Dams - Construction causing ecological damage - Public damage - Appreciated the petitioners' concern for the safety of the project which is of prime importance to the general public. Affidavits filed by the State showing that sufficient precautions have been taken. Not interfered. [ Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangarsh Samithi vs State of U.P. 1992 (Suppl) SCC 44.]
Dams - Thermal projects -Ousting of tribal - Fundamental right to live - Preference in jobs- Advises and backward people using forests and their habitat.Clamped stringent conditions on ousting of tribal. Court asked the NTPC to give them preference in jobs. Rehabilitation measures directed . [Banwasi Sewa Asramam vs N.T.P.C. AIR 1992 SC 920 = (1992)2 SCC 612 ] {see earlier directions at (1986)4 SCC 753;(1987)2 SCC 304 ; (1992)1 SCC 117; (1992)2 SCC 202}
Dams Construction on Narmada River (Sardar Sarovar Project) Cannot be said to be not in national interest Displacement of tribals and other persons Only relocation Environment clearance given Mere charge of status in environment not sufficient to presume that construction of dam would result in ecological disaster Steps taken to improve ecology Clearance granted in 1987 Procedure prescribed in 1994 not applicable Inter State Water Disputes Act, 1956 Award binding.The allegation that the Sardar Sarowar Project was not in the national or public interest is not correct seeing to the need of water for burgeoning population which is most critical and important. Narmada has a potential of irrigating over 6 million hectares of land and generating 3000 mw of power. There would be positive impact on preservation of ecology as a result from the project. The dam is neither a nuclear establishment nor a polluting industry. The construction of a dam undoubtedly would result in the change of environment but it will not be correct to presume that the construction of a large dam like the Sardar Sarovar will result in ecological disaster. The procedure now provided in 1994 for getting prior clearance cannot apply retrospectively to the project whose construction commenced eight years prior thereto. It cannot be said that it would be necessary to review the Sardar Sarovar Project and that an independent agency should monitor the R&R of the oustees. Policy decision by Government as to construction of dam cannot be challenged after the commencement of the execution of project . PIL is liable to be thrown out on ground of laches. PIL should not be allowed to be degenerate to becoming Publicity Interest Litigation or Private Inquisitiveness Litigation. [Narmada Bachao Andolan vs Union of India. AIR 2000 SC 3751:2000(2) Supp JT 6 : 2000 (7) Scale 34 : 2000 (1) SCC664 : 2000 AIRSCW 4809. Dr..A.S.Anand (CJ) & B.N.Kirpal (J) (Majority view.] When the project obtains environmental clearance each of the Grievance Redressal Authorities of the concerned States must satisfy, after inspection, before work on the further construction of the dam can begin, that all those ousted by reason of the increase in the height of dam by five meters from its present level have already been satisfactorily rehabilitated and also that suitable vacant land for rehabilitating all those who will be outsted by the increase in the height of the dam by another 5 meters is already in the possession of the respective States ; and this process must be repeated for every successive proposed 5 meter increase in the dam height . ( S.P.Bharucha (J). Minority view ]Clarification of the above judgment sought Typographical errors corrected (2002)10 SCC 408.
Environment (Protection ) Act - Environmental clearance - Amendment on 10-4-1997 making public hearing mandatory Effect on pending applications -Application made earlier for clearance rejected - Board carried on correspondence seeking review - Clearance granted on 20-1-1998 withouut taking note of the amendment - Clearance granted without conducting public hearing - Complaint regarding the studies conducted by the TBGRI appears to be true - Ministry is directed to reconsider the question of the grant of environmental clearance after directing the Board to comply with the requirements of the notification as amended to the extent of compliance with the requirement of public hearing as envisaged by the amended notification, before deciding to grant or refusing to grant environmental clearance sought for by the Board. [Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshana Samithi vs State of Kerala. O.P.Nos. 1774/2001, 3581/2001 Dated 17th October, 2001 .P.K.Balasubramanyan & M.Ramachandran (JJ)]