: LA. NO.3 “In the circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to Grant stay of operation of the prior approval granted by the MOEF dated 7" December 2008 for diversion of 3731.07 ha (3473.00 ha notified forest area plus 258.07 ha. Deemed forest land as per Hon'ble Supreme Court's definition) of forest land for Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Multipurpose Project across Godavari river in the State of Andhra Pradesh; a) Grant an injunction restraining Defendant No.1 from proceeding further with the construction ‘work in respect of the said project, 10b) Grant ad-interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayers (a) and ©) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit in the interest of justice.” LA. NO4, “In the. circumstances it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: fa) grant stay of the proceedings in the MOWR, Government of India for declaration of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project as National Project; (b) grant an ad interim order of injunction restraining defendant No.1 from proceeding with the construction of work in respect of the said Project (©) Grant ad-interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayers (a) and (b); (d) Pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” ‘The Applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely upon the averments in those applications, in so far as they are relevant for the purpose of the present application. yyPara 3 With reference to para3 of the reply of AP., it is stated that it stands admitted that the State of Orissa was not invited for the meeting dated 20.1.2009 of the TAC. Nor was it supplied the letter, dated 10.1.2009 of the Principal Secretary to Government (Projects), Irrigation & CAD Department, Andhra Pradesh to Chairman, CWC, nor the communication from ‘MoEF dated 20.1.2009, nor the TAC note circulated for this project was supplied to the Applicant Orissa at all. Therefore, Orissa had no opportunity to present its case before the TAC including its stand in this Hon'ble Court in the suit. The inter-State meetings referred to in the para under reply were all held prior to the filing of the suit except the one dated 29.10.2007 which, in fact, concluded with the Chairman suggesting a Chief Ministers’ level meeting’ to narrow down the differences. No such meeting, however, was held. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the clearance given by the TAC is null and void and of no effect and consequence. The explanations and justifications given by the State of AP. in the para under reply are wholly irelevant and liable to be ignored outrightly. It is categorically. denied that “As 12per the practice of the CWC, apart from inviting the concerned official of various departments, the concern Project Proponent State whose Project is under consideration alone is called for the meeting.” It is stated that there is no such practice and on the contrary following instances would demonstrate that the normal practice has been of inviting the State/s affected by the proposed Project of another State: (a) During the 73rd TAC meeting held on31.5.2000 of CWC for the clearance of Stage-ll Phase-I of Vansadhara Project of Andhra Pradesh involving Inter-State aspects, State of Orissa was invited as a Special Invite to attend the meeting vide their letter dated 22nd May,2000 for the clearance of the said Project. (b) In the 74th meeting of TAC of CWC, Ongoing Project, of Orissa was discussed wherein the representative of Govt. of Chhatisgarh was present and certain issues pertaining to submergence of Chhatisgarh were discussed. A copy of the proceedings of the above meetings are annexed herewith and marked as. Annexure 1 & 2. eIn view of what is stated here-in-above, the contents of para under reply are denied and those of para 3 of the Application are reiterated. It is respectfully pointed out that the GWDT in its award has observed that: "It is to be obeorved that each case of possible submergence must be dealt with separately after consideration of concrete project _ involving submergence and all relevant facts bearing on the question of such submergence. But it cannot be said generally that any project of the State of Andhra Pradesh involving submergence of the territory of other States is permissible without the prior consent of the affected States." Since, changed or altered parameters of this Project would cause large scale submergence in the tribal inhabited area and forest areas of the State of Orissa, it was incumbent upon CWC, TAC and State of ‘Andhra Pradesh to ensure prior consent of Orissa by providing entire materials in respect of the Project before granting clearance. Further, as recently as in the Year 2000, this Hon'ble Court in the State of Kerataka Vrs State of Andra Pradesh(2000)9 SCC572 has observed that- a“Under the federal structure, like ours, the Central Government possesses enormous power and authority and no state can on its own carry on the affairs within its territory, particularly when such projects may have adverse effect on other states, particularly in respect of an inter state river where each riparian state and its habitants through which the river flows has its right". It is respectfully submitted that it was incumbent upon the TAC of CWC to give proper notice of the said meeting and invite Orissa to get its views/grievances and after considering them pass appropriate directions. Such a practice of inviting States affected by the proposed Project of another State is just, fair and reasonable as well as in the interest of integrity of the Federation and therefore, eminently desirable. In view of the above , itis respectfully submitted that the entire proceedings of 95th TAC meeting concerning Polavaram Project is vitiated and all conclusions and recommendations are null and void and of no effect and consequence. Para 4. — With reference to Para 4 of the reply of A.P. which is reply to paras 4 and 5 of the Application, it is stated that without prejudice to the contentions of Orissa regarding the illegality of the proceedings of 95th24 TAC and conclusions/recommendations/directions regarding Polavaram Project, looking at the conduct of the State it cannot be believed that “the State of Andhra Pradesh will adhere to the said directions and proceed with the construction of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project." It is respectfully submitted that Government of AP has been going ahead with the construction of the Project since a long time without waiting for statutory or other clearances from the Central authorities. Tenders for spillway construction and also the agreements had been drawn much before and construction of spillway and head works started much before the TAC clearance. ‘The Project formulation is in direct violation of the GWOT Award and ongoing execution is not in tune with the safeguards suggested by CWC. Stale of Andhra Pradesh has not given any details regarding steps taken by it in order to comply with the directions of TAC or the stipulations imposed by MoEF/MOTA at the time of grant of conditional clearances. In the aforesaid circumstances, the contents of para under reply are denied 16Para 5 With reference to the contents of this para of the reply, itis specifically and categorically denied that “The State of Orissa is only inventing a ground to approach this Hon'ble Court and stall the construction of the Project on some pretext or other.” In view of what has been stated here-in-above and more particularly in paragraphs 1 to 3 ,the contents of this para are denied. All the inter- State meetings referred to in the para under reply except that on 29.10.2007 were held prior ta filing of the present suit and all the proposals, conclusion and directions have been challenged in the Suit. The State of AP. in its written statement dated 25.9.2008 has made submissions in respect of the Inter-State’ meeting dated 29.10.2007 which have been replied to by Orissa in its replication. The conclusion / recommendation in the minutes of the proceedings of 29.10.2007 has been extracted hereinabove. It is specifically denied that "there is no question of change in operation schedule” due to change in design flood from 36 lakh cusecs to 60 lakh cusecs as alleged in the para under reply or otherwise. It is respectfully stated that it is axiomatic that a structure designed for 36 lakh cusecs flood capacity would v7inevitably cause enormous submergence due to backwater effect caused by 50 lakhs cusecs of flood hitting the structure and to control the effect, the operation schedule must be changed as the flood peak is increased by about 30% . The State of Orissa reiterates the averments made in the Application and relies upon the averments made in the plaint and replications and the views expressed by Orissa vide their letter dated 24.01.09 to CWC. The CWC’'s views submilled lo MoTA during April 2007 are totally based on the views of Govt. of AP which were sent to CWC . vide the letter No.CE/ISAP/DCEY OT4/AES/66/05/camp1 dated 04.04.07. CWC have not made any independent study on its own regarding effectiveness of the _ protective embankments to contain the flood within the banks. It is stated that the length and height of the embankments in both the limbs of Saberi Le. Kolab and Sileru can be calculated only after the flood components separately in each of the limbs are known. The Justification shown by Govt. of AP for the flood contribution among the two limbs Vide its letter No.48 dated17.5.2006 for 36 lakh cusecs is not based on any rational procedures,It is reiterated that the design capacity of the spillway of Polavaram Project as it stands now is inadequate and it is ‘stated that the State of Andhra Pradesh has not adhered to the parameters agreed upon and formed part of the Final Order of the GWDT. Andhra Pradesh conveniently refers to certain portions of the Agreement to justify the Project and at the same time refers to BIS Codes for justifying certain other aspects of the Project in violation of the GWDT Award which is not only impermissible but also wholly unfair, unjust and unreasonable and therefore wrong. The statement that PMF of 50 Lakh cusecs is “required to ensure safe passage of flood during an extreme event and thereby ensuring safety of the dam’, clearly overlooks the fact that GWDT has in its Final Order/Decisions prescribed reservoir operations schedule on the basis of design flood of 36 Lakh cusecs. It is wrong to suggest that “Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) is not to be used for estimation of submergence due to backwater effects’. Andhra Pradesh refers to BIS Code to justify 50 Lakh cusece PMF, but ignores the following of the BIS Code : (@) As per the above referred Code "The initial level, When the flood impinges; would be the top of conservation pool level. For ungated’ spillways this 3@). (b) would correspond to the spillway crest or a little above this. For reservoirs not having a permanent flood control pool this will correspond to top of gate level. Where by rule-curve operation, a part of the conservation capacity is proposed to be used as a joint use capacity towards flood control also, ihe top of conservation level will be used and not the rule- curve level. GoAP have quoted the BIS Code 11223-1995 for fixing Spillway capacity of Dam but neither this Code nor, GWDT award have been adhered to by GoAP in the formulation of the Project. The above stated IS Code is violated for routing of inflow design floods. In the DPR 2008, for fixing the TBL the |S. Code 10635:1993 is not correctly followed as no provision for MWL has been made. In view of above in the formulation of the project, neither the BIS Code is followed nor it is in accordance with GWDT award. This approach of the State of A.P. is wholly wrong, Whenever the Spillways are inadequate, the MWL. goes higher than FRL creating larger submergence besides posing threat to the stability of the structure. Therefore, before resolving the uncertainly of PMF, namely, whether it is 50 lakh cusecs or more, the Project ought not to bepermitted to be ‘executed. Thie is more so for the reason that back water effect cannot be ascertained with any kind of certainty unless the PMF with MWL is known with certainly. itis respectfully submitted that the Final Order! Decision of the GWDT js the law and therefore,all parameters of tho Project must be in complete conformity with the provisions of the GWDT Award, All the aspects of design of the Project left to CWC must be justified on the basis of the Final Order! Decision of the GWDT. The Polavaram project, without construction of upstream projects as per the agreements reached between co-basin states and incorporated in the Decision! Final Order of GWDT cannot be said to be formulated, designed and/ or executed in accordance with the GWDT award. The maximum discharging capacity of the Polavaram Project Spillway at MWL 42.67 m. is 36 lakh cusecs only, as mentioned in the Salient features of the Project circulated during the 96th TAC meeting of CWC. The design fiood for the Dam is mentioned as 3.6 Million cusecs (Salient features Page No.7 & 9). In the reply to this A. Govt. of AP have stated that:- “As per the criteria laid down in the referred IS Code “Fixing the spillway capacity of the 21 3]Dams’, Polavaram dam is required to be designed for Probable Maximum Flood (PMF).. The CWC has estimated PMF for Polavaram Project as 1,41,535 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 catimation of submergence due to backwater effects. The Rastriya Bath Ayog (RBA) 1980 has recommended for 1 in 100 year retum period flood for protection of urban area and 1 in 25 years retum 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 retum period flood is much on higher side than the norms of RBA.” In this contest it is to be mentioned that in the DPR-2005 submitted by GoAP, the design flood is mentioned to be 36 lakh cusecs. GoO does not have the details of modifications in the designs of Spillway. In case, it has been done, it should be shared with co-basin States whichare affected due to the Project. The Spillway discharging capacity definitely has a bearing on the MWL, back water computations and the upstream submergence levels, Further it is stated by GOAP that Rashtriya Barh Ayoga (RBA)1980 recommendations of 1 in 100 year return period flood for protection of urban area and 1 in 25 year return flood for rural areas is applicable. But, it is verily believed that, in the case. of some of the Major Projects, MoEF itself has recommended the use: of floods in the range of PMF / SPF and the corresponding MWL for calculations of submergence due to backwater effect. in fact, it is verily believed that now better and updated versions over MIKE-11 are also available. However, it is respectfully submitted that the Polavaram project has to be formulated, designed and execuled strictly In accordance with the terms of the GWDT Decision/ Final Order and in no other manner. ‘The Applicant reserve its rights to address arguments and make submissions regarding the provisions of the GWDT AWARD and Final Order and the relevant Agreements attached with as part of the Final Order Para6é The averments in this para are denied in view of ‘what has been stated here-in-above. It is once again reiterated that the embankments cause more 33Para7 Para8 submergence for longer periods due to drainage congestion in countryside and it is not a viable suggestion during the period of simultaneous floods both in Sabari and country streams. The contents of this para are ex facie wrong and therefore, denied. The Environmental clearance accorded by MoEF on 25.10.2005 was based on the Dam Break Analysis conducted: by NIH which was only for 36 lakh cusees design flood and not on the basis of revised design flood ( PMF ) of 50 lakh cusees. As such Environmental reappraisal is required. The letter dated 25.4.2006 of Ministry of Environment & Forests ( MOEF) in which additional conditions were stipulated as stated by Govt. of AP. was not supplied to the State of Orissa. With reference to this para, it is submitted that the “scrutiny of DPR" may or may not be a dynamic process but the extent of submergence in upstream states, Orissa and Chattisgarh needs to be finalized with certainty as a first step before formulating the Project for consideration. But the State of AP. has, admittedly, gone ahead with the construction activities of the earthen and_rock fill dam besides the 24 34as spillway. This conduct of A.P. is highly unjust and grossly unfair to the affected Orissa. ‘The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh have stated that the CWC has checked the spillway capacity for 50 lakh cusecs and therefore, it stands admitted that the CWC has not designed the Project which it had undertaken to do under the GWOT Award) Final Order. It is further stated that AP. while formulating/ designing the project, has neither followed the BIS Code nor the GWOT Award/ Final Order as demonstrated herein above. It is not clear as to whether the PMF of 60 lakh cusecs is used only for safety considerations of spillway without checking the spillway discharging capacity for 60 lakh cusecs or the spillway design includes the adequacy for safe passage of 50 lakh cusecs, The computations in support of adequacy of spillway capacity for the safe passage of the PMF of 50 lakh cusecs vetted by CWC have not been provided to Orissa. The upstream water levels depend upon the spillway discharging capacity. As per the data available with Govt. of Orissa, the spillway discharging capacity may be inadequate to discharge 50 lakh cusecs. The contents of this para are denied in view of what-has been stated herein above. 25Para9 In view of what has been stated here-in-above, the contents of this: para are denied. Admittedly, the CWC has not done the design of the: Polavaram Project on its own as undertaken by it as per the GWOT award. It was incumbent upon CWC to review the design fiood studies of major projects constructed upstream of Polavaram as it is a terminal reservoir project on Godavari. The design flood studies for the upstream projects at different points of time with different data sets. will certainly have a significant effect on the design aspects of the Polavaram Project. Due to inadequate discharging capacity of Spillways of upstream projects, when the floods of higher magnitude hit the upstream projects which are at FRL or near/above FRL,” the releases from upstream projects will increase the-severity of the ‘floods, causing catastrophic effect on the terminal reservoir on Godavari at Polavaram. The CWC, in suggesting the need for review of design floods for upstream projects, is also of the same opinion. The following examples of some Projects illustrate, the need of review of design flood of existing upstream projects and that of Polavaram. %6 26(@) (b) (c) (a) ‘A major flood on 17th July 1988, has caused the overtopping and breaching of 17 mhigh Mitti dam in the Kachchh region of Gujarat. ‘The original PMF for the Machhu Il dam was given as 5663 cumecs. This. was revised to 20,925 cumecs during 1979 following a flood of higher magnitude, and then further revised to 26,425 cumecs due to occurrence of higher magnitude flood due to severe storm near the dam site in 1983. In case of Gandhi sagar project in Madhya Pradesh State, the catchment area at the dam site is 22,584 Sq.Km, The design flood for this project as. per original planning was 21,200 cumecs but this has been exceaded 10 (ten ) times since 1960 . However, the recent estimates through PMP & PMF ‘studies indicate that the design flood is 75000 cumecs. This clearly illustrates the necessity of the utmost care in estimations of PMPs and PMFs. The recent experiences during the Krishna floods in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh indicates the necessity of revision of the design flood studies for all the upstream projects, the low estimation of which cause catastrophic effects to the downstream a3% reservoirs. The details of Krishna floods are summarized below The State of Andhra Pradesh recently experienced unprecedented flood in the river Krishna inthe first week of Octoher, 2009. The peak flood flow in Krishna river at Srisailam on 03.10.2009 is reported to be in the Order of 25.15 lakh cusecs and this is nearly 2.5 times the peak flood of 10.6 lakh cusecs ever experienced in the past 100 years. The swelling backwaters of Srisailam project on the river krishna flooded a Kumool city located in the upstream areas of the Project.. This clearly shows how the inadequate discharging capacity of.the spillway causes submergence in Upstream areas due to back water effect. Itis verily believed that the river Krishna was in full spate, along 1,200 km of its, length from the Almatti Dam in Karnataka, down to the Prakasam barrage and most of the major projects upstream of srisailam were discharging surplus flows through their spillways worsening the flood situation. Floods in the range of 33 lakh cusecs have already been experienced in Godavari basin. The Polavaram spillway has been designed for discharging capacity of 36 lakhPara cusecs only.. The PMF estimated by CWC for Polavaram Project is only 50 lakh cusecs and needs revision. ‘The middle and lower Godavari basin experiences mostly severe storms . in its eastern part, ie; Orissa and Chhattisgarh states. The representative cub catchment 20 considered by AP and accepted by CWC is far off from the eastern part of the Middle and Lower Godavari basin. The catchment area, of Middle & Lower Godavari basin together constitutes about 70% of the total catchment area of 306643 Sq.Km intercepted at the project site at Polavaram. The size of the catchment being very large, a single storm ie., the storm of August 1986 at sub- catchment 20 does not cover the total catchment of Middle and Lower Godavari basin resulting in showing a lower magnitude of floods from these sub-catchments. In view of the above, the PMF computations have to be revised for Polavaram Project afresh. 40 In view of what has been stated here-in-above, the contents of this para are denied. It is wrong to suggest that “The Applicant State is having the option either to have construction of embankments to avoid submergence or to claim the compensation." On the contrary, A.P. is bound toadhere to the parameters stipulated in the GWDT Award and the Agreements. Para 11 With reference to this para a copy of the photographs showing that construction activities in both the components of head works and canal system are going onaseannexed herewith and marked as Annasure-3(24) Para 12 With reference to this para it.is stated that the State of Orissa has not been supplied with any details of the embankments as alleged or otherwise. submitted to the MoEF. Para13° It is denied that the construction of embankments is an established practice of flood management in the country as alleged or otherwise. In any event, neither A.P. nor CWC nor any other Aulhorily have worked out detailed planning of maintenance and drainage arrangements as alleged or otherwise. It is wrong to suggest that “The only option available to the Plaintiff- State is either to accept for construction of embankments or to opt for R&R plan" as alleged or otherwise. The Applicant craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to demonstrate from the GWDT Award and the Agreements that A.P. is not entitled to take up the Project in its present formulation.Para 14 With reference to this para it is submitted that A.P. is not entitled to take up the Project in its present form. In any event, the purpose with which the Project was conceived are non existent now. Majority of areas which were planned to be serviced by the Project have already been provided with irrigation facilities from other projects. National interest does not mean causing large scale submergence of backward and Tribal areas and developing a Command area, a major part of which is already being served by different Irrigation Projects both by lift and gravity. The proposed benefits through this project can be reaped through various alternatives. In fact neither AP. nor CWC applied their mind to the alternatives. It is respectfully submitted that the A.P. ought to be restrained from proceeding further with construction of the Project so as save to save large forest areas from submergence and tribal population from being ruined or uprooted, more particularly, for the reason that the --Project conceived more than a few decades back has lost its relevance. In view of the strong prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of saving the forest areas and tribal population, the reliefs prayed for ought to be granted. 31 a\are Para 15 That in view of the submissions made hereinabove and in view of the submissions made in the plaint, the LA. No.2 / 2009 may kindly be allowed in the interest of justice. Filed by arco Qornelor PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT THROUGH (R.S.JENA) ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF Subaane Cows Bann | Settled by : Sek tncwmdy Deck, Mr. Shambhu Prasad Singh Tika p. Senior Advocate tao aay DSRLe No. Resettled by: men SeusTst ag Mr. Raju Ramehandran, Senior Advocate 2CANAL 27/08/2009 as~tip te of Orissa under my instructions on the basis of the official records and the legal advice which | believe to be true. The contents of the said rejoinder reply may kindly be read as a part of this affidavit which are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. That Annexures filed thereto are true to their respective originals. Verified at New Delhi on this $7 du day of September 2010. thardhar Pama, DEPONENT 27-9) 2e]0aan ‘ frenereoase~ | i ‘Suumury Rocurd of discussions of the 73" Movtluy of Advisory Comittee ‘VT Sleglton, Hood Cont and ltpurpose Poets ld on 340572000, t 13 Mésilig of Advisor Commitee on Inga, Foot Control aud Mulipuspose Prujeta yas bold on 31.05.2000 at 1100 His. in the Com +8.8.Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi, undér tho Chairmanship of Secretary, Reson A list of pattcipanis js enclosed at Annexure - 1. € . t ‘Chalman ofthe Commitee welcomed all i pavispans and inated Unt Were ae ten projects, fire from Andlirg Pradesh, three from Orissa and one cach from Biliar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesti "ind Kacidiaa tbe considered in this meeting, Therealles, he requested CB (PAO), the Member “Sexo t ti! up the Ageida Heme and belly lnsoduee the projets one by one for --ponsdetafon iad iacussiin by the members ofthe Comittee a ‘by tho spell bvioos. : clavifiations, if any, be yives i otovng Dil wore aan pepe he Ags The dacs he nd sons ken by ih Conato ar suai below JY QT VAMBADHARA PHASE OF STAGEU (AR, Eiauted Cost 1‘ By, 123.936 Cr (1999 ~2000 S01) cca 33,298ha ‘Ania erigaion 25,203 fa. pier Breer (PAO) iy deed ees ropes wth ton pul'up the same. for consideration by Uke Committee. On the query about the iN involved ie viability id ground water ulisaon, it wag claiod tat the preset proposal does not envisage ay a “gan ie dough gro nnd the dota furdshed shout ground water uiistion as per 1 State Ground Water Departignt. On this it was suggested that eoncurrencelviews of Cental Ground Waier Boa may be obtaied about the avanility ond uation in the comnnand ava. ‘Advisor (Panag Commission) wanted to, know whathor the ex jeale from the Fores Dopartent hat been obisined regarding, nor-involvene of forcet land. ‘Yo this, the Project ‘olfcials assured that ~ they wil‘ebiain the requisite cerilicate from the State Forest Department. “fle Seerlay, Minisry of Miler Resourcer ashe! about the clearanes by Mivisity of_ : i bb + a ‘maviroument sad Foveat, It ya inforved by the Project Authorities thal the Enviruin sy Yopack Asweinent Report fas alrdady been submited, ‘Thiy were advised to yaw cenrance expeditiously. The Project was aceepled wubject to f Bovionmentalelearance from Missy of Environment and Forest Gi) Concurrence of Stale Finance Department; Gi) Concurrence by Central Ground Water Board, : (Action: MOLEIState Government) 2, SUDDAVACU MEDIUM IRRIGATION PROJECT (AP. * is Estimated Cost n° Rs, 5618 Cr, (1998-99 SOR) col, 5 5666 ha Anal Irigation pS 666ha. 1 [After bit inuoduetion of the pret propos and is teeuw-teouonde visbily by CH § tngincr (PAOD, the project was aken up fr dsussion, 1k wae polnted out tha he Govern of Maharie bas asd te tue of submergence in i tenon ant the bsckvasr silos canied uy APERL alg vst erowseaions hd been set t'thems Chaian CANO) slated that of about 2: ih ver rng th Bry, reves tha hi ba dept of er lion he gorge t ERL and he bacaer wl merge ih nonna atr level dung 958 well within the boundary of Andhra Pradesh, Thexefor, dete wil ot be any sive ell the tenor of Mansi, Hones, spenate of Covent of Maas quested for jo vey ass the eet of ebergece andthe cost of ey to Ue Gome:bf'Govemment of:Andlua Pradcsh, The request ofthe Government of Matireshira 1 wan awa oan hey were asked to provi ll ebope oe a vie we dann, pets el st. wr es 4. Haro 2 re 74 Meeting of AdHSONY Cammitter “summary Record of disc ssions of Gon ietgtton, ood ara Mteparnase Praects WH OY Soiusreu0d. The 74 Meeting of Advisory Conunitte on Irigationy Flood Contraland ‘Multipurpose Projects jas lsd on, 20.09.2000 st 15:00 tis. in the. Comer Room of Ministy of Labout g.s.Bhavn, Rai Mare, NEP Dalnt under te Chaianasalip oF seretary, Mixsiry of Walet Résosrees, Alst of parisipanis is encbued st Annie 2 ‘chalrnan of tie Comllles yleorut a tke passipanis and inst at taore ore tah! frcjets (four Sou Ores HNO rou Rajasthan, on Som Anche Pradesh and one {rom arya) fo bo considered in this mesing, Thereafer, he requislel CE (PAO), the Monier gocreaiy to tke up the ‘Agenda irom and briolly introduce the pajects one BY One ‘for the ‘pslerafon and Uiscusion DY the exembors of the Comat: . _gusunacy of dscussons eld a lecisiay taken are described Ustows 4 Cheligada Dam Project (M dium) — Orissa j ‘ Basiared Cost fm 5296 CR T999 SOD 98 C* for rvigtion) cca b | \00 ke ‘Aunt Irfigation p uadhe Drinking Water Provisions 31s4 MM (Tan) . 013 MCI (ural) Gist Engineer (PAO) benlly gyeribl wo projet proposal wilt cotine-econonio vnbility ‘om the gusy about the design SPE ofthe project inciuaing amet and oS cut chanodl Stale Representslve replica that the Designs by the Water Resourss Deptt and checked by he States central Desiges 4 to be cleared by ‘and put up the sae £0F consideration by he Gomnitiee, ave boon made i jaar tang Connon) ited At the project it yo Organisation. Advis nstry of Environment and Forest al ine limit 0f 6 mons may B& imposed Sor obtains gych clearances. TO this, the Praised oats enor at thoy willinae all possible efforts tain the requisite clearances from the various Minis within st ment Tho Project was then agsapied subject 10:one and RP learns fa ss cower Cents Mii - Concurrence cf Sino Finance Depertient LO ‘Monitoring of Ground Water: lovelin,Post-Projeot scenario 10 explore the possiviity conjunclive use of Surface and ground waet, iietions MOSBME, MOTA, MOBUTSite Government) 2 stributory) of Hiralcul Distribution System (Modernisation) Estimated Cost Rs, 34.92 Cr. (1999 SOR) CCA 16,283 be i Arnal Irrigation f 16,05 ha “After bref’ introduction of the projet proposal and ‘gs techno-teoncinlc viability by Chvicl aguas (PAO), he projet wos taken up for susan Aor bef discussion, the project as accepted subject to: 1, Concurrence of State Finance Depll 7. Mowioxing of Ground Water in post pxjeet condition to Uke uiplioraive measures combat water logging, : 4, Suggatons of CWC fe change the grade of oan ener fr bedding and covering around the joints, provision of by-pass aurangement fn addition to the filling valve to, achieve the balanced liad candition during contruction of the project. (Aotlon: State Government) 3 DAI MAJOR (ORIS Estimated Cost bee 50466 Cxs(2000 SOR) CCA : 40,000 ha. Annual Irrigadon ¢ ¥,S00 ha ‘sat anf ieoston of te pot by CE (PAO) Seer Mi of Water Resources polated out that the inking iner provision of 5 MCM is wary low considering the live storage Tir289 MEM, Moreover, px he abled past, neal. 10% of iS live storage capacity ‘could be earmarked for drinking water supply. feepresentave of Govt. of ‘Ovissa clarified that thisin thy command tea up to the year 2020 Further, there are no towitites to be sved by this project Representative of Govt of Maya Pradesh aed te isu af submergence and sae tsk Govt of Orissa tas xt povided them ary information DI. Represeratve of Govt. of Orisa laced thot they fane Ket the FRL 31219. M although dz agreement between MLP, and Orissa emits PRL of 220 M andthereforesumergence ot an'ssue, Gov of M.P sate tat even et FAL of 219.0 My there wail he submergence in their tentory. In view ofthis it was coneiuded that e copy of DPR maybe fumishe.o Madhya Pradest by Orissa nd Orissa shoud ssfy Madhya Pradesh on the fue of subrergesce. Advior, Pinning Commission observed that the provision for drainage andfeld channels wes on lover sand there ise need to mike adeguate provision to avoid watr logging and sulniy problems. in post pajest scenario. On this representative of Govt. of Orissa intinated that sine drag problem is not anticipate in the ‘command, the provision would be adenate, Secret, Mistry of Waster Resources stressed for proper round watering to plan for onjunive se f water in fre. The representa oF Ministry of Tribal Affairs queried aba he RER Plan forthe project which representative of Govt of Orissa informed at they woud be submiting theR & plan story. Secretary Ministry ‘of Water Resoures indizsed thet Gow. of Orissa should ubmit the R&R Plan 10 the consemed Ministry within dee mous and effets should be made to get it cleared within six mons Regarding forest and envionment cleaner, represznatveof Govt, of rien inmate tt they would be submiting the poposel to Ministry of Environment and Forest short. After thatthe project was accepted stubje to, Forest elesnnce from Ministry of Environmat and Forest, 2. R&Releannce from Misistry of Tbal Aft 3, Ground wier mositoringin post project eondton & planning for conjunctive se, 4. * Concurrence of State Fiance Department. (Aofon: MOTAMMOEF/State Goveranent) 44|. qunoyEMENE-O SALALIBRIGATION PROJECTORS Estimated Cost Rs.11.57 Cr. (2000 SOR) cA, 19,891 ba. “Annual Irrigation 20.141 ha -rye project propossia were briefly expand by CE (PAO). After brief discussion the proejet was accepted subject to— 1. The adequate provision shouldbe made for safe passage ‘of revised flood of, magnitude under intimation © CWC, 2, Concurrence of State Finance Department fr update 295 (action: State Government) S IN (ARRIG: -REVI (RAJASTHAN) Estimated Cost ft Rs457.81 Cr. (2000 SOR) (R5385.60 Cr. For irrigation + 76100. ‘Annual Irrigation p. S8024 ba Drinking Water Provision : 45836 MicM ‘Aner viet dessition of the project proposal and iis techno-econornle viability by CE (PAO) iseusion on the project commenced. The prjest WAS earlier approved by the Planning ‘commission in December 197. Fore Gnvronmeat and R&R Flan have already been deliberated ty the respective Minsies. Ar some deliberton the projec was acceped subject following concitions: ()_ Fumishng he details of benefiting ban ant rural population and tei allocation of viking water inthe project. ‘Concurrence of State Finance Department: (Action: State Government)[NOMAR IBRLGTION PROJECT (RAJASTHAN, Estimated Cost + R&A9.38 Cr. (March 2900 SOR) (Gs91.75 Cr Including share costof Punjab and Haryana) cca 32536 hs. ‘Annual Lrrigation 13665 hn, Drinking Water Provision 3McM ‘After brief description of the project proposal and its tehno-economic viability by CE (PAO) discussion on the projest commenced. The projet wes cestior approved by the Planning Commission in July 1990 Forest, Environrnent and R&R Plan have already been cleared by the respective Ministries. Atet some delberation, the projet was accepted subject 10 following conditions: () Implementation of environmental safegurcs as stipulated by Mi Environment and Forest. (i) Concurrence of State Finance Department. (Action: State Government) 7. VALLI RVOIR (ANDHRA PRADES Estimated Cost + Rs143,67 Cr. (199899 SOR) cca, + 9TiSha. ‘Annual Irrigation 2 10s15 ba. Drinking Water Provision 223MCM. CE (PAO) described the project proposal and its tchno-economic iy. Aer some iteration the projest nas accepted sect to the following conitons- 1. Coneurence of State Finnce Deparment fr updated est 2. Monitoring of ground vater should be dane in post project conions 1 adopt smessurestoavoid water ging (Action: State Government) S|-6- & YAMUNA LI mn Estimated Cost ~ + ‘Rs.33.98 Cr. (1999 SOR). cca + Lisk Chane. ‘Annual Irrigation + Link Chana. ‘Brief desorption of the project proposal, its teehno-economic viability was explained by CE (PAO). After some deliberation, the project vas accepted subject to the concurrence of Finance ‘Deparment wiehis 6 months. (Action: State Government) “The meeting ended with vote of thanks tothe Cheannexure IST OF PARTICIPANT'S sist | | T zHasan, SevetanyMinistry of Water Resouces, New Del. Inthe Chair § ENNavalavala, Advisor (WR),Planaing Commission, New Deli, Member 3. - KPS.Vema, Depay Commissioner (WME) (Repesenting Seuetary, Department of A giulture and Cooperation), New Dali. Member 4. AK.Agarawal, Deputy Director, COWS Chatman, COWD), Fridabod. ‘Meriber 5, Dr D.K Pal Principal Scientist (Representing Direcor General of(ICAR) New Delt 6 Tas, Diteowr (HAD), CEA (Representing Chairma, CEA), New Deli. Member 4; hatnder Kumar, Deputy Seeretay (BET) (Representing Financial “Advisor, MOW R), New Delhi. ‘Member 8. ‘S.Prakash, Deputy Secretary, (Rep. Secretary, Ministy of Social . Juste & Empowemeat), Now Deli. Member 9, RN.PSingh, ChiefEngincer (PAO), CWC, New Debi. Member Seey- ‘Susial Invitees: RLS Prasad, Mermber (WF&P), CWC 2. MARBolg, Chief Exginecr (PPO}CWC 3, ABPal, Chief Engheer (PMO),CWC 4, SK Bancjes, Diredar PA'S), CNC 5, AK.Ganju, Director BCD-ENSNE), CWC 6 —_ SPSingh, Director PP-N&S), CWC 7. C.Submamanian, Director (Mi & Appraisal), CHC. Hyderabad 8. Pradeep Kumar, Dinctor PA-Nath, CWC 9, B.G.Kaushik, Director (PP-C), CWC 10. FXCStha:Dicotor, CWC, Bhubmeswar Il, R&CPachans, Diresor(PA-Centa), CWC Ram Saran, Dep uty Director (PANorth), CWC ‘O.PSaxens, Deputy Director (BED-ENENE), CWC RIN-Ray, Deputy Divctor (PA-Non), CWC DAN Dahiya, Depa Director (PA-Central), CWC ‘T_D.Sharma, De putyDirecior (P&S), CWE anning Comat T. RNSatagi, Depuy Advisor (WR), New Deli. Ministry of Water Resourses 1 PC Mattur Commision (Projet). 2. S.MSood, St. Joint Commissioner (Prosies). 3. MS.Gupla, Sr Soirt Commissioner (P).5 7 State Government Officials Orissa PH A x Mohanty, Engincerin-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Orissa Bhubaneswar 2, Kee-Parda,Lisison Officer, Dept of Water Resources, Govt of Orissa, K/I-12, NDSE-I, New Delhi. i. R.K.Chatur, Chief Engineer, Bisalpur Project, Sinchai Bhawan, Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jsipur | 2. KCMathur, Chief Projt Director-cum-Chief Engineer, Hanumangarh J. (Rajasthan) 3 Rndanlal Superintending Englnocr-Dam, Dlalpue Prejest, Dooly Ralethars 4 R.S.Bhandari, Superintending Engineer-Canal (Civil), Bisalpur Projest, Deotl, Rajasthan. 5. B.MJalan, Superintending Engineer, Nohar Irrigation Proejet, Sidhmukh Project Circle, P.O, Bhadar335501, Dist, Hanumangah. 6. GR'Tak, Exeoulve Engincer, NoharInigatin Project, Nohar, Rajasthan, ‘Harvana LOcThukral, Enginccrin-Chicf, Haryana Inigailon, 30 Bays Building. Sector!7, Chandigarh, R.K.Allawadhi, Chief Engineer, HKB Project, 30 Bays bullding, Sector-17, Chandigarh, Kon] Vashishe, Supernending Enger, Hathnokand Barge, 1 Canal Colony agar ryan. GIGupta, Superintending Engineer, Projects, Haryana Irrigation, SCO" 889, Shiva Enclave, U-T. Chandigarh. ‘G.SSahni, Principal Secretary, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, WRD, Bhopal. Ranjit Chakraborty, Deputy Secretary, WRD, Govt. of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal. SSSachdev, Executive Engineer, M.P, Water Resources Department, L-26, South Extension-I, Government of Madiya Pradesh, Delhi.C ANAL 27/08/2009 SsADUT 97/08/2009IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA’ CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION L.A. NO.2 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 4 OF 2007 INTHE MATTER Of STATE OF ORISSA PLAINTIFF VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. DEFENDANTS AFFIDAVIT |, Baldhar Panda S/o (Late) Padmacharan Panda, aged about 5S years, presently posted as Chief Engineer (Project, Planning & Formulation), Govt. of Orissa, Water Resources Department, ‘Sooke Saki Building, Bhubaneswar (Orissa) presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly affirm and deciare as under:- 4. That | have been authorized by the Plaintiff/Applicant-State of Orissa to file the accompanying rejoinder reply to the counter affidavit filed by State of AP. in the ILA. No.2/2009 in Suit No.4/2007. | am conversant with the records of the case. Therefore, l.am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That the contents of the accompanying rejoinder reply has been drafted by the counsel for tie plaintiff-applicanyStateCANAL 27/08/2009 -™SPILLWAY 27/08/2009 | oFPIL LWAY 27/08/2009v9M4 DAM 27/08/2009 So.