[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
DAM-L LS: Open Letter to SC Judges on Narmada Case (fwd)
----- Forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----
From owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net Wed Oct 25 15:28:22 2000
Return-Path: <owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net>
Received: from DaVinci.NetVista.net (mjdomo@mail.netvista.net [206.170.46.10])
by lox.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca (8.8.7/8.8.8) with ESMTP id PAA10347
for <dianne@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 15:27:08 -0400 (EDT)
From: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Received: [(from mjdomo@localhost)
by DaVinci.NetVista.net (8.10.0/8.8.8) id e9PIonP20821
for irn-narmada-list; Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
(envelope-from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net)]
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 11:50:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200010251850.e9PIonP20821@DaVinci.NetVista.net>
subject: LS: Open Letter to SC Judges on Narmada Case
Sender: owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net
Precedence: bulk
>Ravi Kuchimanchi
>B. Tech, IIT Mumbai, Ph.D, Univ. of Maryland
>C-7 Banganga Hsg., Govandi Stn Rd
>Mumbai 400088. E-mail aid@vsnl.com
>PRESS RELEASE October 25, 2000
>
>Open Letter To Supreme Court Judges On the Narmada Case
>SARDAR SAROVAR DAM HEIGHT CHANGED
>
>To,
>Chief Jst Anand, Jst Kirpal, Jst Bharucha,
>Supreme Court, New Delhi
>
>Honorable Jst. Anand, Kirpal, Bharucha,
>
>Disposing the writ petition 319/1994 filed by the Narmada Bachao
>Andolan (NBA) you have held in the Majority Judgement (by 2-1) that
>the height of the Sardar Sarovar dam as determined by the Tribunal
>award is binding on the States and whose correctness cannot even in
>principle be challenged by the States, the affected people or
>reviewed by the Supreme Court. This was the main reason for
>dismissing NBA's case. You ruled, it is simply impossible to change
>the height of the dam.
>
>However an affidavit (vol 156 A) filed by Madhya Pradesh in the same
>writ petition says that the height of Sardar Sarovar has been
>changed from Maximum Water Level (MWL) of 460 feet to MWL 455 feet
>with consent of all 3 states in an NCA meeting. In fact people who
>are below MWL and above the Full Reservoir Level (FRL 455 feet)
>have to be rehabilitated as per the Tribunal. The reason the
>states have changed this is so that these people now need not be
>rehabilitated. More over backwater has to be determined from MWL
>460', but it is being determined from 455'. Not only MP but Gujarat
>also is a party to this since the backwater calculations are done by
>the Central Water Comission in consultation with both these states.
>Maharashtra is also not rehabilitating people below MWL 460 feet and
>backwater but only below 455 feet and backwater. When people
>pointed this out to one of the GRAs and sought land acquisition and
>rehabilitation for those below MWL they received a reply that the
>MWL has been changed from 460' to 455'.
>
>Thus the three states and the machinery to implement the Tribunal,
>namely the Narmada Control Authority (NCA) have not bound themselves
>by the Tribunal. They have changed the height of the Sardar Sarovar
>dam. You may wonder why I am saying that the height of Sardar
>Sarovar dam is MWL 460', while in your judgement you have said "the
>height of the Sardar Sarovar dam was determined at FRL 455 feet."
>In fact your judgement, basing itself on one parameter rather than
>two, is not consistent with the Tribunal, and has accepted that the
>height has changed. Clause VII of the Tribunal states that "The
>Tribunal hereby determines that the height of the Sardar Sarovar Dam
>should be fixed at FRL 455 feet and MWL 460 feet."
>
>Thus we have the curious and regrettable case of the Sardar Sarovar
>dam whose height cannot be challenged by the people while the
>States, NCA and even the Supreme Court have changed MWL and tacitly
>accepted this. This violates not only the Tribunal but the order of
>the Supreme Court itself.
>
>Your main reason for not reviewing the Tribunal as per the people's
>case which questioned Sardar Sarovar at the present height of FRL
>455 and MWL 460 was that such changes cannot be made. Thus you have
>judged that the FRL of SS dam cannot be reviewed or changed. FRL
>and MWL occur in exactly the same manner in every clause of the
>Tribunal and if one can be changed and that change accepted by you,
>then so can the other. You may want to know why the governments
>changed MWL. This is because there are more than 15,000 people who
>are between MWL 460 and its backwater and MWL 455 and its backwater,
>and by so changing MWL these people are no longer being
>rehabilitated. This is because the scale of destruction is so large
>that every effort is being made by the governments and connected
>machinery as well as the majority judgment of the Supreme Court to
>overlook the fact that rehabilitation cannot be done. Thus the dam
>proceeds in gross violation of the Tribunal and the Supreme Court
>Judgement.
>
>There are many such violations of the Tribunal, even at 90 m height,
>upon which I have not fully dwelt in my letter. I would like to
>know who can stop the construction when illegalities are detected
>that will cause immediate and irreparable damage. Had it been NCA's
>decision to build the dam to 90 m, then the RCNCA (Review Committe
>of NCA) could have stopped it. However by-passing the RCNCA, the
>Majority Judgement has legislated and given this order, again in
>violation of its own judgement that the SC order has to respect the
>Tribunal.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Dr Ravi Kuchimanchi
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send a message to majordomo@netvista.net
with no subject and the following text in the body of the message
"unsubscribe irn-narmada".
----- End of forwarded message from owner-irn-narmada@netvista.net -----