Relief for TS as SC stays penalty imposed by NGT for irrigation projects
Hyderabad: In a relief to Telangana, the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the Rs 920 crore penalties and fines imposed by a National Green Tribunal (NGT) bench at Chennai for going ahead with the construction works of Palamuru-Ranga Reddy lift irrigation scheme (PRLIS) and Dindi irrigation project without procuring environmental clearances.
The apex court also allowed the Telangana government to carry on the works catering to the drinking water component of the PRLIS.
The government had submitted that it was only going ahead with works meant for providing drinking water through the Mission Bhagiratha in the erstwhile districts of Mahbubnagar and Nalgonda.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice M.M. Sundaresh, made it clear that it was allowing the works as it did not want people to struggle for drinking water.
The NGT southern bench in Chennai had on December 24, 2022, ordered the Telangana government to pay Rs 528 crore as penalty for damaging the environment with PRLIS and levied Rs 92 crore fine for violating environmental norms in Dindi project. For “wilful violation' of its earlier orders,” the NGT imposed a penalty of Rs 300 crore on Telangana and asked it to deposit the overall fine amount of Rs 920 crore with the Krishna River Management Board in three months.
Counsel for Andhra Pradesh argued that Telangana was going ahead with irrigation works towards which it has finalised bids for lifting and pumping around 90 TMC water through PRLIS without clearances.
Senior counsel Mukhul Rohatgi, representing Telangana, submitted that works have been stopped and the interests of Telangana state are being disrupted by the NGT orders. He said that five reservoirs are being constructed for drinking water purposes and the first reservoir was spread over 24, 000 acres which is a thousand times bigger than Rashtrapati Bhavan. He said that NGT has ordered stopping of constructions at a depth of 100 to 200 ft. according to 2050 requirements.
The bench wanted to know how it can say that the project was only for drinking water when it is specifically mentioned that it was for irrigation and drinking water purposes.
Vaidyanadhan, another senior advocate representing Telangana, said that the Andhra Pradesh government was intending to raise inter-state water disputes by raking up issues like environmental permits.
