HC moved again over Kudankulam n-plant
18 July 2013 12:33 AM GMT
A petition has been filed in the Madras high court against commissioning of the Kudankulam Nulcear Power Plant on the ground that authorities had not complied with all the directions issued by the Supreme Court while giving the green signal to the controversial project.
When the petition came up before a Division Bench comprising Justices R Banumathi and T S Sivagnanam today, the Judges posted it for hearing by the first bench which was seized of matters relating to the KNPP.
Petitioner one K Sundarrajan, referring to a release by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) on commencement of power generation subsequent to the first reactor attaining criticality on 13 July, contended all the directives of the apex court had not been complied with.
More particularly the direction No. 14 pertaining to withdrawal of criminal cases filed against the agitators had not been implemented, he contended.
Additional Solicitor General P Wilson, who appeared on behalf of central government, submitted AERB had on 11 July given clearance for commissioning the project by taking note of the directions of the Supreme Court and all the directions were scrupulously complied with.
If the petitioner had any grievance, he should approach only the Supreme Court and not the high court. He also submitted the reference to withdrawal of criminal cases was only an endeavour of the Supreme Court and not a direction.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench posted the petition before the First Bench for further hearing on 27 June.
While disposing of petitions against the KNPP, the Supreme Court had on May 6 last gave the go-ahead for the commissioning of the plant and issued 15 directions to the authorities.
When the petition came up before a Division Bench comprising Justices R Banumathi and T S Sivagnanam today, the Judges posted it for hearing by the first bench which was seized of matters relating to the KNPP.
Petitioner one K Sundarrajan, referring to a release by the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board (AERB) on commencement of power generation subsequent to the first reactor attaining criticality on 13 July, contended all the directives of the apex court had not been complied with.
More particularly the direction No. 14 pertaining to withdrawal of criminal cases filed against the agitators had not been implemented, he contended.
Additional Solicitor General P Wilson, who appeared on behalf of central government, submitted AERB had on 11 July given clearance for commissioning the project by taking note of the directions of the Supreme Court and all the directions were scrupulously complied with.
If the petitioner had any grievance, he should approach only the Supreme Court and not the high court. He also submitted the reference to withdrawal of criminal cases was only an endeavour of the Supreme Court and not a direction.
After hearing both sides, the Division Bench posted the petition before the First Bench for further hearing on 27 June.
While disposing of petitions against the KNPP, the Supreme Court had on May 6 last gave the go-ahead for the commissioning of the plant and issued 15 directions to the authorities.
Next Story
