Advertisement
Kali Brigade, an organisation fighting for the protection of the river, had approached the court against the project stating the environment and river is being damaged.
“Since the project itself is in the public interest, as it relates to providing drinking water to the residents of the concerning panchayats, we do not find it necessary to grant indulgence. However, we provide that the petitioner may raise his grievance before the concerning authorities, maybe the Karnataka Forest Department, principal chief conservator of forests or the principal secretary, Government of Karnataka, Forest Department, by making a representation,” the High Court said.
The division bench headed by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi heard the petition.
Related Articles
Advertisement
The court did not find reason to believe the jack wells themselves were causing any environmental damage but said all necessary permissions under the law should be obtained for the project.
“The viability of the project and its impact on the environment and on the river is to be seen by the respondents and whether the construction of the jack well on its own is making adverse impact on the environment or the river itself.
So far as any illegality in the sanction of the project as alleged by the petitioners, it is for the authorities concerned to ensure the project is executed after due permission and fulfillment of requirement of laws, the Bench noted.
The court refused to stay the work as it was part of a drinking water project. “We have considered the submissions and gone through the report. It is to be noted that the construction of the jack well is the part of a scheme for providing drinking water to the residents of the nearby panchayats under the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board,” it said.
The court said if the petitioner approaches the Forest department or other authorities, they will take necessary action. “If and when the representation is made, it is expected it may be considered by the competent authorities and appropriate decision may be taken in accordance with law expeditiously,” the court pointed out.