[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 -----