ENVI-SAVERS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed in the year 2007 praying for quashing of the allotment/sanction of Hydel Projects on the Jibhi and Hirab tributaries of the Tirthan river in District Kullu, H.P. As a matter of fact, prayer clause (2) is a preemptive relief seeking direction against the respondents not to grant any permissions or sanctions for setting up of hydro electric projects on the Jhibi and Hirab tributaries of the Tirthan river in District Kullu and if such permissions have been granted/accorded, the same may be withdrawn forthwith. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Government had taken a conscious decision not to permit any hydro project in or around Tirthan river/Tirthan valley. However, for reasons best known to the Authorities, that decision has undergone change and the Government is in the process of permitting installation of hydro electric project on the Jhibi and Hirab tributaries of the Tirthan river in District Kullu.

(2.) THE respondent-State has contested this petition, amongst others, on the ground that the project referred to in this petition is not on the Tirthan river as such, but on the sub tributary of Tirthan river, which is far away from the 'No No zone' decided by the Government. In addition, it is submitted that the proposed Project is only of 1 MW, which will have no serious impact on either environment or social issues. It is further submitted that the Memorandum of Understanding has been executed in respect of the Project, which is commonly known as run-of- the-river Project, which does not require exploitation of environment.

(3.) AS a result, we decline to interfere in this petition in the above background, while leaving all contentions raised by the petitioner in this petition open to be agitated at the appropriate stage. We have no manner of doubt that as and when such inquiry is necessitated, the concerned Authorities would examine the efficacy of the decision taken by the State Government, dated 23rd June, 2006, which is at pages 341 to 404. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions, one way or the other. As aforesaid, all questions are left open to be answered in appropriate proceedings.