National Green Tribunal
Dr. C.K.Sreedharan Ifs Rtd vs Secretary To Government Public Works ... on 24 August, 2022
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, K. Ramakrishnan, Satyagopal Korlapati
Item No. 01 Court No. 1
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SPECIAL BENCH
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 135/2016(SZ)
Dr.C. K. Sreedharan, IFS (Rtd) Applicant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Public Works Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 24.08.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Respondent(s): Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R1 & R2.
Dr. D. Shanmuganathan represented
Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R3.
ORDER
1. The matter has been put up at the post judgment stage. Vide judgment dated 15.04.2021, the Tribunal dealt with the grievance against proposed temporary bridge along Adyar River and its embankment in place of earlier Irish and Bailey Bridge which obstructed the flow of water course in the River. The proposed bridge was to be constructed by the Officer Training Academy of the Army through PWD, Tamil Nadu.
2. Stand of the said respondents was that only permanent bridge will be constructed and not a temporary one which was earlier contemplated and explored.
1
3. Following issue was framed for consideration:-
"(1) Whether the 4th respondent can be permitted to have a temporary bridge which they are now using and replace the same with the similar type of temporary bridge alone or they must be permitted to have a permanent bridge as suggested by the PWD."
4. In the light of material on record, the Tribunal disposed of the application with following directions:-
"i. The 4th respondent is directed not to proceed with the construction of any temporary bridge has proposed by them in respect of the damaged bridge which they were using earlier by replacing the same by the same type of Bailey bridge.
ii. The 4th respondent is directed, if at all they want any construction of the bridge to connect that two campuses which was situated on either side of the Adyar River, to comply with the permission granted by the PWD on the basis of their application for this purpose vide G.O. (Ms) No. 23 dated 14.02.2017 mentioned above.
iii. The 4th respondent is also directed to comply with all the conditions imposed as Annexure to this notification while carrying out the construction of the bridge as directed by the PWD.
iv. The PWD is also directed to supervise the construction of bridge as per the permission granted by the 4th respondent as to whether the same has been constructed by them in accordance with the permission granted and if there is any deviation made, then they are directed to take appropriate action against the 4th respondent for the deviation committed by them.
v. The 2nd respondent is also directed to inspect the present bridge and if they feel that it causes any obstruction of the free flow of water and if it requires any modification to prevent the obstruction that is likely to be caused on account of the present structure, issue direction to the 4th respondent to modify the same in such a manner for enabling the 4th respondent to use the same till the permanent bridge was constructed.
vi. So considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their respective cost in the application.
vii. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the 2nd respondent as well as to the 4th respondent by email immediately for their information and compliance.
viii. The 2nd respondent is directed to submit a report regarding the present status of the bridge and 2 modification, if any, required as directed by this Tribunal within a period of 3 (Three) months.
ix. The office is directed to place the report before this Tribunal for consideration as and when received."
5. In view of direction requiring the PWD to submit a report about status of bridge after the judgment, the matter was taken up on 02.03.2022 to consider the compliance report filed on 01.03.2022 to the effect that proposal for construction of permanent RCC bridge was at the stage of approval of design by consultants. Thus, temporary bridge is no longer proposed which was prohibited by the Tribunal and permanent bridge is planned which has to be as per judgment of this Tribunal and the law.
In view of above, no further order is necessary at this stage but if any grievance arises in future, the same can be raised in appropriate proceedings.
The proceedings will stand closed.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP K. Ramakrishnan, JM Sudhir Agarwal, JM Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, EM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM August 24, 2022 Original Application No. 135/2016(SZ) AB 3