The National Green Tribunal has slapped fine on the Centre for the delay in filing reply on a plea alleging that construction activity on the Yamuna riverfront in Vrindavan was being carried out in violation of environmental laws.
The National Green Tribunal has slapped fine on the Centre for the delay in filing reply on a plea alleging that construction activity on the Yamuna riverfront in Vrindavan was being carried out in violation of environmental laws.
The Uttar Pradesh government, under the Vrindavan rejuvenation project, has proposed "expansion, renovation and beautification" work of three kilometres riverfront from Kesi Ghat to downstream of the river Yamuna.
The project, which proposes expansion of Kesi ghat by 750 metres into the river floodplain, also involves a mechanism to clean tributaries entering the river and construct interceptor drains to counter overflow of sewer into the river.
A bench headed by Justice Jawad Rahim imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the Ministry of Water Resources and asked it to deposit the amount within a week.
"The Ministry of Water Resources claims to have filed the reply on March 15, 2017 without serving a copy on the counsel for the applicant who was permitted to file rejoinder within two weeks after receiving a copy of the reply of the Ministry of Water Resources.
"This is the non-compliance of the order dated February 22, 2017 and consequently the Ministry has no escape but to deposit the cost of Rs 50,000 which is indicated in the order.
It shall be done within one week from now. Rejoinder to be filed before the next date of hearing," the bench said, posting the matter for March 31.
The NGT had on November 30 last year stayed the construction and directed the authorities not to carry out any activity on the riverbed.
The tribunal was hearing a plea filed by nature enthusiast Akash Vashishtha, who claimed that reclamation of the eco-sensitive Yamuna floodplain is being carried out in gross violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the provisions of the EIA Notification of 2006.
The plea, filed through advocate Rahul Choudhary, had contended that the project proponent was encroaching right into the river floodplain in order to create space for a new ghat and an interceptor pipeline. This expansion was taking place over and above the already encroached land consisting of illegal colonies and other construction projects.
"Direct the respondents to restore the riverbed and floodplain of Yamuna and its ghats after removing the pipeline and any other construction done, and demolition and removal of 21 colonies identified by Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority as illegal," the plea had said.
(This article has not been edited by DNA's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}