Team Herald
MARGAO: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench in Pune has deferred its decision on the construction of the proposed new high-level Borim bridge over Zuari River, delivering a setback to the farmers from Borim and Loutolim villages who had sought an interim stay on the project.
The NGT has instructed the respondents to submit their replies within two weeks, with the matter scheduled for further consideration on December 2, 2024.
The concerns of farmers from the two affected villages, who are co-petitioners in the case, have intensified following the Union Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH’s) issuance of the final notification for land acquisition for the Borim Bridge recently.
Their objections were earlier dismissed by the Special Land Acquisition Authority (SLAO).
Despite the petitioners’ urgent plea for interim relief, the NGT bench chose not to pass an order, indicating it would consider the relevant submissions once all documents were provided.
“The learned counsel for applicants presses for passing an interim order. But we are of the view that in view of the facts narrated and time as sought by the respondents for filing the replies, we do not deem it appropriate to proceed further in the matter on merit without replies and the relevant
documents to be filed by the
respondents.
Accordingly, respondents are directed to submit their respective replies within two weeks,” stated the bench led by Justice Sheo Kumar Singh and Expert Member Dr Vijay Kulkarni.
The petitioners have maintained that the project poses a significant threat to agricultural and fishing activities in the region, which are heavily dependent on the Zuari River. They contend that the project lacks the necessary Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 – a concern that has been consistently raised throughout several hearings. However, the respondents had countered this, claiming that no EC is required
During Tuesday’s latest hearing, the respondents, including the State government, PWD, and MoRTH, requested additional time to submit their replies. The petitioners countered this request by highlighting that the respondents have had sufficient time since May 31, when the NGT had issued notices earlier this year.
The NGT bench noted that construction had not yet commenced on the site. The petitioners emphasised that the government’s lack of responses should not permit any illegal activity to proceed, stressing that their request for interim relief remains urgent.
The petitioner’s counsel also referenced a Supreme Court judgment they believe is applicable to this case, though the government’s counsel disputed this assertion. The tribunal acknowledged these arguments and confirmed it would take these points into consideration.