ITEM NO.301 COURT NO.1 SECTION PIL
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. NOS.18-22 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.328 OF 2002
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Respondent(s)
(For directions, permission to file appln(s), exemption from filing O.T.)
Date: 17/04/2006 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.B. SINHA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shanti Bhushan,Sr.Adv.
Ms. Indira Jai Singh,Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Parikh,Adv.
Mr. Prashant Bhushan,Adv.
Mr. S. Murlidhar,Adv.
Mr. Vishal Gupta,Adv.
Mr. Sanjai K. Pathan,Adv.
Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh,Adv.
Mr. Sumeet Sharma,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
For Rajasthan: Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta,AAG.
Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh,Adv.
For Gujarat: Mr. Ashok H. Desai,
Sr.Adv.
Ms. Hemantika Wahi,Adv.
For Union of India: Mr. Gopal Subramaniam,ASG.
Mr. Mohan Parasaran,ASG.
Mr. T.S. Doabia,Sr.Adv.
Mr. T.S. Murthy,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
Ms. Varuna Bhandari Gugnani,Adv.
Ms. Jyotsna Dwivedi,Adv.
Mr. R.M. Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Anil Katiyar,Adv.
Mr. P. Parmeswaran,Adv.
...2/-
- 2 -
Mr. S. Muralidhar,Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Shreekant N. Terdal,Adv.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan,
Sr.Adv.
Mr. Sanjay Parikh,Adv.
Ms. Anitha Shenoy,Adv.
Ms. Lalit Mohini Bhat,Adv.
Ms. Hetu Arora,Adv.
Mr. Naveen R. Nath,Adv.
Mr. A.N. Singh,Adv.
For Madhya Pradesh: Mr. Arun Jaitley,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Harish N. Salve,Sr.Adv.
Mr. C.D. Singh,Adv.
Mr. Vivek Narayan,Adv.
Mr. Dhrupad Kashyap,Adv.
Ms. Kiran Suvarna,Adv.
For Maharashtra: Mr. S.S. Shinde,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra K. Adsure,Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Mukul Rohatgi,
Sr.Adv.
Mr. Syed Naqvi,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
These applications have been filed complaining about the relief
and rehabilitation measures to be provided to the project affected families in
terms of the Award made by the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal and the
judgements of this Court reported in 2000 (10) S.C.C.664, 2005 (4) S.C.C.32
and other orders passed by this Court from time to time. In terms of the
Award and decisions of this Court, the further raising of the height of the
Dam has to be only pari passu with the implementation of the relief and
rehabilitation measures and on clearance by the Relief and Rehabilitation
Sub-group. The Relief and Rehabilitation Sub-group is required to give
clearance for further construction after consulting the Grievance Redressal
Authority. When the judgement was
...3/-
- 3 -
pronounced by this Court in the year 2000, the height of the Dam was 90
meters. Subsequently, it has been increased from 90 meters to 95 meters,
from 95 meters to 100 meters and from 100 meters to 110 meters. The
challenge to the relief and rehabilitation measures that had been provided
when the heights were earlier raised, led to the judgement reported in 2005
(4) S.C.C.32.
There is no manner of doubt that all relief and rehabilitation
measures have to be provided to the oustees in letter and spirit of the Award
and decisions of this Court. The State Governments have seriously disputed
the applicant's assertion that the relief and rehabilitation measures have not
been provided in terms of the Award and the judgements of this Court.
According to the State of Madhya Pradesh, well before issue of notice to the
oustees, the said measures had been provided for. Narmada Control
Authority, on 8th March, 2006, accorded permission for raising the height of
the Dam from 110 meters to 121.92 meters. The work of raising the height is
in progress. An application has also been filed by the Union of India
referring to the visit by a Group of Ministers to the site and brief note of the
assessment of the said Group of Ministers has been placed on record.
According to the said application, the matter requires examination. Prayer
in that application is to permit the Central Government to establish a
suitable mechanism to undertake a review of the measures taken so far by
the State of Madhya Pradesh and ensure rehabilitation of all project
affected families in the State of Madhya Pradesh to be completed within a
period of about three months. The period of three months has been sought
for in the application as according to the learned Additional Solicitor
General, the villages as a result of the increase of the height of the Dam are
expected to the submerged in water on the onslaught of monsoon towards
...4/-
- 4 -
the end of August, 2006. This application has been presented in court today.
The State of Madhya Pradesh disputes the note prepared by the Group of
Ministers.
We have also been informed that in the Review Committee, there
was a sharp, rather equal division among the members.
We have heard for some time the learned counsel appearing for
either side. We have also appealed to them that the matter deserves to be
examined in a fair and reasonable manner in a cool and calm atmosphere
and not in the charged emotive atmosphere. We hope that they will be able
to persuade the concerned stake holders about this requirement as creation
of cool and calm atmosphere will facilitate the early disposal of the matter.
Having heard the learned counsel, we feel that before we
consider in depth the prayer strenuously made today for stopping the on-
going work, it is necessary to give opportunities to the State Governments
and others to file replies to all the applications having regard also to the fact
that as of today, we have on record the permission granted on 8th March,
2006, and at the same time, the matter does not brook any delay lest it may
become fait accompli. It has been made clear to the State Governments that
if the relief and rehabilitation to the unfortunate oustees are not granted in
letter and spirit, this Court will have no option but to stop the on-going
construction. Under these circumstances, we direct that replies by all
concerned shall be filed within a period of one week. Rejoinder affidavit
thereto can be filed within one week thereafter. The matter shall be listed on
1st May, 2006.
We clarify that pendency of these matters would not preclude the
Union of India to take permissible steps and initiative with a view to resolve
the controversy in accordance with the
...5/-
- 5 -
judgements, above-referred. Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned Additional
Solicitor General, states that a reference has been made by the Review
Committee to the Prime Minister. We take this fact on record.
[ T.I. Rajput ] [ Vijay Lakshmi ]
A.R.-cum-P.S. Court Master
|
Supreme Court 
