RUSSEL JOY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is preferred by a public spirited person under Article 32 of the Constitution of India praying for issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Government of India to appoint an international agency with the technical expertise to study and to adjudge the lifespan of Mullaperiyar Dam and ascertain the date/period on which the said dam must be de-commissioned; appoint a High Powered Committee to suggest to this Court to declare a date/time period for de-commissioning of Mullaperiyar Dam; direct the State owning the dam, that is, Tamil Nadu to make financial provisions for damages to life and restoration of environment in the eventuality of a burst of Mullaperiyar Dam before it is de-commissioned, and pass any other order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper to do so in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) The essential facts which need to be stated for adjudication of this petition are that Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed under a lease agreement executed in the year 1886 between the Maharaja of erstwhile Travancore with the British Secretary of State for Madras Presidency for a duration of 999 years. In pursuance of the said agreement, the dam was constructed across river Periyar in crude lime surky mortar at a time when dam engineering was in its infancy. Periyar river originates from Sivagiri and Western Ghats at an elevation of 2400 meters from the sea level and joins Mullayar river downstream at an elevation of 850 m. It is at this elevated junction, the Mullaperiyar dam was built having a height of 53.6 m (176 ft.) from the foundation and a length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft) for catering to the irrigational needs of the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu under the said lease agreement.

(3.) There is an assertion in the petition that the Chief Engineer of the dam project, Mr. John Pennycuick envisaged the lifetime of the dam for a period of 50 years. As 121 years have expired from the date of the construction of the dam, the decommissioning of the said dam has become essential and there is need for assessment of the lifespan of the dam regard being had to the safety of the citizens especially the persons residing downstream of the river. There is reference to the litigations filed between the State of Kerala and State of Tamil Nadu for long period and more recently in CS (OS) No. 3 of 2006 before this Court which was decided on 07.05.2014 in State of Tamil Nadu v. State of Kerala and another (2014) 12 SCC 696 whereby this Court apart from issuing other directions had appointed a Supervisory Committee to take measures pertaining to the dam in emergent situations.