SHRI ZANGPO SHERPA Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF SIKKIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The genesis of this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies in the tragic death of an eleven year old school going girl who went swimming in the river Teesta in the afternoon of 18- 04-2014. The Dam upstream, reportedly released water suddenly into the river, resulting in a swollen river, rendering the child helpless and unable to cope, as a consequence of which she drowned.

(2.) The matter came to be reported in a local English Daily of Gangtok, East Sikkim, on 19-04-2014, which prompted the then Executive Chairman, Sikkim State Legal Services Authority (for short "SSLSA"), to issue a letter giving directions to Shri Zangpo Sherpa, a Panel Advocate of the SSLSA, to assist the aggrieved family with regard to grant of compensation, redressal of grievances, and if necessary, to file a Public Interest Litigation (for short "PIL") in this Court against the negligence of the Respondents, more 6especially, Respondent No.3, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (for short "NHPC"), Teesta Stage (V), which was responsible for construction of the Dam. Complying with the directions contained in the letter, the Learned Advocate being a public-spirited person took up cudgels on behalf of the public and filed the instant Writ Petition, becoming the Petitioner himself.

(3.) The Respondents No.1 and 2 are the Government of Sikkim and its agencies, while Respondent No.3 the NHPC is a Government Agency operating the Hydro-Electric Power Project (for short "HEPP"), Teesta Stage V, which is in question and other HEPPs in the State of Sikkim. The claim of the Petitioner is that the Respondents No.1 and 2 are responsible for providing safety to the public at large and are to ensure that operations of Projects such as those run by Respondent No.3, which are hazardous and inherently dangerous are carried out in a proper manner and do not endanger life and property of people living near the Dam site and downstream of the Dam. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the incident on 18-04-2014 could have been avoided but for the callous attitude of the Respondent No.3, which in the first instance ought to have had safety mechanisms and protocol in place, for release of waters from the Dam. That, the Respondent No.3 has failed to create public awareness by dissemination of information regarding the various timings of the release of the Dam waters or to install machines such as sirens for advance warning to the public living near the Dam, the banks and downstream. It is alleged that there are times when the water released from the Dam is at its minimum, leading children to believe that they can walk or swim across the river. At other times however the sudden release of the Dam waters results in a sudden increase in the volume of the river, without prior notice which thereby leads to loss of life and property of people. That, the Respondents No.1 and 2 for their part have failed to either implement or direct the Respondent No.3 to provide timely and regular public warning, through sirens and other means at least one hour prior to release of the waters and thereafter at regular intervals of fifteen minutes. Thus, the unregulated release of water has resulted in violation of the public's right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from which the Respondents have failed to compensate the family of the child who lost her life, hence, the prayer for the following reliefs;