The State Of Uttarakhand State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Energy vs. Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. Through Its Managing Director

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 16303/2012 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27/04/2012 in SA No. 14/2011 passed by the High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital) M/S GVK & L & T CONSORTIUM & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS RELIANCE INFRAS.LTD.& ORS. Respondent(s) (Interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 26877/2012 (With Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 37250/2012 (With Office Report) Date: 15/10/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Petitioner(s) Mr. M.L.Lahoty,Adv. (SLP 16303/12) Mr. Paban K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv. (SLP 16303/12) Mr. M.L.Lahoty,Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar,Adv. (SLP 37250/12) Mr. Altaf Ahmed,Sr.Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Mandal,Adv. For M/s Fox Mandal & Co. For Respondent(s) Mr. P. Chidambram,Sr.Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala,Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala,Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam,Adv. Mr. Akshay R.,Adv. Mr. Pratush P.,Adv. Ms. Devika Mohan,Adv. Digitally signed by Mahabir Singh Date: 2014.10.27 18:18:04 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION X

Mr. Altaf Ahmed,Sr.Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Mandal,Adv. For M/s Fox Mandal & Co. Mr. Sumit Goel,Adv. For M/s. Parekh & Co. Mr. M.L.Lahoty,Adv. Mr. Paban K. Sharma,Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar,Adv. Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Heard.

Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Uttarakhand, has drawn our attention to an order dated 15th July, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No.72 of 2010 whereby the High Court has observed as under:

"For the reasons stated above, it is directed that before allotting any hydel project, be it small, medium or large, there should first be a detailed Environmental Impact assessment and scientific study of all the major and minor river basins in the State of Uttarakhand, where these projects are to be allotted and only after a detail study has been made and the riparian rights of the settlements which are on the banks of these rivers taken care of, that any steps be made for giving these hydel projects to either State or private developers.

Before parting, I also feel that it would be expedient on the part of the State, having gained in experience in relation to the present lis, as against its experience of auctioning of these projects, that the Government should make an all out effort in future to auction even the small hydel projects."

He has also drawn our attention to an order of a Three-Judge Bench of this Court passed on 31st July, 2014 in Civil Appeal NO.1279 of 2013 and connected matters whereby this Court has observed as under:

"The postion taken by the State of Uttarakhand that no prmission for hydel project in the State shall be permitted unless comprehensive/detailed Environmental Impact Assessment and Scientific Study of alll the major and minor rivers in the State is completed, cannot be said to suffer from any legal or constitutional flaw.

In view thereof, civil appeals are dismissed."

Mr. Altaf Ahmed submits that in the light of the above direction, The State would need some time to file an affidavit indicating the current status of the on-going environmental study initiated in terms of the direction issued by the High Court as affirmed by this Court as also the State's position as to the status of the tender process which forms the subject matter of the dispute in the present proceedings.

Needful be done by Mr. Ahmed within six weeks with an advance copy to counsel opposite who shall be free to respond to the same within two weeks thereafter.

Post after eight weeks.

(MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER