National Green Tribunal
Dr. C.K.Sreedharan Ifs Rtd vs Secretary To Government Public Works ... on 15 April, 2021
Bench: K. Ramakrishnan, K. Satyagopal
Item No. 02:
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 135 of 2016 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Dr. C.K. Sreedharan, IFS (Rtd.)
2/648, 3rd Main Road
River View Enclave
Manapakkam, Chennai - 600 125.
... Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Secretary to Government
Public Works Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George, Chennai.
2. Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department
Water Resources Organisation
Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.
3. Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board
Mount Salai, Guindy
Chennai.
4. Commandant,
Officer Training Academy (OTA),
St. Thomas Mount
Chennai - 600 016.
... Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Mr. M.R. Gokul Krishnan.
For Respondent(s): Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for R1& R2.
Mr. C. Kasirajan through
Ms. D. Ashwini for R3.
Date of Judgment: 15th April, 2021
1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. DR. K. SATYAGOPAL, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
1. The above case has been filed by the applicant alleging that the 4 th respondent is trying to put up a permanent bridge along Adyar River to gain access to the Training Academy in an unscientific manner.
2. It is alleged in the application that the applicant is a retired IFS Officer actively involved in conservation of environment. The city of Chennai has four water ways running through it, namely Cooum, Adyar River, Otteri Nallah and Buckingham Canal. This water says were initially the channels which drained rain water into the sea. The Adyar River which originates in Manimangalam and Chembrambakam Lake flows via Anakaputhur, Gerugambakkam, Mannapakkam, Gafferkhanpet, Saidapet and it reaches the Bay of Bengal.
3. During December 2015, on account of the unprecedented rainfall in the State of Tamil Nadu especially in Chennai city, Chengelpet and surroundings had to face flood problems due to the obstruction of free flow of water in the rivers and canals. On account of the flood situation caused due to the improper maintenance of the riverbed, most of the houses in the nearby areas were inundated under water including the area where the applicant residing.
4. Further, no proper disaster management steps were taken to avoid such things in future as well. Both the Irish and Baileys Bridge obstruct the cause impediments on the flow of watercourse over which they are located. This is because the whole of two third parts of the Bailey Bridge structure is usually located within the channel of the river or stream and causes an obstruction of water flow. The abutments of bridges also generally protrude 2 into the watercourse over 30 metres on either side causing obstacles at the either side of the river. As water flowing in the river channel approaches the Irish Bridge and Baileys Bridge structure that restricts the flow of water, the flow is forced to contract, in order to pass through the bridge before expanding once again to the full channel width. As the constricted flow passes through the obstruction of the bridge, it accelerates, causing a depression in level of water surface and this affect the free flow of water and increase in the flood near by the areas.
5. The construction of Bailey bridges are constructed without taking into account the environment and on impact of such aspect in the flow of water. So the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-
a) Direct the 4th respondent to stop construction of stop construction of bridge or any construction in the Adyar River and its embankments;
b) Direct the 4th respondent OTA to remove the fallen girders and the debris from Adyar river bed and ensure free flow of water forthwith;
c) Direct the 4th Respondent OTA to remove the embankment made on either sides and also the central pillars to ensue free flow of water;
d) Direct the Respondents 1-3 to take action against the 4th respondent under the provisions of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974.
e) Impose a penalty on the 4th Respondent under the polluters pays principle for illegally causing environmental imbalance in the Adyar River;
6. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed their reply affidavit, denying the allegation made in the application. According to them, the Adyar river which traverses through the Chennai city is predominantly a drainage carrier and that the River Adyar has no irrigation potentials from its origin to its confluence with the Bay of Bengal. The River Cooum which had irrigated some extent in the origin also had lost its irrigation due to the urbanization of Chennai City over the periods. The Buckingham Canal is not a natural canal for the purpose. It is a manmade Canal for the purpose of navigation. 3 The bed level of the Buckingham Canal is 1.80 m below the mean sea level and it how only acts as a tidal exchange moderator to receive the sea water when the tidal exchange moderator to receive the sea water. When the tidal waves would ebb during new moon and full moon days. The water in the canal is saline in nature and not fit for agriculture or for any domestic needs. There is no scope for ground water recharge either in view of salinity of the water in the canal. So, the Buckingham Canal is entirely different from other natural bodies in the State.
7. They have also mentioned about the terrain of Chennai City and also the reason for flood etc., in spite of due care taken by them. It is also mentioned that Otteri Nullah which commences from the village of Padi, runs eastwards upto Purasawalkam and then passes through Buckinmgham and Caranatic Mills and finally joins the Buckingham Canal, north of Basin Bridge Railway Station, Chennai has 25.60 km of sea coast which is flat and sandy for about a km from the shore. The bed of the sea is about 42' deep and slopes further in gradual stages for a distance about 5 km from the coast attaining a depth of about 63'. The two principal currents, first from the north and second from the south flow parallel to the coast. The former sets in around the middle of October and continue till February while the latter starts by around August and continues till the burst of the north-east monsoon in the middle of October. These two principal currents must be caused by the winds. On account of the topographical and geographic features of the river/canal systems in Chennai City, they are benefited by the rain during these two monsoon season. Whenever, heavy rain comes due to the geographical reasons sometimes flood occurs.
8. They have also mentioned about the capacity of the water bodies that is being maintained in and around Chennai, Chengalpat and Kancheepuram 4 District which collects the rain water and how they are managing the flow of water while exceeding the storage capacity of the water bodies and tanks. Whenever flood situation arises, the departments used to take steps for the purpose of preventing disaster in the affected areas.
9. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras had Suo-Motu taken certain cases as W.P. No. 11887 of 2016 and on the basis of the Public Interest Litigations (PILs) have been filed in W.P. Nos. 39324 and 39681 of 2015 and on the basis of the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in those cases certain steps were taken to curb the possible disaster that is likely to be caused on account of the flood.
10.There was already a low level cause way adjacent to the Bailey bridge which was also damaged during the flood of 2015, and in course of rectifying the damage of Bailey bridge, 4th respondent started some work during 2nd week of May, 2016 which was stopped by the officials of this respondent department. The 4th respondent was duly advised to explore the possibility of constructing a high level bridge instead of replacing the Bailey bridge. On that basis the 4th respondent has submitted an application to the Government for construction of a permanent bridge across the River Adyar in the place of damaged and collapsed Bailey bridge which is under examination by the Engineers of the Public Works Department (PWD) and all technical factors taking into account of the impact of the Floods, 2015 will be carefully looked into before according approval for the construction of the high level bridge. The department is taking all care in protecting the water bodies maintaining the free flow of water, so as to avoid flood being caused during rainy season. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
11.The 3rd respondent had filed their counter affidavit contending that the application is not maintainable. The site was inspected on 09.12.2016 by the 5 Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) official. During inspection it was noticed that the Officers Training Academy has two campuses on either side of Adyar River or the 4th respondent OTA had build two Bridges across Adyar River just behind its main campus. One bridge was already broken and partially removed and another one was in operation.
12.The construction of a bridge by the Officers Training Academy (OTA) at St. Thomas Mount is not coming under the purview of Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. They are not necessary party to the proceedings. So they prayed for dismissal of the application as against them.
13. The 4th respondent had filed their reply affidavit contending that the Officers Training Academy has two campuses on either side of Adyar River. But the allegation that the illegal construction of bridge by them is not correct. The Irish bridge has been in existence even before the Academy was established at its present location in 1963. So the allegation that the bridge was constructed by the Academy is not correct. The Bailey bridge was constructed pursuant to the order granted by the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department (PWD) -Water Resources Department (WRD) vide G.O.Ms. No. 208 Public Works (K1) Department dated 10.08.2012. Although Public Works Department initially vide order dated 08.06.2012, rejected the request of the OTA on the ground that it is not feasible for compliance, on reiteration of the request, the issue was carefully examined by the Government and given permission for the construction of Bailey bridge. The said order it was stated that the Colonel for Commandant, OTA vide communication dated 19.05.2012 had requested by stating that OTA is spread out on both sides of the Adyar river and there is a requirement of frequent movement of personnel training stores including the 6 administrative support required for training of cadets in the training area which is located on the other side of River Adyar.
14.The Southern Command Head Quarters (HQ) had given administrative approval for the construction of one Bailey bridge double/single span 150 feet vide letter dated 13.02.2012. On obtaining the Head Quarters (HQ) approval, request was made to the Public Works Department (PWD) on 19.05.2012 and it was specifically mentioned in the report that the construction of bridge across river Adyar is for the purpose of connecting Officers Training Academy and training area. This bridge can be launched/dismantled overnight to facilitate the operational plan and it can also be dismantled and used elsewhere overnight facilitate the operational plan.
15.The Government order dated 10.08.2012 reads as follows:
(a) "3" In the above circumstances, the Government examined his request in detail and after careful consideration of the request of the Commander, Officers Training Academy, accord permission temporarily for „Construction of Bailey Bridge across River Adyar"
adjacent to the existing causeway at Officers Training Academy, Chennai to connect the campus of Officers Training Academy split on two banks of the river."
16.They denied the allegation that the cause of flood attributed to the existence of bridges and the flood was caused, as everyone knew, because of sudden release of water from Chembrambakam Lake across Adyar river and Cooum several bridges for road and rail were constructed and in fact huge pillars were put up in Buckingham Canal for constructing MRTS stations. So the existence of Bailey bridge will not cause any obstruction of free flow of water or affect the riverine environment as well. It was constructed originally in 2012 pursuant to Public Works Department (PWD) order dated 10.08.2012 and it was never damaged in the previous rain or flood and for 7 the first time it got damaged due to heavy flood caused by sudden release of water from Chembrambakam Lake.
17.The bridge is being constructed with Hume pipes to cater for water flow in adverse conditions. During 2015, rain was of a magnitude beyond imagination as the water was flowing 10 to 12 metres above the bridge during the floods. So blaming the bridge for inundation in the area of the applicant was without any basis. The bridges were constructed by the academy taking into account all the eco-system and impact on environmental etc., Even they were engaged in removal of deposit of garbage, debris and dead animals were found in the river. The damage parts of the Bailey River were removed promptly, long time ago and they are stacked beyond the river.
18.In is only link between the administrative and training areas of the Academy and for the purpose of their operational facility it has become necessary. The Training Institute of the Country is located in Southern India. So according to the 4th respondent, the allegations are not correct. So they prayed for dismissal of the application.
19. As per order dated 09.01.2020, this Tribunal had directed the 4 th respondent to submit the present status as to whether they were intending to proceed with the project and whether any alternate arrangement made to meet the situation has been taken. But quite unfortunately, no status report has been filed by the 4th respondent as directed.
20.Thereafter, as per order dated 26.08.2020, this Tribunal had directed the Public Works Department (PWD) to submit a detailed report regarding the nature of proposal for the bridge that is likely to be constructed and whether the temporary measures taken up by the 4th respondent is in accordance with 8 law and after necessary permission as no one is entitled to encroach into the water bodies without complying with the regulations framed.
21.As per order dated 09.10.2020, this Tribunal had considered an e-mail of an abstract of the G. O. (Ms) No. 23 dated 14.02.2017 issued by the Public Works Department (PWD), Principal Secretary to the Government, wherein, it was mentioned that they have proposed to construct a permanent Reinforced Concrete Bridge across Adyar River to provide access to the Officers Training Academy of the 4th respondent and they have directed the Academy not to construct any temporary bridge. But they have not filed the status report as directed by this Tribunal and whether any construction has been made pursuant to the Government order mentioned above.
22.This Tribunal also directed the Public Works Department (PWD) to consider the feasibility of replacing the Reinforced Concrete Bridge with Pillars across the River Adyar to have an alternate Hanging Bridge or Suspension Bridge without pillars being constructed in the river plain, so that it will not have any impact on the free flow of water in the river and damage to the river ecology will be minimal.
23.Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 12.01.2021 and the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (PWD) was present at the time of hearing and he had submitted that considering the nature of the locations, the suggestions made by this Tribunal of providing Suspension or Hanging Bridge in that area will not be feasible and directed the Public Works Department (PWD) to file a report regarding the present status.
24.On 05.02.2021, this Tribunal had considered the interim report submitted by the 2nd respondent which was extracted in Para (3) of the order which reads as follows:
9
It is submitted that the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in its order dt.12.1.2021 directed to consider the possibility of providing an alternate hanging bridge or suspension bridge without pillars being constructed in the river as it will not have any impact on the free flow of water in the river and consequently damage to river ecology will be minimised.
It is submitted that the Adyar river is having 125 m width in the subject area and maximum depth of flow is 9.445 m in the year 2015. In the Adyar river all the existing high level bridges constructed earlier were reinforced cement concrete bridges and are not hindrance to the flood water flows during monsoon. It is submitted that the construction of suspension bridge might be complicated in plain terrain like Chennai city. It is constructed mostly in the valley area between the mountains. Hence the RCC bridge may be the right option in the subject area by considering the cost effectiveness and as well as the prevailing site condition.
It is submitted that the instruction may be given to the respondent No.4 to adhere the linear water way of 125 m while constructing the RCC bridge across Adyar river as mentioned in the State Government Order vide G.O.(Ms) No.23 Public Work (K2) Department dt. 14.2.2017."
25.Since nothing was mentioned about the alternate suggestions made by this Tribunal in that report. The Superintending Engineer was directed to be present in Court along with the officer of the 4 th respondent and the case was posted to 09.03.2021 for that purpose.
26.On 09.03.2021 the Superintending Engineer of Public Works Department (PWD) was present before Tribunal and submitted that the Suspension Lever Bridge will not be possible across Adyar River, considering its depth and the RCC bridge that has been suggested by the PWD in their sanction letter will not cause any obstruction to free flow of water, as number of such bridges have been constructed by the PWD across several rivers including Adyar River in some other places and no obstruction to the free flow of water in the river has been caused on account of the same. 10
27.But the 4th respondent had not appeared as directed. We have directed the Superintending Engineer, PWD to inspect the area in question with the team of officers in the presence of 4th respondent and ascertain the present status of the temporary bridge that is being used by the 4th respondent for the academic purpose and whether the existing bridge causes any obstruction to the free flow of water in the river and what is the remedial measures to be taken in order to retain the temporary bridge till the permanent solution of construction of permanent bridge is taken by the 4th respondent as permitted by the PWD and posted the case for today for that purpose.
28. When the matter came up for hearing today through Video Conference, Sri. M.R. Gokul Krishnan represented the counsel for the applicant. Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan represented respondents 1 & 2, Sri. C. Kasirajan through Ms. D. Ashwini 3rd respondent.
29.Even today there was no representation for the 4 th respondent, though notice was served on them as directed by this Tribunal in the address shown in the application, as earlier reply was received stating that the office in which the notice was sent is not dealing with any legal cases and they are only imparting training.
30.We have received an interim report filed by the 2nd respondent seeking two more weeks' time for filing the report, as after the orders were passed, election was declared and most of the Officers of the 2nd respondent were engaged in election duty.
31.The points that arise for consideration is whether the 4th respondent can be permitted to reconstruct the damaged bridge with the existing system of Bailey bridge.
32.The counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the 4 th respondent was not appearing before this Tribunal with any concrete proposal as to how 11 they are going to replace the same. Further, the PWD was not also filed the report as directed by this Tribunal. So the application may be disposed by giving directions to the 4th respondent to strictly abide by the directions issued by the PWD while proceeding with the construction of the bridge which was damaged during the flood in the year 2015.
33.The point that arise for consideration is:
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.
Points:
34.It is seen from the report submitted by the PWD that when the bridge was damaged during 2015 flood, a request was made for the permission to have a temporary bridge using Bailey system as has been done earlier. But the 2 nd respondent had not accorded permission for that purpose. But they have directed the 4th respondent to have a permanent bridge with certain conditions while issuing G. O. (Ms) No. 23 dated 14.02.2017 which was produced before this Tribunal which reads as follows:-
ABSTRACT Construction of a Permanent High Level Reinforced Cement Concrete Bridge across River Adyar to connect the campus of the Officer Training Academy, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai, which is located on both sides of the river - Permission granted - Orders - issued.
----------------------------------------- -----------
Public Works (K2) Department
G.O. (Ms) No.23 Dated 14.02.2017
Jd;Kfp> khrp 2
jpUts;Stu; Mz;L 2048
1. G.O. (MS) No0 208, Public Works (K1) Department, Dated: 10.08.2012 12
2. From the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department Chennai Region, Chennai, Letter No. T1/4944/2016, dated 27.11.2015.
3. From the Deputy Commandant and Chief Instructor, Officers Training Academy, Chennai - 16, Letter No. 907 / Adyar /22/Q1, dated 24.05.2016 and 31.08.2016.
4. From the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chennai, Region, Chennai, Letterr No. T1/AE1/F-Bailey Bridge/2016, dated 04.08.2016 and 24.10.2016.
5. From the Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Letter No. S7(1) / 68809 / OT5 / 2003, dated 02.09.2016.
6. From the Commandant, Officers Training Academy, Letter No, 907 / Adyar River Br / 83 / Q1 dated 08.09.2016.
ORDER:
1. In the Government Order first read above, permission was accorded temporarily for construction of a Bailey bridge across the River Adyar adjacent to the existing causeway at the Officers Training Academy, Chennai to connect the campus of the Officers Training Academy spit on two banks of the river.
2. In the letter second read above, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chennai Region, had stated that due to heavy rainfall during November 2015 and release of excess flood water from Chembarambakkam tank and from other tanks in and around Adyar basin..It received 50,000 cusecs of flood water and the heavy flood flow in the River Adyar washed away the earthen ramp of the Bailey bridge constructed by the Officers Training Academy, Chennai at their cost across the River Adyar.
3. In the letter third read above, the Deputy Commandant and Chief constructor, Officers Training Academy, has stated that the Academy has vast training infrastructure spread across the Campus on both sides of River Adyar. The training are connected through a bridge of 150ft (45m) across the Adyar River was constructed by the Army temporarily after taking due permission of Government of Tamil Nadu vide the Government Order first read above. Extensive damage was caused to the Officers Training Academy by the deluge in November, December 2015 and they are keen to avoid such a recurrence.
He has also stated that a Bailey bridge of 300 ft (90m) length spanning the entire width will now be laid at the site. A temporary Bailey bridge a essential and absolutely necessary to ensure uninterrupted conduct of training. Meanwhile construction of a permanent Reinforced Cement Concrete Bridge adjacent to the temporary bridge is being planned and 13 slated for construction in December 2016 for which a sum of Rs. 11.00 crore has already been earmarked by the Ministry of Defence and No Objection Certificate was sought for from the Public Works Department (Vide Letter No. 907/Adyar/10/Q1, dated 10.05.2016). The Deputy Commandant and Chief Instructor, officers Training Academy, has therefore requested to give necessary permission for laying a temporary Bailey bridge of 300 ft (90m) span to be constructed as per technical parameters such as gradient and other hydra parameters of the Adyar linear water way without affecting the linear flow of water before the onset of monsoon.
4. The Commandant, Officers Training Academy, in his letter dated 31.08.2016, has stated due to the damages and displacement of bridge, movement of persons and materials across the river is severely hampered which has adversely affected the training Cadets who are undergoing Pre- Commission Training at the Academy. In view of the above, it was found that a concrete bridge is essential to ensure movement of persons and vehicles across the Adyar River and to carry out training of the Cadets The construction of a bridge will ensure unhindered traffic across the Adyar River and uninterrupted training even during inclement weather conditions and the cost of construction of the concrete bridge across the Adyar River at the officers Training Academy, Chennai was assessed by the Chief Engineer, Chennai Zone, as 1635.93 lakh and necessary funds for construction of a Permanent Reinforced Cement Concrete Bridge have already been allotted by Ministry of Defence, Government of India. He has also requested that Government permission may be given to construct a High Level Reinforced Cement Concrete Bridge with the specifications as given by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chennai Region, Chennai.
5. In the letters fourth read above, the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chennai Region, has stated that if the Officers Training Academy desires to construct any bridge across the River Adyar at that location, it should be constructed as a High Level Bridge with the following hydraulic particulars of Adyar at the proposed Bridge location:-
Length of Bridge /Linear Water Way : 125 M
Bed Level of Bridge : (+) 3.850 M
Sill Level of Bridge : (+) 3,850 M
Maximum Flood level observed
During December 2015 floods : (+)13,295 M
Bottom Level of Deck Slab : MFL (13,295) + Free
Board of 1.50M = (+) 14,795 M
14
Based on the site condition, the Chief Engineer has recommended for according permission to Officers Training Academy for construction of a High Level Bridge across Adyar River at their Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department and chief Engineer (General), Water Resources Department, Chennai Region.
6. Meanwhile, in the letter sixth read above, the Commandant, Officers Training Academy, has stated that the permanent bridge will be constructed not before 2018. However, there is an inescapable requirement of a temporary bridge to ensure movement of persons and vehicles across Adyar River to carry out training of Cadets. Till the availability of permanent bridge, i.e., 2018, it is proposed to repair and re-construct the Army Bailey Bridge across the River Adyar which has washed away in the floods of December 2015. During re-construction, care will be taken to not impede the flow of River Adyar by having an additional span instead of bund. In view of the above, he has requested to accord permission to construct a temporary Bailey bridge connecting the campus of Officers Training Academy split on the east and west banks of the River Adyar for a temporary period upto the year 2018.
7. The requests of the Officers Training Academy were examined in a meeting held by the Principal Secretary, Public Department, on 25.10.2016 with Major General Vijay Chuckey, Deputy Commandant, Officers Training Academy, Principal Secretary, Public works Department and Engineers of Public Works Department and it was decided, among others, to accord permission to the Officers Training Academy for construction of a Permanent High Level Bridge across the River, Adyar, based on the recommendations and conditions of the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chennai Region. It was also decided that permission need be accorded to the Officers Training Academy for reconstruction of the temporary Bailey bridge. Accordingly, permission is accorded to the Officers Training Academy for permanent construction of a High Level Reinforced Cement Concrete Bridge across the River Adyar, adjacent to the extending causeway at officers Training Academy, Chennai, to connect the campus of the officers Training Academy on two banks of the River Adyar, subject to the conditions annexed to this order.
15
ANNEXURE TO G.O.(Ms) No. 23, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, Dated 14.02.2017 Conditions stipulated by the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Chennai Region, for Construction of High Level Reinforced Cement Concrete Bridge across the River Adyar.
1. Offices Training Academy should evolve the design and drawings of the proposed permanent Bridge after incorporating the Hydraulic Particulars of River Adyar and it should be got approved by the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, kosahalaiyar Basin Division, Thiruvallut, before commencement of the work.
2. There should not be any hindrance to free flow of water through the existing River during construction as well as the construction by removing the coffee dam constructed for diverting the flow during construction.
3. The Officers Training Academy should pay tract rent for the area occupied by the proposed bridge for which necessary proposal will be prepared based on receipt of design details and plan for the bridge.
4. The proposed High Level Bridge should be constructed with sufficient vent ways for the entire width of 125m between abutments on both sides, in consultation with Public Works Department officials, as per the hydraulic particulars of the River.
5. The proposed High Level Bridge should be constructed only in the alignment decided during the joint inspection and the Officers Training Academy should strictly adhere to maintain the hydraulic particulars of the River.
6. The skill level of the proposed High Level Bridge should be maintained as (=) 3.850M and the bottom level of Deck Slab should be (=) 14. 795M and these should be got executed in the presence of the Public Works Department Officials only.
7. The Officers Training Academy should construct the High Level Bridge at their own cost and they are solely responsible for the structural safety and stability of the proposed structure.
8. Advance intimation should be given to the Public Works Department Officials concerned before the commencement of work.
9. The Public Works Department officials should be allowed to inspect the site at any time during execution as well as after completion of the work.
10. While construction of the high level bridge, the officers Training Academy should provide river protection works on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge to be constructed. 16
11. After the completion of the work, the damaged portion of the river embankment bank connecting, if any, should be set right and restored to the original condition.
12. The officers Training Academy should enter into an Agreement with the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kosathalaiyar Basin, Division, Thiruvallur, after getting permission from the competent authority.
13. The Officers Training Academy should not carry out any other cross masonry structures across the River without prior permission from the Public Works Department.
14. The permission granted is liable to be revoked, if breach of any of the above conditions is noticed and in the event of such revocation, the Officers Training Academy shall not be eligible for any compensation or whatsoever.
INTERIM REPROT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDNET
1. A. Muthaiya Son of Mr. A.L. Asokan, aged about 55 years, officiating as Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, Palar Basin Circle, Chennai - 600 005 do solemnly and sincerely state as follows:-
2. I state that, I am the Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Water Resources Department, Palar Basin circle, Chennai - 600 005 file the interim report on behalf of the 2nd respondent herein and I am well acquainted with the facts of the case from records.
3. It is submitted that, the Hon‟ble National Green Tribunal in its order dated 12.01.2021 directed to consider the possibility of providing an alternate hanging bridge or suspension bridge without pillars being constructed in the river as it will not have any impact on the free flow of water in the river and consequently damage to river ecology will be minimized.
4. It is submitted that, the Adyar River is having 125 meters width in the subject area and maximum depth of flow is 9.445 m in the year 2015. In the Adyar River all the existing high level bridges constructed earlier were Reinforced Cement Concrete bridges and are not hindrance to the flood water flows during monsoon.
5. It is submitted that, the construction of suspension bridge might be complicated in plain terrain like Chennai city. It is constructed mostly in the valley area between the mountains. Hence, the RCC Bridge may be the right in the subject area by considering the cost effectiveness and as well as the prevailing site condition.
6. It is submitted that the instruction may be given to the Respondent No. 4 to adhere the linear water way of 125m, while constructing 17 the RCC bridge across Adyar River as mentioned in the State Government Order vide G.O.(Ms) No. 23 Public Works (K2) Department Dated 14.02.2017.
It is for kind information submitted before the Hon‟ble National green Tribunal (South).
Dated at Chennai on this the 01st day of February, 2021."
35.So it is clear from this that the 2nd respondent was not in favour of giving permission for a temporary bridge which is being constructed by the 4th respondent for their purpose and permission was granted only for a construction of a permanent high level concrete structure with certain conditions and it is also seen from the counter statement filed by the 2 nd respondent that construction of such concrete bridges across rivers which they were adopting in several places did not have any impact on free flow of water in the water bodies and it will not affect the eco system as well.
36.Since the 4th respondent had not entered appearance as directed by this Tribunal as even by serving a notice and there was no representation on their part, we feel that the application can be disposed of by directing the 4 th respondent to comply with the permission granted by the 2 nd respondent for construction of a bridge connecting the two campuses.
37.So, we feel that the application can be disposed of by giving following directions:
(1) The 4th respondent is directed not to proceed with the construction of any temporary bridge as proposed by them in respect of the damaged bridge which they were using earlier by replacing the same by same type of Bailey bridge.
(2) 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 18 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.
(3) The 4th respondent is also directed to comply with all the conditions imposed as Annexure to the said notification while carrying out the construction of the bridge as directed by the PWD.
(4) The PWD is also directed to supervise construction of this 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 4 th respondent for the deviation committed by them.
(5) 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.
38.Thus the point is answered accordingly.
39.In the result, this application is disposed as follows:-
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.19
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 4 th 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 4 th 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.20
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 e-
mail immediately for their information and
compliance.
viii. The 2nd respondent is directed to submit a report regarding the present status of the bridge and 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.
40.With above directions and observations, the application is disposed off.
Sd/-
......................................J.M. (Justice K. Ramakrishnan) Sd/-
..................................E.M. (Shri. Dr. K. Satyagopal) O.A. No.135/2016, 15th April, 2021. Sr. 21