SC asks CS to file affidavit in SDM court; Matu

DAINIK NATION BUREAU

In the case of people affected by 2013 Srinagar flood seeking compensation from the Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited, the Supreme Court has asked the State’s Chief Secretary to file an affidavit indicating the status of the claims made by the aggrieved persons before the SDM.

The case of Alaknanda Hydro Power Company Limited Vs Srinagar Bandh Aapda Sangharsh Samiti (SBASS) and others was called on for hearing on January 10.

The SC order held: “By order dated 3rd October, 2016, we had granted liberty to the aggrieved parties to file their claim before the SDM in terms of the directions of the NGT.

We had also directed that the SDM may undertake adjudication/determination of the claim as per law after hearing the parties and recording whatever proof the parties may choose to produce before him. Learned counsel for respondent numbers one and two says that claims have been filed but more than a year has gone by, but there has been no adjudication in this regard.

Needless to say, we do not appreciate the inaction of the State of U’khand. Issue notice to the Standing Counsel of the State of U’khand in Supreme Court as also to respondent number three and to the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand to file an appropriate affidavit indicating the status of the claims made by the aggrieved persons before the SDM.”

The matter is listed after six weeks. According to the affected people, during the 2013 disaster, debris dumped on the riverbanks by the company was swept in the Alaknanda.

As a result, many tonnes of debris was carried by the river to the lower parts of Srinagar where it ended up damaging Governmental and non-Governmental buildings. After the flood water receded, the affected homes were filled by debris about eight feet high.

The SBASS and Matu Jansangathan had filed an application in the National Green Tribunal during 2013 demanding compensation from the dam company. According to Vimal Bhai of Matu Jansangathan, the NGT, in its order in 2016 had found the applicants correct and approved a compensation of Rs 9.27 crore. The firm had filed an appeal against this in the SC.

The advocate for the affected people stated that in 2016 they had presented their detailed claims to the SDM. However, more than a year later, the State had not submitted its report. The affected people state that had the State been serious, it could have conducted its inquiry and submitted its report. However, this task is being conducted at a very slow pace, they said