The two-member committee appointed by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) made a second visit to Girivalam path on Saturday, a full moon day, to look into issues raised against Girivalam path widening project.
However, the petitioners in the case, who are against the project, were unhappy with the way in which committee heard issues.
The committee comprising retired judge J.K. Sampathkumar and retired forest official T. Sekar inspected the path on September 28 and held a public hearing on next day. When the case came up for hearing on October 6, V. Suresh, counsel for one of the petitioners, Venkatesh Santhana, made an oral submission that applicants against the project had little opportunity to show the places they wanted to show to the committee during its inspection.
Justice Jyothimani told him that the committee was planning a second inspection during the full moon dates of 15 and 16 of October and the applicants could present their views then.
He advised the petitioners to submit a list of the places which they wished to show. Mr. Venkatesh Santhana submitted a list with 15 places to the nodal officer on 10 October.
The committee took petitioners with them on their second inspection on Saturday. Mr. Santhana said that only petitioners were asked to interact.
Representatives of different organisations could not present their views to the committee, though the interim order of the NGT that appointed the committee permitted such participation of public.
At the first stop at RDO quarters on Chengam Road, where the petitioners wished to show a Paadham-engraved ancient stone displaced by an earlier road extension and lying in utter neglect among rubble, Justice Sampath Kumar categorically said that the scope of the committee’s visit was limited to the current widening, Mr. Santhana said.
As a consequence, the committee decided that 9 out of 15 places listed by the petitioners need not be seen.
The places which were not inspected included Dharmaraja Kulam recently filled by highways department with rubbles, Unnamulai Theertham.
“In spite of the petitioners’ contention that all these aspects are interconnected and need to be examined as a whole and that the NGT interim order of 23.08.2016 included preservation of water bodies and sunken shrines in its scope, the committee advised them to take up these issues with the concerned departments,” Mr. Santhana said.
Mr. Krishnakumar, another petitioner in the case, said that the committee was mandated to look into all sides of the issue. “But we are disappointed that they are not willing to see several places and are unwilling to interact with concerned citizens.”
Dhananjayan, another petitioner, said that Justice Sampathkumar did not even want to look beyond the boundary of the road. “All the intricately connected issues, like water ways, ponds need to be surveyed. Approach of the committee to not to look beyond the road was disappointing,” he said.
Another petitioner against the project, Mugilan, and the lone petitioner for the project, Arumugam, were not present during the visit.
