IN THE COURT OF JUDICaTUEE MADHYA PRADESH FE J‘QBALPUR mm wrm Petition No. 334:}— Of 1998 Jaymt Eohidar. aged 38 years, - san of Shxi Sharad Prasad B¢hi an Editor, Nav Samajva§1 Sanaesh xesi§ent of Bohiaar Para, Raigarh, District Raigarh 496 001 (M.P.) ana Activist‘, Bharat Jan‘Anaclanv Petitioners: ( 1) (2) Ram Kumar Agaxwal, agea '76 years. Son o¥ late La'xncn Das Aoarwal, former M L A" Convener Kelo Bachao swgarsh Sawiti, resitiert of 3am. Para, Raicarh. Dlstrict Raicarh 496 001 (M.P.) (3) Nandm Gupta. aaea 5G yaarq, sono'f late KashQv Dec wpté’ Presitier‘t; Loktantrik Samaj va§i Party (Ralgarh Diatxict), maidert of Himal aya Refncxeraticr', Eon: Daéar, Raicarh, Dlstrict Raigarh 496 001 (MH). (4) Gaj'anand Siziar, ageé 36 years. 3m of shri Kunj a1 Singh Sitiar, Presiiien't, Hind Maaéoor KisSan Panchayet (Raigarh Di stric% ), resiaent of Kotra village, District Raiarh (M.P.) a. Golay M. Geome, aoeé 28 years, son of uhri M G. Bahykut‘ty, achvist and Joumallst‘ Ekta Parishas r/o Ganéhi Bhawan, shynala Hills. Bhopal 462 00? (M.P.). (5) Shashikant Shaxma, agar} 44 years son'oo shri Ashwani Shanna; Joumalist, resi‘ient of Chattatamura ‘Naka. aiaarh, Di<tr1ct Ralcaxh 496 001 (M P.). ' Versus The State of Maahya Praéesh, through the Chief Secretary, Goverisment of Faébya' Praée Mantralaya, Vallabh Bhawczn. Bhopal (M P.) esmoent s: Rg (1) $ J g m , . (2) Respondaats: § (2) Secretary, Department of water Resources, Government of Maahya Praéesh, Vall abh Bhawan. Bhopal M.P, SeCr&t3ryt Departme’nf of.£ner§y@ Govemment of Manihya Pra§esh valabh Bhawang Bhopal mp. 3 / 5(3) a <4) The Chiiiman: Maéhya Fraziesh Eleactricity Boarm Shakti Bhawan, Rampur, Jabalpur i District Jabalput M.P. through the Secret airy, Ministry of Water Resources. GoVemment of Indie, Shram Bhakti' Bhawang New Delhi 110 001. s (5) Union of Imiia’ ‘ (6) Central Pollution Control Boaro, through its maiman, Paxivesh Bhawan. East Arjun Nagart‘ New Delhi 110 032, M . Pg. Pollution Cont r01 Boarég Peri avaran Pari shar. Arera Col any. BhOpa] Mo P; 462 016 (Mop. ) a \ (8) 6116f Engineer; Handeo Kachhan Department of Water Resouroos, Govt. of M.§.. Bil aspur Ma P. gm 3 (9) District Collector, Raigarh District, M.P. ¥_ (10) Executive Engir‘eer, imbue Health éngioeexing neptt. Govt. of M,P., Raigarh MaPg (11) Chairman; Jinaal Strips Limited. Post Box No.6, Delhi Road. I-Iisar, 125 005 (Haryana) WRIT PETITICN UNDER &RT$.226/227 CCNS'I‘I'I‘UTim OF INDIA ETAILS OF WRIT PETITIaL D . HIGH coum' on: JumcATURa cHHAmseARI-I : BILAsPUR DM$IQN agncn -CORAM : r HON‘BLE SHRI H.L. DATTU, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. W.P. NO. 3377 OF 19$3 7 PETmONERS Jayant Bohidar & othats Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh and others. RESPONDENTS Present : Shri Rajeev Shrivastava & Shri Aiok Bakshi,, counsel for the petitioners. , Shri Prashant Mishra, Addl. Advocate General for the State/ t ' respondents No.1 ,2,3,8.’9 and 10; Shri Manindra Shrivasteva, Sr. Advocate with Shri'Ashish Shirvaswva, counsel for respondent No.1 1. None for the other respondents. ORAL ORDER A (Passed on 21a February, 2007) The following oral order of the Court was passed \by H.L. Dattu, CJ. Public spirited citizens are before us. The main relief sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to stop construction of a dam on river Kelo, on the ground that if conettucdon of the dam— is completed, the villagers may not get sufficient water (2) This Court while entertaining the writ petition had granted an interim order dated 27.10.1999. The order passed by this Court reads > as unr: , \ . de “27.10.1999 shn' RK. Gupta, Advocate for the pea'abners. Shri V.K. Tankha, Advocaia Gonerai for #19 Sfata of MP. Shn' Ravindra Shn'vastava, Adv. For the raspondenf r No. 1 1. Heard ieamsd counsel. This is a Public Interest Lftigaiion wheraby the petitioners have praysd that campiete Iecord raiating to giant of permission liar enhancing electricity genemtion capacity flem 20 MW to 80 ‘ MW and relating in grant of permission for digging intake wells and for feiching water fiom ihe Kelo n'ver for use in Captive Thermal Power Plant of the respondent No.11 - Jindal Strips Limited be directed w be Why ”7e respondenm for'exeminatbn of this Court. Itis also'prayed that the pennission‘ so granted by the Stale should be quashed. Respondent No.11 M/s‘. Jindal Strips Limited is a private Company which has set up an lmn Strips Manufacturing Plant. They applied for pennission in increase the power generation in their plantfmm 20$ MW to 80 MW capacity. That permission was granted by the Govemment aiier pmtracted con'espondance andultimately an agreement was entered‘into hetwoen the State of MP. and respowent No. 11 Mls. Jindal Strips Ltd. for'suppiy of water after constructing a stop-dam on the tiver'Keb. One ' of the conditions which is‘relevant to mention here, is'thatno- water shall be supplied to‘ the respondent No.11 from February to June. The state atso has reservw a right that ‘ during the period of supply of water Omar than June to February, it can stop’supply of water, ifh water is needed for drinking purposes‘and for irrigation purposes of the villagers. Construction of stop dam was completed in Jane, . 1999. Theatlegation of me petitioners in this Public Interest Litigation is that by construction of the stop dam mderthe permission 0f the State Gavamment, the residents/habitants of Raigarh township and villagers in the dawn sheen: willm ‘ get sufficient water for drinking and in'igation purposes. A 'noiiceofmispetilionvmsgiventotherespondentsandiepiy has been fiied in which large correspondence which i transpired between the State and the respendent No. 1 1 v Company hes been predueed befere us. lt is emphasized by the respondents that by construetlbn of the dam or by ‘ construction of intake well, the villagers in the wwn sveem ofthe riverere notgoing to beelfecm ltis submitted that the interest of the villagers down stream has been taken proper care by conducting sunrey and study before construction of dam end‘it is found that hyconstruction of stop-dam and supply of water to M/sl Jindel Strips Limiwd,‘ thew'llegers residing in the down stream“ villages will nobe effected in any manner. As a matter of fact, at present, we'are handicapped to come toa conclusion-ash in'what'way thesupply of water to the respondent No. 11 Company and construction of stop dam would affect the villagers in the down steam of the river: The dam in question has only been constructed in 1999. No study'has been muemken so M as’to how by construction of stop dam and supply of‘water'therefrom b v the respondent No.11 will'aifect the villagers in the down stream for drinking waterand im‘gation. Atyesent, withthe materiel available with us, it isnot possibb to sortie to a definite conciua'cn in relation to its effect upon the people residing in do down stream. Therefore, properstrdyofthe ‘1 matter is required befOte a decision is taken to remove the stop dam construcM by the respondent No. 1 1‘. Shn' V.K. Thanks, teamed Advocate General and Shri’ Ravindra Shriwstava, leamed counsei for the respondent No. 11 submit, and Shn' R.K. Gupta, leamed oounsei for'the petitioners also agreed, that let datas be coliected after t undertaking due study and survey so that the Court is facilitated in coming to a conciusion whether the t ‘ construct‘on of sfop dam and supply of watar 1o the respondent No. 11, would adversely af$ct the interest of me vilkgers inmedownsireamornot. Itwouldbemo’ hazardous to come m any conclusion at this stage. Assurance has heen given by the leamed Awecme General on behalf of the Stale that in case if is found ihat construction of stop dam and supply of' water b the respondent No. 1 1 therefrom is going to aMt the villagers in the dawn swam, the State will stop supply of water to tho- raspondent No. 1 1 end for that the State has already reserved its right. We hope and trust that the assurance of - the leamed Advocate General would be faithfully followedby the State functionaries. However: we donor propose to decide the issue at this stage’because‘ we will have to wait for the detailed'study to be undertaken that'whethor by the construction of the stop dam, the villagers in the down stream has materially affected ornot. Thererms, we defer the declsr'on‘in' the ‘petitr'on'at’present and wait for the result ofthe studyvwhich may be uncertaken' by the petitioners and by the State in the matter. Let that matter be placed before this Court atter the proper material is placed before it ‘ Meanwhile. it is directedthat the lnigationDepartment will property control thesupply of‘water from the stop dam and‘r't’would be the responsibility of'the Staterto see that“ peopleofthatareadorrotsufleronacoountofthesmpdam. Shri Thanks, teamed Advocate General has submittedthat the stop dam will be supervisedby theExecutive Eny‘neer of the irrigation Department of the area concerned who wiit ensure that’supply’of the water b the people in the down stream is not adversely affected. We acceptthe undertaking and direct that proper study should be underhken from the month of February onwards because during that time, it will be dryseason'and itwiil be helpful torus b assays. the situation. Both the parties shouh submit detailed reports of' the conditions of the villagers down streemduring this'time. This petition be listed in the month of July, 2050 r e before this Court. ln the report it is stated that by construeting dam on river Kelo, it will not affect the interest of the villagers and even alter construction of the dam, the villagers will be in a position to get sumcient supply of water. (5) We have carefully perused the pleadings of the petitioners as well as the retums and report tiled by the respondents. (6) The interim order passed by this Court is still operating against the respondents. In our opinion. if the interim order ls conunued‘ the ’ villagers who are the petitioners before us will have proper supply of water and the respondents will not be prejudicied in any manner whatsoever. For this arrangement parties and their learned counsels have no objection. (7) the report of the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of. We make it clear that the interim order passed by this Court will continue to operate against the respondents even after disposal of this writ petition. in view of the above, taking into consideration the retums and (8) Ordered accordingly. r V.K. Shrivastava SdL .: ,. \ Sdl- , i Judge Chief Justice - b " Certiiied copy of the otder be supplied ta the pam'es as per rules. Sd/ Sd/ ChiefJustice Judge r27. 10. 1999 27. 10. 1999” (3) The Court also had directed the respondens to me proper report. (4) The responden$ have filed their returns as well as the repon