New Delhi: Government on Monday failed to
give a time-frame to place before the Supreme Court the report
of the expert committee examining the feasibility of the
controversial Sethusamudram project through Dhanuskodi instead
of Rama Setu.
However, the Centre said the preliminary report of the
National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), which according to
the opponents of the project has doubted its feasibility,
cannot be taken as final and binding on the expert committee
headed by environmentalist R K Pachauri.
The affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Shipping, said
the expert committee in its November 10 meeting had discussed
the inputs provided by the NIO and further nominated it for
conducting the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) in eighteen
months.
"Hence, at this juncture NIO`s preliminary report
can not be taken as final and binding on the expert committee.
In view of the decision of the expert committee taken in the
meeting on November 10, the final report for the EIA has to
be awaited before the Committee come to a final conclusion
about the feasibility of the alternative alignment as the
impact of environment is one of the most important aspects for
the construction of channel," the affidavit said.
Government`s stand was in response to an application
moved by Janata Party chief Subramanian Swamy seeking
scrapping of the controversial Sethusamudram project claiming
NIO, which is the expert body of government, has doubted
its feasibility.
However, the Bench reminded Additional Solicitor
General Harin Raval that it has been waiting for over 16
months for the report of the expert committe since it reserved
its verdict on July 30, 2008, on the bunch of petitions
challenging the execution of the project.
"We were informed that the expert committee will make
an exhaustive study. Tell us how much time you will take to
place the report," the Bench said adding "you must have
discussed with the Committee".
The ASG said he was not in touch with the committee but
with the government and try to get the information.
"I will ask the government to get in touch with the
Committee and whether it can come out with an interim report,"
Raval told the Bench.
The ASG suggested even NIO will take a year or so to
collect data on EIA as the study of ocean for collecting data
cannot be completed in three or four months.
Taking on record the government affidavit, the court
posted the matter for further hearing on February 23 next.
The Supreme Court had asked the committee to examine
the feasibility of carrying the scheme through alternative
alignment running on land north of Dhanushkodi to avoid any
damage to Rama Setu.
It had on November 3 asked the government to convey
its stand on a report of NIO which allegedly doubted the
feasibility of the project.
The Pachauri Committee had outsourced the work of
examining the feasibility of the project to NIO which had
submitted its report to the government in March, Swamy had
claimed.
However, Raval said the report was not submitted to
the government but to the expert committee.
Swamy said the government should be asked to come out
with the report in the court within a specific time and the
entire exercise was a huge wastage of taxpayers money.
He said NIO is of the view that pushing the project
through an alternative route instead of Rama Setu would not
make much difference on the environment.
The Pachauri panel had asked NIO to examine the
feasibility of the project from Dhanuskodi instead of Rama
Setu which, according to him, said there are no major
differences between the two alignments on the environmental
impact.
Swamy claimed the report of the NIO concluded "the data
available in the region of interest is meagre".
The report, he claimed, contains assessments which
are in general restricted to the vicinity of Tuticorin, which
is too far from Adams Bridge for the measurements useful for
evaluating the project.
"The available data are clearly inadequate for
assessment of the possible impact of the Sethusamudram Ship
Canal Project," he said in the application.
Further, he said that due to paucity of data, it is
difficult to make a conclusive statement on whether alignment
4A would cause more damage to the marine biosphere in the
reserve. The impact of oil spill has also not been studied.
Swamy said though seven months have elapsed since the
NIO report, the government has been reluctant to place it
before the Supreme Court because the content of the report is
such that "on its basis, it would be necessary to scrap the
entire project".
PTI
