HEMENDRA PRATAP DEHATI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plan to construct Darn for providing drinking and irrigation water to the residents of Garhwa District in Palamau Division over river Kanhar an idea was conceived in the year 1974 and after spending crores of rupees and giving salary to technical persons to the rank of Chief Engineer and below him, till 2012 and after preparing several DPRs and now after taking help of the Central Water Commission, New Delhi, the State's stand is that earlier it was found that Dam was not feasible and Barrage is feasible but now the Central Water Commission opined that even Barrage is not feasible economically though technically it can be constructed. Detailed reasons has been given in the supplementary affidavit filed by the State on 10th July, 2012 by quoting the relevant portion of the report indicating that because of the several reasons, construction of barrage is not a right decision and on finding this report, the State Government has requested the Central Water Commission to suggest what next step can be taken for providing water to the public of that area. We need not to give all detail fact, which we have already mentioned in several orders continuing since 2009. However, it would be worthwhile to mention here that this Court on 31st January, 2012 rightly observed that "We have now reasons to believe that the inaction of the State Government is deliberate and that the work done by the writ petitioner in bringing on record the relevant facts before the Court must have annoyed the Government itself. This Court also rightly observed that "the State has raised its hands and that too in the matter of providing water facilities to the villages after 60 years of the independence". Today, also because of this writ petition only the State is trying to find out the solution and by conduct as shown that none of the officers of the State Government dealing with irrigation is competent and that fact has been admitted in the counter-affidavit filed by the State stating therein that they themselves cannot decide whether on the site Dam is feasible or Barrage is feasible or if it was not feasible how the DPRs were considered and have not been rejected yet.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner very rightly suggested that in this fact situation, it is necessary to appoint a 'High Level Committee' under the Chairmanship of any retired Judge of the High Court with a team of experts, who may suggest the way without being influenced by any of the earlier decision of the Government, that dam will be constructed or barrage will be constructed and that Committee may be given liberty to suggest the way, by which, the problem of the area can be solved.

(3.) However, before appointing any committee, we would like to see the report of the Central Water Commission, who may inform this Court that in present fact situation, how the water problem of that area, can be solved. The matter may be looked into by the Chairman of the Central Water Commission in his own supervision, in view of the fact that the State Government failed to do anything in this matter since 1974 and has already wasted crores of rupees and misguided and misled the public by projecting that the State Government itself can do the needful for the public and since 1974 petitioner, who is more than 75 years old, is struggling for the poor people of that area. The suggestion may be given by the Central Water Commission by 14th August, 2012.