This story is from February 21, 2018

Supreme Court ordered no construction activity on Kalsa project: NGO

Supreme Court ordered no construction activity on Kalsa project: NGO
Kalsa-Bhandura project
PANAJI: Mhadei water disputes tribunal (MWDT) should consider the Supreme Court order regarding “no construction” activity in Kalsa project in the inter-state water dispute, while deciding the matter between Goa and Karnataka, president, Mhadei Bachao Abhiyan (MBA), Nirmala Sawant said.
As per a Supreme Court order dated August 17, 2017, Karnataka had asserted that no construction activity is being carried out in relation to the Kalsa-Bhandura project and that none will be taken up.
Ministry of environment, forests and climate change (MoEFCC) affidavit also pointed out that no environmental clearance was granted to Karnataka for the project.
“Constitutionally, Karnataka must get its share of the Mhadei water for use within the basin. But, as far as diverting the water to Huballi, the matter is over, as they cannot build anything, as pledged to the court,” Sawant said.
“In such a scenario, the tribunal has to consider and take cognizance of MOEFCC’s affidavit related to the environmental clearance (EC) and the Supreme Court order,” Sawant said.
An apex court order had been passed by Justice Madan B Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta in relation to Mhadei Bachao Abhiyan’s (MBA) Goa case on August 17, 2017, stating that nothing further survives in these applications.
With regard to central powered committee’s (CEC) pertaining to the diversion of about 258 hectares of forest land for the project, the judges had observed that it requires serious consideration both by Karnataka and MOEFCC.
In its affidavit sworn before the Supreme Court in the same case on August 12, 2017, MoEFCC had stated in its affidavit that no permission under Forest Conservation Act (FCA) had been granted to Karnataka for the Kalsa project within the state. Accordingly, after accepting the Karnataka counsel’s statement on the construction aspect, the apex court had disposed of the case.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA