AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This application seeks review of order dated 16.08.2022 in Appeal No. 21/2021. By the said order, the Tribunal dealt with Appeal against Environment Clearance (EC) dated 26.08.2021 granted by MoEF&CC to the Vishnugad-Pipalkoti Hydro-Electric Project of 444 MW in an area of 141.568 ha by M/s THDC India Limited located at Village Haat, Tehsil Joshimath, District Chamoli, Uttarakhand.
While upholding EC, the Tribunal directed as follows:-
“17. Further, we find it necessary to lay down additional conditions for grant of EC. Capital cost of EMP will stand increased to 10% of the total project cost. There will be six-member Monitoring Cell to oversee execution of mitigation measures to prevent damage to the dam, the infrastructure and the habitation upstream and downstream the dam. It will be headed by the Chief Secretary, Uttarakhand, other Members being nominees of State Disaster Management Authority, MoEF&CC having expertise in dealing with of River Valley Projects, preferably belonging to Uttarakhand, NMCG, G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment, Almora, State PCB and Director of Coldwater Fisheries Research, ICAR, Bhimtal, District Nainital, Uttarakhand. The Committee can coopt any other expert/organisation as may be found necessary. It can conduct proceedings on line or otherwise. It may initially meet within one month to take stock of the situation and plan further action and thereafter, it may meet at such intervals as may be decided but not beyond three months. The Monitoring Committee may consider any suggestions from any stake holder, including the appellants and consider fresh measures to ensure compliance of EC conditions and additional conditions laid down by this order and also such other conditions found necessary for mitigation of adverse measures in the course of the project. Its minutes may be placed on the website of the PP.”
Grievance in the Review Application is that increase of EMP to 10% of the project cost will have cascading effect on total project cost.
We are of the view that the contentions raised is beyond the scope of review application and are in the realm of re-hearing on merits which cannot be permitted. We, thus, do not find any reason to accept the review application which is accordingly dismissed.