Mhadei – the lifeline of Goa seems to be on the verge of being diverted to Karnataka, despite the State convincingly winning the battle in the Supreme Court.
The diversion of Mhadei could have catastrophic affect on Goa and despite this fact the government seems to have compromised the State’s interest for national politics.
Yes, the State of Goa had convincingly defeated Karnataka in its criminal desire to go ahead with the Kalasa Banduri dam and divert water to Malaprabha Basin.
The Supreme Court had disposed off the case in the favour of Goa in August, 2017 but for political reason the State continued to fight the case in the Mhadei Tribunal.
The SUPREME COURT order of disposing off the case in GOA’S FAVOUR was never submitted in the Mhadei Water Dispute Tribunal.
Had that been done, the result would have been different and Goa would not have to part with any amount of water with Karnataka and Maharashtra.
MOEF affidavit in SC
The tribunal has allocated 5.5 TMC feet water to the Mumbai-Karnataka region for drinking purposes, 8.2 TMC for power generation, 1.12 TMC and 2.18 TMC for Kalasa and Banduri streams, respectively.
In the 12-volume judgment, the tribunal allowed Goa and Maharashtra to use 24 TMC and 1.33 TMC of water, respectively.
Now what is shocking is that since the beginning, Goa has already held a upper hand in the case but as they say “You Win only If you have Strong Will to Fight” and in this case the government did not seem to have any will to fight.
The Supreme Court, the Central Empowered Committee as the Ministry of Environment and Forest all had ruled in Goa’s favour. So what went wrong for the State?
Mhadei Bachao Abhiyan, led by social activist Nirmala Sawant, Rajendra P Kerkar, Dr Nandkumar Kamat, Prajal Sakhardande and Nandkumar besides others, took up the fight in the interest of Goa.
They were also successful in defeating Karnataka’s evil designs but…
The Supreme Court Verdict
Supreme Court order Chart
Based on MBA application on August 13, 2017 the Supreme Court directed Karnataka to file an affidavit whether an application has been made for forest and environment clearance and if so to whom and when and the status of application.
The SC also directed MoEF&CC to file an affidavit indicating whether any application has been received from the State of Karnataka for forest and environment Clearance in relation to the project.
Surprisingly, four days later on August 17, 2017 – learned counsel for the State of Karnataka Fali Nariman said that NO CONSTRUCTION is going on and that NO CONSTRUCTION WILL BE CARRIED OUT.
“In view of this, nothing further survives in these applications which are disposed of accepting the statement of learned counsel for the State of Karnataka,” the court ruled.
The Accusations
This was huge win for Goa and MBA president Nirmala Sawant says if the order was produced before the Mhadei Water Dispute Tribunal, things would have been different today.
“Adv Atmaram Nadkarni, who was fighting case in the tribunal, never asked for any documents from me or for that matter even the government did not approach me, maybe, as I was from different party they did not want MBA to get any credit,” she said.
When asked for his reaction on the accusations made by Nirmala Sawant, Adv Nadkarni shot back saying, “she never helped in Goa’s case in the Tribunal.”
“She never helped Goa, it was only Rajendra Kerkar who was one of our witness in the MWDT. She should understand what she is talking first,” he said.
Nadkarni said that Karnataka told the SC that they will not carry out any work unless environment clearance is taken.
However, the SC order dated August 17,2017, say otherwise.
Not just SC, CEC, MoEF
also were in Goa’s favour
It was not just the Apex Court which ruled in Goa’s favour but the Central Empowered Committee too acknowledged Goa’s concerns on MBA petition.
The CEC in its report submitted by MK Jiwarja said “From the details provided in the application, which have also been confirmed in the meeting it is seen that THE PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE. The State of Karnataka has taken a view that the project does not require environment clearances having project cost of less than Rs 100 cr. In this context it is recommended that the hon’ble court may consider asking MoEf&CC to examine and take a decision in this regard and to ensure that NO PROJECT WORKS are allowed to be undertaken without environment clearance.”
Earlier, Environment Minister A Raja had also written to Karnataka CM expressing concerns.
“The projects require both environmental as well as forestry clearances and my ministry in August 2001 advised the Government of Karnataka to resubmit the proposals for the required statutory clearances after obtaining the views of Central water commission. State of Karnataka is yet to resubmit the proposals,” he wrote.
Raja further requested Karnataka CM Kumaraswamy to advise State irrigation department not to take up any work on the project without obtaining the statutory clearances.
“I would be grateful if the factual position in the matter is appraised to the central government at an early date,” he wrote.
Observations and Recommendations
1. The main issue raised in the present application is that Kalasa Banduri project on River Mhadei involves the use of 258 hectares of forest land in the State of Karnataka and that the project is being undertaken by the State in violation of FC Act, 1980. In support of the above a number of photographs have been filed.
2. During the meeting held before the CEC on 18/2/2009 the applicant reiterated that the project works are being done in the forest land in violation of the provisions of the FC Act, 1980 and the guidelines issued thereunder by the MoEF&CC. It was stated by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Karnataka Forest department that Forest cases have been booked by the forest department for violation of the provision of the Karnataka Forest Act. On the other hand State of Karnataka has taken an unequivocal stand that no project work has been carried out in forest land. It has also filed affidavit stating no work in the forest land will be carried out without obtaining the approval under the forest conservation Act, 1980.
3. In the Above background and considering that the project lies in highly eco-sensitive Western Ghats areas and also considering the magnitude of the project it is recommended that this hon’ble court may consider asking MoEF&CC to depute a high level team of officers to carry out site inspection in a time bound manner to ascertain whether any project works have been or are being done in forest area in violation of provision of FC Act.
4. If any work is found to be done in forest land, the project work should be directed to be stopped forthwith. The forest land includes notified forests, recorded forests and deemed forests.
5. From the details provided in the application, which have also been confirmed in the meeting it is seen that THE PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE. The State of Karnataka has taken a view that the project does not require environment clearances having project cost of less than Rs 100 cr. In this context it is recommended that the hon’ble court may consider asking MoEf&CC to examine and take a decision in this regard and to ensure that NO PROJECT WORKS are allowed to be undertaken without environment clearance.
MK Jiwarjka
Member Secretary, CEC
