NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek clarification of the majority judgment with regard to maintenance of height of the dam for further construction.

(2.) The Union of India through Mr Ashok H. Desai, learned Senior counsel and the State of Gujarat through Mr Harish N. Salve, learned solicitor-General submit that the effective height of the dam for purposes of submergence would be maintained at 90 metres and that even if humps are required to be constructed at any point of time, the effective height of the dam shall not be raised beyond 90 metres for purposes of submergence until further construction is permitted as per the conditions laid down in the majority judgment. It is submitted that in view of this stand of the Union of india and the State of Gujarat, no clarification of the judgment is required. We record the statements of Mr Desai and Mr Salve and dispose of the IA in terms of their statements.

(3.) Mr T. R. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Counsel for the State of maharashtra points out that there is a typographical error at p. 177 of the majority judgment in the 4th line of the last paragraph, in that the word "rajasthan" appearing after the words "the project which" and before the words "get its share" should actually be read as "maharashtra" and not "rajasthan". Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the typographical error being corrected. We, therefore, direct that in the 4th line of the last paragraph at p. 177 of the majority judgment, "maharashtra" shall be substituted instead of "rajasthan". Per Bharucha, J.