Kudankulam plant row: SC asks Centre, atomic board to respond to plea
10 Dec 2013 11:15 PM GMT
The fresh petition has been filed against the Madras high court order which did not entertain the petition and asked the petitioner to move the apex court.
A bench comprising of Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra issued notices to Department of Atomic Energy, Ministry of Environment and Forests, AERB, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Tamil Nadu government and its pollution control board.
Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner G Sundarrajan submitted that the 15 directions the apex court had given regarding the safety in and around the plant in May this year in the Kudankulam case have not been complied with.
The apex court, while giving a green signal to the nuclear power project, had said, 'Apprehension, however, legitimate it may be, cannot override the justification of the project...' It, however, had passed a slew of directions relating to environment protection, disaster management, safety of the people, and quality of systems and components in the plant and had said that they be complied with before its commissioning.
The fresh petition says that AERB, on 4 July 2013, had given a clearance for commissioning of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project without satisfying itself that all the directions have been complied with. Seeking ex-parte injunction against commissioning of the plant, it said that the nuclear project is surrounded by about 100 villages with a population of about 10 lakhs, which totally depends on fishing for their livelihood and their lives would be at stake because of the project.
A bench comprising of Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Justice Dipak Misra issued notices to Department of Atomic Energy, Ministry of Environment and Forests, AERB, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd, Tamil Nadu government and its pollution control board.
Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner G Sundarrajan submitted that the 15 directions the apex court had given regarding the safety in and around the plant in May this year in the Kudankulam case have not been complied with.
The apex court, while giving a green signal to the nuclear power project, had said, 'Apprehension, however, legitimate it may be, cannot override the justification of the project...' It, however, had passed a slew of directions relating to environment protection, disaster management, safety of the people, and quality of systems and components in the plant and had said that they be complied with before its commissioning.
The fresh petition says that AERB, on 4 July 2013, had given a clearance for commissioning of the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project without satisfying itself that all the directions have been complied with. Seeking ex-parte injunction against commissioning of the plant, it said that the nuclear project is surrounded by about 100 villages with a population of about 10 lakhs, which totally depends on fishing for their livelihood and their lives would be at stake because of the project.
Next Story
