MANGNI RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THESE review petitions have been filed essentially on the assertion that some factual errors have been committed while recording the finding in the decision under review by this Court due to lack of assistance from the petitioners and also because of the suppression of relevant material by the respondents. Reliance has been placed on the documents at pages 186 ­ letter from Chief Engineer, HPSEB, dated 23.3.2009, at page 172 - NOC issued by the Additional Director, dated 2.12.2008, at page 137 ­ report of the Director (Civil) dated 30.7.2012 and at page 155 ­ letter dated 18.8.2010 to urge firstly that the Authorities were oblivious and unconcerned about the objections raised by the locals; secondly the factual position stated in the communication of Director (Civil) dated 30.7.2012 unfolds the ground reality which has been completely glossed over by the competent Authority. Thirdly, it is contended that the Appraisal Committee was confronted with fait accompli situation and therefore, the so called approval given by the Appraisal Committee in its meeting dated 20th/ 21st December, 2010 is on the basis of pre -decided situation and not proper analysis of the ground reality which would clearly reveal that the shifting of the Project on the left bank was improper, inappropriate and against the public interest. Incidentally, it was also argued that this Court has committed error apparent on the face of the record in proceeding on the assumption that MoEF had granted approval vide communication dated 2.12.2008, while the same was only no -objection certificate issued by the said Authority. This error is noticed in paragraph 15 of the judgment under review. These are the only arguments canvassed h before us for seeking review of the judgment dated 22.5.2013.

(3.) REGARDING the objections of locals, that aspect has been considered by the Authorities and including by this Court, which records that the grievance of the locals stood redressed and that the Authorities have proceeded on that basis. Neither the communication dated 23rd March, 2009 at page 186 nor the letter dated 18th August, 2010 at page 155 will be of any avail.