Disposed

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Union of India

Uttarakhand HC11 Nov 2021WPMS/1189/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Uttarakhand disposed of a writ petition challenging a notification requiring minimum environmental flow in the Ganga. The Court cited the violation of natural justice (lack of hearing) as a reason to direct the petitioner to submit a representation to the competent authority for a specific decision. The challenge on merit was not considered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make a representation to the Competent Authority in Central Government, to be decided within ten days.

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. Vs Union of… — Environment and Pollution | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

¶2

AT NAINITAL

¶3

ON THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE:

¶5

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

¶6

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1189 of 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd.....Petitioner (By Mr. V.K. Kohli and Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocates, assisted by Mr. Dharmendra Barhwal, Advocate)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Union of India & others ....Respondents

¶11

(By Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Assistant Solicitor General with Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for the Union of India, Mr. C.S. Rawat, Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. D.K. Joshi, Advocate for the intervener)

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

Alaknanda Hydro Power has challenged a notification dated 09.10.2018 issued by Ministry of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation, Government of India, in exercise of powers under Section 3(3) of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The said notification provides for maintaining minimum environmental flow in river Ganga at locations downstream of structures or projects meant for diversion of river flows for purposes like irrigation, hydropower etc.

¶15

It is the contention of the petitioner that the hydropower project constructed and maintained by the petitioner is likely to be adversely affected by the

¶16

¶17

impugned notification and petitioner was not heard by the Central Government while issuing the notification.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner may be permitted to make a representation against the impugned notification and the Competent Authority in Central Government be directed to take decision on petitioner’s representation.

¶19

Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India has no objection, if such direction is issued.

¶20

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority in Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. If petitioner makes such representation on or before 18.11.2021, decision thereupon shall be taken within ten days thereafter.

¶21

Since this Court has not considered the challenge thrown by the petitioner on merit, therefore, petitioner shall be at liberty to agitate the matter before appropriate forum, if need be.

¶22

Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.

¶23

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)

¶24

Navin

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Ltd. v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tulsi Kumar Goyal Vs Union of Inida

Radhey Shyam Goyal Vs Union of India

Heera Singh Rana Vs Gaurav Chatwal

Dev Kumari Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Kumar Tiwari Vs Yogendra Sharma

Jai Durga Stone Mills Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Transport Secretariat Complex