Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (6.80 seconds)
Documents citing Alaknanda Hydro Power Co.Ltd vs Anuj Joshi & Ors on 13 August, 2013

P.Sundaravathanam vs Union Of India on 31 May, 2022

23. Admittedly, in this case, the project area is neither a critically polluted area nor are there any other polluted industries or cluster of industries situated. So, under such circumstances, there is no necessity for conducting Cumulative Impact Assessment of Ambient Air Quality, as has been observed in the decisions reported in T. Muruganandham & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.13, Sarpanch, Grampanchayat Tiroda Vs. The Ministry of Environment and Forests14, Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. Vs. Anuj Joshi & Ors.15, Uma Maheswar Dahagama Vs. Union of India & Ors.16 of this Tribunal confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC) Vs. Uma Maheshwar Dahagama17 and Samata Vs. Union of India18.
National Green Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sunita Pandey & Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 26 October, 2018

28.MoEF in compliance with the order passed by this Court in Alaknanda Hydropower Co. Ltd. Vs. Anuj Joshi dated 17.08.2012 to verify whether AHPCL has complied with the conditions of the environmental clearance granted in May 1985 and directions of the order issued under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 dated 30.06.2011 and to examine the feasibility of well option of Dhari Devi Temple.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajeev Suri vs Union Of India on 5 January, 2021

60. The petitioners have relied upon OM dated 24.12.2010 issued by MoEF which refers to “Consideration of Integrated and Inter- linked projects” to urge that legal mandate requires collective 45 appraisal of interlinked and integrated projects for the purpose of EC so that their cumulative impact can be assessed. To buttress the submission, it is urged that the said O.M. ought to be given a purposive meaning so as to procure comprehensive information on such projects in line with the objective of environmental protection. Reliance has been placed upon Alaknanda Hydropower Company Limited v. Anuj Joshi & Ors.52 to supplement the view that combined impact of a project must be considered to arrive at a true assessment of environmental impact.
Supreme Court of India Cites 281 - Cited by 6 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Dr. Pentapati Pullarao vs Union Of India on 2 December, 2021

In Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd vs. Anuj Joshi & Others (2014)1SCC769, ecological issue relating Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) located in Tehri/Pauri Garhwal on river Alaknanda came up for consideration. Applicability of EIA 1994 with regard to grant of EC when 321 it was already granted long back, also came up for consideration. Central Electricity Authority exercising power under Section 29 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, issued Techno-Economic Approval to establish 200 MW hydro generation project over river Alaknanda, in its meeting dated 6.11.1982, subject to environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment. Initially project was clubbed with some other projects but later it was segregated. A separate Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was made with regard to SHEP on 9.2.1985. Consequently, MoEF granted EC vide letter dated 03.05.1985. Project involved diversion of 338.38 hectares of forest land which was granted by Forest Department vide letter dated 15.04.1987. Subsequently, Electricity Board proposed to increase capacity from 200 MW to 330 MW which was approved by Central Electricity Authority and Planning Commission also granted investment approval. The project could not make any effective progress due to paucity of funds with State Electricity Board. State Government entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. on 27th August, 1994 for development of project. M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. in terms of the MOU established a generating company „Duncan North Hydro Power Co. Ltd.‟. Energy Department of Uttar Pradesh wrote to MoEF vide letter dated 04.09.1997 to transfer EC in favour of the said company. M/s Duncan submitted revised EIA and conveyed that the project of enhanced capacity had to be transferred to M/s Duncan. MoEF consequently transferred EC to M/s. Dunan on 27.07.1999. Central Electricity Authority also granted Techno Economic Clearance vide letter dated 14.06.2000 to Duncans. M/s. Duncan also gave up project after carrying out some work and then it was substituted by M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. (AHPCL) in whose favour also EC was transferred by MoEF vide letter dated 27.03.2006. Writ 322 Petition was filed in 2009 in High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital challenging order enhancing capacity to 330 MW. Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.04.2011 permitting M/s. AHPCL to approach MoEF for a specific decision as to the clearance for increased capacity of generation and increased height of the dam. MoEF in its turn clarified that transfer letter dated 27.03.2006 was for 330 MW and communicated its decision dated 03.08.2011. It was challenged in Writ Petition no. 68 of 2011 i.e., a PIL which was disposed of by order dated 3.11.2011 directing M/s AHPCL to place the matter before MoEF again and Ministry was directed to hold a public hearing. That is how matter came before Supreme Court in Appeal by AHPCL. Court examined the matter and disposed of by issuing various directions on the subject of safety of dam, safety and security of the people, muck management and disposal Catchment Area Treatment. Court also expressed concern over mushrooming of large number of hydroelectric projects in State of Uttrakhand and its impact on Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. Taking note of recent tragedies/calamities suffered by the people of Uttrakhand, Court issued certain directions in para 52 of the judgment which included that no further EC or forest clearance be granted for any hydro-electricity power project in State of Uttrakhand until further order and on further examination by expert committee to be constituted by MoEF.
National Green Tribunal Cites 201 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Akhil Bhartiya Mangela Samaj Parishad vs Maharashtra Pollution Control Board ... on 24 January, 2022

In Alaknanda Hydro Power Co. Ltd vs. Anuj Joshi & Others (2014)1SCC769, ecological issue relating Srinagar Hydro Electric Project (SHEP) located in Tehri/Pauri Garhwal on river Alaknanda came up for consideration. Applicability of EIA 1994 with regard to grant of EC when it was already granted long back, also came up for consideration. Central Electricity Authority exercising power under Section 29 of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948, issued Techno-Economic Approval to establish 200 MW hydro generation project over river Alaknanda, in its meeting dated 6.11.1982, subject to environmental clearance from Ministry of Environment. Initially project was clubbed with some other projects but later it was segregated. A separate Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) was made with regard to SHEP on 9.2.1985. Consequently, MoEF granted EC vide letter dated 03.05.1985. Project involved diversion of 338.38 hectares of forest land which was granted by Forest Department vide letter dated 15.04.1987. Subsequently, Electricity Board proposed to increase capacity from 200 MW to 330 MW which was approved by Central Electricity Authority and Planning Commission also granted investment approval. The project could not make any effective progress due to paucity of funds with State Electricity Board. State Government entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. on 27th August, 1994 for development of project. M/s Duncan Industries Ltd. in terms of the MOU established a generating company 'Duncan North Hydro Power Co. Ltd.'. Energy Department of Uttar Pradesh wrote to MoEF vide letter dated 04.09.1997 to transfer EC in favour of the said company. M/s Duncan submitted revised EIA and conveyed that the project of enhanced capacity had to be transferred to 278 M/s Duncan. MoEF consequently transferred EC to M/s. Dunan on 27.07.1999. Central Electricity Authority also granted Techno Economic Clearance vide letter dated 14.06.2000 to Duncans. M/s. Duncan also gave up project after carrying out some work and then it was substituted by M/s. Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. (AHPCL) in whose favour also EC was transferred by MoEF vide letter dated 27.03.2006. Writ Petition was filed in 2009 in High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital challenging order enhancing capacity to 330 MW. Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.04.2011 permitting M/s. AHPCL to approach MoEF for a specific decision as to the clearance for increased capacity of generation and increased height of the dam. MoEF in its turn clarified that transfer letter dated 27.03.2006 was for 330 MW and communicated its decision dated 03.08.2011. It was challenged in Writ Petition no. 68 of 2011 i.e., a PIL which was disposed of by order dated 3.11.2011 directing M/s AHPCL to place the matter before MoEF again and Ministry was directed to hold a public hearing. That is how matter came before Supreme Court in Appeal by AHPCL. Court examined the matter and disposed of by issuing various directions on the subject of safety of dam, safety and security of the people, muck management and disposal Catchment Area Treatment. Court also expressed concern over mushrooming of large number of hydroelectric projects in State of Uttrakhand and its impact on Alaknanda and Bhagirathi river basins. Taking note of recent tragedies/calamities suffered by the people of Uttrakhand, Court issued certain directions in para 52 of the judgment which included that no further EC or forest clearance be granted for any hydro-electricity power project in State of Uttrakhand until further order and on further examination by expert committee to be constituted by MoEF.
National Green Tribunal Cites 309 - Cited by 5 - A K Goel - Full Document

M C Mehta vs Union Of India on 10 December, 2015

As already 116 discussed above, we have dissected the entire project into 4 different phases. Phase-I- Gangotri to Border of the State of Uttar Pradesh (Divided into 2 segments, segment-A from Gangotri to beyond Haridwar towards the State of Uttar Pradesh and Segment-B from Haridwar to the Border of Kanpur), Phase-II of river Ganga from Border of Kanpur to Border of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Phase-III from Border of the State of Uttar Pradesh till Border of Jharkand and Phase-IV from Border of Jharkhand to Border of West Bengal (Bay of Bengal). In this judgment, we are dealing only with Segment A of Phase-I. Before we enter into the realm of the scope and ambit of the directions that we are called upon to issue in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be appropriate to notice the stand which MoEF has taken in regard to the area covered under Segment-A of this judgment. MoEF had filed an affidavit as late as 5th December, 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.A. 6 of 2013 in Civil Appeal no. 6736 of 2013 titled as Alakhnand Hydro Power Project Company Ltd v. Anuj Joshi & Ors. The averments made in this affidavit primarily relate to the construction of the Hydro Project but significant is the aspect of this affidavit which deals with the fragile and eco-sensitive nature of this area. In the Affidavit it was stated that after the formation of the NGRBA in consideration of the 'Avrial Dhara' of Ganga in terms of her cultural significance and in relation to the eco-sensitivity of the Ganga Himalyan Basin, the authorities took cognisance of this issue and intended to reach a solution for conservation and protection of the river Ganga. In the 117 meeting held on 5th October, 2009 under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister it was decided that MoEF and Ministry of Power would study the issue of hydro projects located in the upper region of Bhagirathi. Finally it was decided by the Government of India through its letter dated 31st August, 2010 to completely scrap these projects in Gangotri Valley in the second meeting of NGBRA held on 1 st November, 2010. It was finally approved and it was recommended to declare the area from Gaumukh to Utarakashi as eco-sensitive zone. The Catchment all along 100 km stretch of Bhagirathi was notified as eco-sensitive zone vide Notification dated 18th December, 2012 under the Act of 1986. Of course, implementation of these guidelines is still pending with the State Government. WII Report stated that out of 39 proposed projects, 24 projects have been found to be significantly infructuous. The biodiversity in 2 sub basins and the combined foot print of all 24 projects have been considered for their potential to impact areas with biodiversity values, both aquatic and terrestrial which are critically important habitats of rare and threatened species of Flora and Fauna. The environmental flow of Ganga and its tributaries was affected and in turn would have extensive implication of other needs of the society and the river itself. Referring to the disaster of June, 2013 and the analysis taken out by metrological department it is also stated that the Notification mentioned that anthropogenic activities has also lead to massive over exploitation of the local environment, thereby, losing the top soil and making the region susceptible to landslides and flash floods. The rampant construction activities taking place in the Ganga Basin, weakened the delicate balance of the Himalaya's ecology leading to such events. This 118 disaster in the Ganga Basin of Uttarakhand Himalayas has forced re- thinking of the aspect and understanding the developmental activities in the fragile Himalayas. Eco sensitivity of Gangotri valley did not permit greater construction of such projects. It also seems logical and essential to demarcate zones in the higher Himalayan region that are naturally unstable. It was felt necessary that there should be uninterrupted flow of Ganges and continuous thread of the stream should not be interfered with.
National Green Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document

M C Mehta vs Union Of India on 18 December, 2015

As already discussed above, we have dissected the entire project into 4 different phases. Phase-I- Gangotri to Border of the State of Uttar Pradesh (Divided into 2 segments, segment-A from Gangotri to beyond Haridwar towards the State of Uttar Pradesh and Segment-B from Haridwar to the Border of Kanpur), Phase-II of river Ganga from Border of Kanpur to Border of the State of Uttar Pradesh, Phase-III from Border of the State of Uttar Pradesh till Border of Jharkand and Phase-IV from Border of Jharkhand to Border of West Bengal (Bay of Bengal). In this judgment, we are dealing only with Segment A of Phase-I. Before we enter into the realm of the scope and ambit of the directions that we are called upon to issue in the facts and circumstances of the present case it would be appropriate to notice the stand which MoEF has taken in regard to the area covered under Segment-A of this judgment. MoEF had filed an affidavit as late as 5th December, 2014 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.A. 6 of 2013 in Civil Appeal no. 6736 of 2013 titled as Alakhnand Hydro Power Project Company Ltd v. Anuj Joshi & Ors. The averments made in this affidavit primarily relate to the construction of the Hydro Project but significant is the aspect of this affidavit which deals with the fragile and eco-sensitive nature of 123 this area. In the Affidavit it was stated that after the formation of the NGRBA in consideration of the 'Avrial Dhara' of Ganga in terms of her cultural significance and in relation to the eco-sensitivity of the Ganga Himalyan Basin, the authorities took cognisance of this issue and intended to reach a solution for conservation and protection of the river Ganga. In the meeting held on 5th October, 2009 under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister it was decided that MoEF and Ministry of Power would study the issue of hydro projects located in the upper region of Bhagirathi. Finally it was decided by the Government of India through its letter dated 31st August, 2010 to completely scrap these projects in Gangotri Valley in the second meeting of NGBRA held on 1st November, 2010. It was finally approved and it was recommended to declare the area from Gaumukh to Utarakashi as eco-sensitive zone. The Catchment all along 100 km stretch of Bhagirathi was notified as eco-sensitive zone vide Notification dated 18th December, 2012 under the Act of 1986. Of course, implementation of these guidelines is still pending with the State Government. WII Report stated that out of 39 proposed projects, 24 projects have been found to be significantly infructuous. The biodiversity in 2 sub basins and the combined foot print of all 24 projects have been considered for their potential to impact areas with biodiversity values, both aquatic and terrestrial which are critically important habitats of rare and threatened species of Flora and Fauna. The environmental flow of Ganga and its tributaries was affected and in turn would have extensive implication of other needs of the society and the river itself. 124 Referring to the disaster of June, 2013 and the analysis taken out by metrological department it is also stated that the Notification mentioned that anthropogenic activities has also lead to massive over exploitation of the local environment, thereby, losing the top soil and making the region susceptible to landslides and flash floods. The rampant construction activities taking place in the Ganga Basin, weakened the delicate balance of the Himalaya's ecology leading to such events. This disaster in the Ganga Basin of Uttarakhand Himalayas has forced re-thinking of the aspect and understanding the developmental activities in the fragile Himalayas. Eco sensitivity of Gangotri valley did not permit greater construction of such projects. It also seems logical and essential to demarcate zones in the higher Himalayan region that are naturally unstable. It was felt necessary that there should be uninterrupted flow of Ganges and continuous thread of the stream should not be interfered with.
National Green Tribunal Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 Next