The Southern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal has appointed a three-member expert committee to be headed by Prof. Yousuf, a former Member-Expert on NGT, and a representative each from the Central Water Commission and the Ministry of Environment and Forest to report to it on the issues related to the Palamuru-Ranga Reddy lift irrigation project in Telangana being heard by the tribunal.
The judge directed that the expert committee would examine whether a drinking water project could be implemented without constructing an irrigation component, as being argued by the Telangana Government, and whether construction was going on in forest areas as alleged by the petitioner, with the next date of hearing being July 19.
The costs of the committee would be borne by the applicant (petitioner) subject to the outcome of the case. During the hearing on the petition filed by B. Harsha Vardhan, the NGT Bench took the decision on appointing the expert committee as sought by the petitioner in Chennai on Tuesday. According to the Telangana Government officials who were present during the hearing, the bench had stated that the expert committee was being set up not because the applicant had filed an application for it, but the bench had felt the need for expert assistance.
Expert assistance
The order for setting up the expert committee was passed despite the objection and opposition by State Government counsel, the officials stated.
Counsel for the State Government, according to officials here, had argued that the three affidavits filed by the applicant out of turn should not be considered and be struck off from the records.
Counsel had also contended that the counter-affidavit ordered to be filed by the applicant during the last hearing had not been filed and there seemed to be no urgency on behalf of the applicant and the matter should be adjourned for further arguments.
Construction on
Counsel for the applicant, however, submitted that the applicant was withdrawing the affidavits since the date of next hearing was far away, on July 19, and by which time the project would have been constructed substantially without getting any clearances.
Further, counsel for the applicant submitted that the appointment of an expert panel was required in such a scenario and it should be allowed. Opposing the applicant’s plea, counsel for the State Government had responded that the undertakings given by the government were already there before the tribunal and the applicant had not alleged any contempt. Further, counsel had argued that the Member-Expert on the bench was not sitting and, according to the NGT Rules, no order could be passed.
