Uttarakhand High Court
WPPIL/7/2021 on 11 January, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH
CHAUHAN, C.J.
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.07 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Dr. Bharat Jhunjhunwala (Male), aged about 70
years, S/o Late Shri Vishnu Dayal R/o Lakshmoli
Kirti Nagar, District Tehri
.....Petitioner.
(By Shri D.K. Joshi & Shri Prem Prakash Bhatt)
AND:
1. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Union of India through its
Secretary, Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg,
New Delhi 110001.
2. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of
Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Indira
Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi-
110003.
3. State of Uttarakhand through Principal
Secretary, Power, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun.
4. State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary,
Irrigation, Government of Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow.
5. Alaknanda Hydropower Company Limited,
through its Managing Director, Srikot, Srinagar,
DT Pauri, Garhwal.
2
6. Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd., through the
General Manager, Lambagad, Dist. Chamoli,
Uttarakhand.
7. UJVNL, Through the Managing Director, Maharani
Bagh, GMS Road, Dehradun, Uttarakhand.
8. THDC India Ltd., Through the Managing Director,
Pragatipuram, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand.
9. L&T Uttaranchal Limited, Through the Managing
Director, Agast Muni, DTRudra Prayag.
.....Respondents.
(By Shri Virendra Kaparwan, Standing Counsel
for Union of India/ respondent nos. 1 & 2, Shri
B.S. Parihar, Standing Counsel for State of
Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 3, Shri Gopal K.
Verma, Standing Counsel for State of Uttar
Pradesh/ respondent no. 4, Shri Vinay Kumar,
Advocate for respondent no. 7 & Shri Shobhit
Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 8 ).
This writ petition coming on for hearing this day,
Hon'ble Shri Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.
delivered the following order:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has challenged the legality of
the report dated February, 2017, issued by the
Central Water Commission, whereby the Commission
had recommended that e-flows of 20 to 30% should
be maintained for the Hydropower Projects.
Petitioner has also challenged the legality of the
notification dated 10.10.2018 issued by the Ministry
of Jal Shakti, whereby the Ministry has also
recommended an e-flow of 20 to 30% by the
Hydropower Projects.
2. The petitioner also claims to be an expert,
as he has been a Member of the Project Management
Board for the study undertaken by the Consortium of
seven IITs, on behalf of the Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change for making the National
Ganga River Basin Management Plan. The petitioner
also claims that since he was an Assistant Professor of
Economics in Indian Institute of Management,
Bengaluru, he has a good understanding of the
Economics, which is involved in Hydropower Projects.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that, on 21.11.2018, a legal notice has been
served by the counsel for the petitioner, whereby the
petitioner has sought modification of the standards
and conditions, by taking minimum environmental
flow in river Ganga. The said notice was issued to the
Ministry of Water Resources (as it was then referred
to). However, so far no decision has been taken by
the said Ministry on the said notice. Therefore, the
learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a relief from
this Court that petitioner may be permitted to file a
detailed and up-to-date representation before the
Ministry of Jal Shakti with regard to both the report
dated February, 2017 and with regard to the
notification dated 10.10.2018. He further submits
that the Ministry of Jal Shakti should be directed to
consider his representation, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to him.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and considering the fact that the petitioner has been
involved with the Project Management Board for the
study undertaken by Consortium of the IITs, on
behalf of the Ministry of Environment for making the
National Ganga River Basin Management Plan,
considering the fact that the petitioner may have
certain relevant issues that may be raised by him with
regard to both the report and the impugned
notification, this Court directs the petitioner to file a
detailed representation to the Ministry of Jal Shakti.
The Ministry of Jal Shakti is further directed to
consider the said representation, after giving an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to
all the stakeholders dealing with the e-flow of water
of river Ganga, and to decide the representation by a
reasoned order, as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
5. With these directions, this writ petition
stands disposed of.
(Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Navin
