AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In this Original Application the applicant has sought relief and compensation for the damages caused to river Ganga and its aquatic life by hydraulic structures at Uttrakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal which has resulted into loss of the livelihood to the fisherman.
Applicant's claim for compensation is on account of the environmental damage caused by the following dams, barrages and projects:
a) Inland Waterways Authority of India. Due to dredging.
b) Kolkata Port Trust. Due to making of underground guide wall at Haldia and dredging operations.
c) Department of Irrigation, Government of UP: Due to abstraction of water from the Ganga and breaking longitudinal connectivity of the riverbed.
d) Farakka Barrage Project: Due to Farakka Barrage Project including Feeder Canal; breaking longitudinal connectivity of the riverbed; and discontinuous release of water from the FBP.
e) Tehri Hydro Development Corporation: Due to trapping of sediments and breaking longitudinal connectivity of the riverbed.
f) UttarakhandJalVidyut Nigam Ltd: Due to breaking longitudinal connectivity of the riverbed.
g) Jaiprakash Power Ventures Ltd.: Due to breaking longitudinal connectivity of the riverbed.
h) Alakhnanda Hydro Power Co Ltd: Due to trapping of sediments and breaking longitudinal connectivity of the riverbed.
Summary of claims made by the Applicant is given as follows:-
a) From IWAI, Respondent No. 1 herein: For fisheries in West Bengal Rs. 12 crores; Fisheries in Bihar Rs 120 crores; Fisheries in UP Downstream Allahabad Rs. 120 crores; Total Rs. 378 crores per year.
b) From KPT, Respondent No. 2 herein: Erosion and Biodiversity in Estuary Rs. 82 crores; Non-use values Rs. 134 crores; Total Rs 216 crores per year.
c) From Irrigation Department, UP, Respondent No. 3 herein: Fisheries in Bihar Rs. 840 crores; Fisheries in UP Downstream Allahabad Rs. 840 crores; Fisheries upstream Allahabad Rs. 854 crores; Fisheries UttarakhandRs. 6 crores; Biodiversity Ganga Rs 250 crores; Erosion and Biodiversity in Estuary Rs. 164 crores; and Non-use values Rs. 2003crores; Total Rs. 4957 crores per year.
d) From FBP, Respondent No. 4 herein: Fisheries in West Bengal Rs. 108 crores; Fisheries in Bihar Rs. 240 crores; Fisheries in UP Downstream Allahabad Rs. 240 crores ; Biodiversity Ganga Rs. 50 crores; Erosion in West Bengal Rs. 690 crores; Erosion and Biodiversity in EsturyRs 164 crores; Flood congestion and water logging in West Bengal Rs. 1200 crores; and Non-use values Rs. 534 crores; Total Rs. 3226 crores per year.
e) From THDC, Respondent No. 5 herein: Biodiversity Ganga Rs. 75 crores; Erosion and Biodiversity in Estuary Rs. 123 crores; and Non-use values Rs. 1669 crores; Total Rs 1867 crores per year.
f) From UJVNL, Respondents No. 6 herein: Fisheries in UttarakhandRs. 6 crores; Biodiversity Ganga Rs. 30 crores; Erosion and Biodiversity in Estuary Rs 16.4 crores; and Non-use values Rs. 667 crores; Total Rs. 719.4 crores per year.
g) From JVPL, Respondent No. 7 herein: Biodiversity Ganga Rs. 15 crores; Erosion and Biodiversity in Estuary Rs. 8.2 crores; and Non-use values Rs. 333 crores; Total Rs. 356.2 crores per year.
h) From AHPCL, Respondent No. 8 herein: Biodiversity Ganga Rs. 30 crores; Erosion and Biodiversity in Estuary Rs. 16.4 crores; and Non-use values Rs. 1335 crores; Total Rs. 1381.4 crores per year.
The applicant in his Original Application has not mentioned the dates of the commencement and execution of any of the projects mentioned above. By applicant's own admission is that all the above mentioned projects were executed almost 25 years ago with due permission under law and with all the environmental clearances from Competent Authorities after the environmental appraisal assessments.
The applicant has not come out with any basis for computing the total claim of fantastic amount of Rs. 13,101 crores every year. This allegedly is the loss caused to the fishermen in Sunderbans because of hydraulic structures over the length of more than 1500 km. from Uttarakhand to West Bengal across river Ganga.
The applicant submits that this is a continuing cause of action and is ongoing as all their projects are still in operation and therefore it is in accordance with Sect. 15 (3) of the NGT Act. 2010.
In this application no allegations have been made with regard to violation of any of the Acts given in schedule 1 of the NGT Act. Of 2010. Moreover, Section 15 of the NGT Act. 2010 provides for the compensation to the victims of pollution and another environmental damages arising under enactments specified in schedule 1. In fact Section 15 (3) provides for as under:-
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose.
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
We are of the considered opinion that the cause of action in this application should have arisen when these projects were first approved and executed, which the applicant admitted were much before and in some cases almost 25 years before, the promulgation of NGT Act in 2010. Moreover under sub Section 3 of Section 14 of the NGT 2010, it has been provided that no application for adjudication shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose, in other words the intention of the said act namely National Green Tribunal, 2010 is that the aggrieved person should promptly approach the Tribunal for its redressal. In that respect also it has been made clear that the Tribunal should be approached as soon as the cause of action first arose. In the instant case the applicant has approached the tribunal after so many years whereas the fact regarding the construction of dams, barrages etc. had taken place at least 20-25 years ago and their intention is known to all including the applicant and, therefore, on this count also there is no reason for the Tribunal to entertain the applicant and grant any relief to the applicant.
In view of the above this Original Application is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. Consequently, the Original Application is dismissed with no order as to cost.