Order
1. We have perused the status report filed in the form of an affidavit of Shri M.S Gupta, Senior Joint Commissioner (Basin Management), Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.
2. Insofar as Ken-Betwa link is concerned, though the affidavit and the documents accompanying it state that the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, would inform the decision of the Government by the end of January 2005, we are told by the learned Solicitor General that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has conveyed its consent, subject to certain conditions, in particular the condition of funding.
3. The cost of preparation of the Detailed Project Report (for short “DPR”) is proposed to be done from Central funding amounting to rupees thirty crores. We take note of the fact that now a memorandum of understanding is required to be signed between the Government of Uttar Pradesh and the Central Government.
4. Insofar as Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link is concerned, the consensus group headed by the Chairman, Central Water Commission, held its meeting on 2-11-2004, and discussed the issues raised by the Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh regarding Parbati-Kalisindh-Chambal link. The group submitted its report to the Ministry. The Governments of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh were asked to give concurrence for signing the Memorandum of Understanding so that the work for preparation of DPR could commence.
5. It seems that certain issues are still to be sorted out with the State of Rajasthan even after the inter-State meeting of Chief Secretaries held on 11-1-2005. We hope that the issues would be sorted out without the intervention of the Court.
6. It further appears that the feasibility reports of three other links in Peninsular component, namely, Par-Tapi-Narmada link, Godavari (Polavaram)-Krishna (Vijayawada) link and Daman Ganga-Pinjal link, have been taken up for initiating action for consensus building. Annexure R-4 to the affidavit shows that the feasibility reports in respect of fourteen Peninsular components and two Himalayan components have been completed.
7. Mr Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel, submits that despite the orders of this Court, only one feasibility report has been put on the website.
8. The order of the Court is clear and we direct its compliance in letter and spirit so that the feasibility reports shall be put up on the website soon after its completion. One of the objects sought to be achieved is that the environmentalists and others concerned can put forth their viewpoint which can be considered.
9. The viewpoint can be placed before the Committee of Environmentalists, Social Scientists and Other Experts on interlinking which has been constituted by the Government in terms of Office Memorandum dated 28-12-2004. We feel that the group shall also intimate and invite Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned amicus curiae, by giving sufficient notice of the meeting. The persons concerned, abovenoted, can also bring their viewpoint before Mr Ranjit Kumar as well.
10. The Office Memorandum dated 29-12-2004 shows that the Task Force on interlinking of rivers, having submitted its report, has been wound up with effect from 31-12-2004 and a special cell is constituted to look after the residuary work of the Task Force and for taking follow-up action on the interlinking of river programmes under the Ministry of Water Resources. That special cell was earlier headed by a Joint Secretary but now in terms of Office Memorandum dated 15-2-2005, it has been directed to be headed by the Commissioner (Project) in the said Ministry.
11. It may also be noted that the terms of reference of the Environmentalists' Committee, abovenoted, seem to be quite comprehensive and that is the reason we have directed that all concerned may place their viewpoint before the said Committee.
12. The next status report be filed within three months. List the matters after three months.
Court Master