//
you're reading...
legal issues

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KK NPP) – Apex court made some directions – Affidavits filed implementation of the directions – Apex court held that there is no laxity on the part of the Respondents in not carrying out various directions of this Court. For full implementation of directions, evidently, it may take some more time and we are sure that the Respondents would make earnest efforts to give effect to all the directions of this Court in letter and spirit. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submitted that a team headed by a former Chairman of the AERB be constituted to examine as to whether these directions are being properly implemented or not. We find it unnecessary to appoint any Committee at this stage since the status report and the affidavits indicate that the Respondents are taking necessary steps so as to give effect to various directions, even though some of the directions are yet to be fulfilled, which naturally would take some more time. At the moment, we find no reason to give any further directions. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so also the I.A.= G. Sundarrajan …. Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents= 2014(May.Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41526

Kudankulam Nuclear Power Project (KK NPP)  – Apex court made some directions – Affidavits filed implementation of the directions – Apex court held that there is no laxity on the part of the Respondents in not  carrying  out  various  directions   of   this   Court.     For   full

implementation of directions, evidently, it may take some more time and  we are sure that the Respondents would make earnest efforts to give effect  to all the directions of this Court in letter and spirit. Shri Prashant Bhushan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the Petitioner, submitted that a team headed by a former Chairman of  the  AERB be constituted to examine as to whether these directions are being properly implemented or not. We find it unnecessary to appoint any Committee at this stage since  the  status  report  and  the  affidavits  indicate  that  the Respondents are taking necessary steps so as  to  give  effect  to  various directions, even though some of the directions are  yet  to  be  fulfilled, which naturally would take some more time.   At  the  moment,  we  find  no reason to give any further directions. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so also the I.A.=

 

This Court, while disposing of the case  titled  G.  Sundarrajan  vs.

Union of India  reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620, gave 15  directions  for  due

compliance by AERB, NPCIL, DAE, MoEF, TNPCB,  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  etc.

Complaining  that  those  directions  had  not  been  complied  with,   the

Petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.19286 of 2013  before  the  Madras

High Court praying for a declaration that the clearance granted by AERB for

‘First Approach to Criticality’ (FAC) of Unit 1 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power

Project (KK NPP) on July 11, 2013 be  declared  as  null  and  void. =

 

  After perusing the various affidavits filed by  the  Respondents,  we

notice that the directions given by this Court are being properly addressed

by the Respondents and there is no laxity on the part of the Respondents in

not  carrying  out  various  directions   of   this   Court.     For   full

implementation of directions, evidently, it may take some more time and  we

are sure that the Respondents would make earnest efforts to give effect  to

all the directions of this Court in letter and spirit.

 

9.    Shri Prashant Bhushan,  learned  senior  counsel  appearing  for  the

Petitioner, submitted that a team headed by a former Chairman of  the  AERB

be constituted to examine as to whether these directions are being properly

implemented or not. We find it unnecessary to appoint any Committee at this

stage since  the  status  report  and  the  affidavits  indicate  that  the

Respondents are taking necessary steps so as  to  give  effect  to  various

directions, even though some of the directions are  yet  to  be  fulfilled,

which naturally would take some more time.   At  the  moment,  we  find  no

reason to give any further directions.

 

10.   The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so also the I.A.

2014(May.Part)http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41526

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, VIKRAMAJIT SEN

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.36179 OF 2013

G. Sundarrajan …. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. …. Respondents

WITH

I.A. NO.3
IN
C.A. NO.4440 OF 2013
J U D G M E N T
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This Court, while disposing of the case titled G. Sundarrajan vs.
Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 620, gave 15 directions for due
compliance by AERB, NPCIL, DAE, MoEF, TNPCB, State of Tamil Nadu, etc.
Complaining that those directions had not been complied with, the
Petitioner herein filed Writ Petition No.19286 of 2013 before the Madras
High Court praying for a declaration that the clearance granted by AERB for
‘First Approach to Criticality’ (FAC) of Unit 1 of Kudankulam Nuclear Power
Project (KK NPP) on July 11, 2013 be declared as null and void. Writ
Petition was heard along with few other writ petitions like WP No.15829 of
2013 and Writ Petition No.20161 of 2013 and the same were disposed of by a
common judgment dated 29.7.2013, against which the Petitioner in Writ
Petition No.19285 of 2013 has come up with this Special Leave Petition.
The Petitioner has also moved I.A. No.3 of 2013 in Civil Appeal No.4440 of
2013 for a direction to the respondents not to commission the Kudankulam
Nuclear Plant till each of the 15 directions given by this Court in the
aforementioned judgment has been complied with and till they are properly
verified by an independent expert committee appointed by this Court.

2. When SLP (C) No.36179 of 2013 came up for hearing, we passed an order
on 17.2.2014 directing the respondents to file their response with regard
to steps they have taken to give effect to the fifteen directions given by
this Court. In compliance, the Respondents have filed their affidavits
and status report.

3. We heard Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the
Petitioner, Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Solicitor General of India, Shri
Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Tamil
Nadu, Shri Subramonium Prasad, AAG and other learned counsel appearing for
the contesting respondents.

4. AERB in its affidavit dated 24.3.2014 explained the various steps
they have taken so as to comply with the various directions issued by this
Court. With regard to the concern expressed about the possibility of
quality issues with equipment from specific source, it was also pointed out
that additional re-verification was carried out before FAC. While doing so,
it was stated that the quality aspects of the safety related equipment in
KK NPP from that source had not been compromised. AERB Observers Team re-
verified the implementation of QA requirements from initial stage of
manufacturing up to final receipt of the component/ equipment at
Kudankulam. It was pointed out, no non-conformance of significance to
safety was observed. With regard to direction no.5, it was pointed out
that SNF can be stored for a minimum period of 7 years within plant in
Spent Fuel Pool (SFP) located in Reactor Building. Design of the same, it
was pointed out, has been reviewed from the point of adequacy of design,
surveillance requirements, monitoring provisions to ensure safe storage
considering plant and public safety. For storage beyond 7 years, Away From
Reactor (AFR) facility is planned by NPCIL. NPCIL has submitted the roadmap
for design, construction and completion of AFR facility specifying that the
AFR facility would be operational by May, 2018 after obtaining clearance
from AERB. With regard to direction no.7, it was pointed out that DGR is
to be set up based on national policy and regulatory review would be
carried out as and when design for the same is evolved. In the meantime,
as per the current regulatory practices, AERB would ensure safe storage of
SNF in the spent fuel pool or AFR at Site and ensure that the
transportation is in accordance with the AERB requirements. Detailed
response has been made to rest of the directions in the affidavit filed by
AERB.

5. NPCIL has also filed an affidavit along with Annexure A furnishing
the status report with regard to the directions issued by this Court in the
above-mentioned judgment. NPCIL with regard to direction no.1, pointed
out that the quality of equipment supplied by M/s Zio-Pololsk such as steam
generator, cation and anion filters, mechanical filters, moisture
separators and re-heaters etc. are fully accessible for any inspection, and
none of Zio-Pololsk supplied equipment to KKNPP are subject to neutron
irradiation. Further, it was submitted that to fulfil the directions in
para no.230 of the judgment, report has been filed. With regard to
direction no.7, it was stated that as the present storage capacity of each
Spent Nuclear Fuel Bay (SNF Bay) is adequate to accommodate discharged fuel
for a period of seven years starting from its first refuelling operation,
and hence as such the AFR facilities would only be required eight years
after the First Criticality of the KKNPP Unit-1. Further, it is also
stated that a Task Force for finalisation of design, design basis report to
construct Away From Reactor (AFR) facility for KKNPP Unit 1 & 2 has been
constituted by NPCIL vide office Order dated May 15, 2013 and that the Task
Force has prepared a roadmap for the design and construction of AFR. It
was further pointed out that NPCIL is committed to complete the AFR
facility within five years. Reply has also been given to the rest of the
directions as well.

6. Detailed affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board stating the steps they have taken to comply with
the directions. Following the directions of this Court, it was pointed
out, the officials of the Board inspected the plant on 18.5.2013 along with
the members of the Department of the Atomic Energy, NPCIL, MoEF, etc. to
verify the status of compliance of conditions stipulated by the Tamil Nadu
Pollution Control Board in the consent order granted under the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention
and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It was noticed that the Unit has
complied with the conditions and the consent order issued to the Unit.
Further, it was pointed out that the Unit has installed temperature
measuring device both at the sea water intake and marine out fall facility,
and the difference between ambient temperature of the sea and the water
disposed into sea by the Unit is not exceeding 7ºC as per the conditions
stipulated by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board.

7. The District Collector, Tirunelveli District, submitted a status
report with specific reference to direction nos.11 to 15. With regard to
direction no.11, it was pointed out that the first off-site emergency
exercise was conducted on 9.6.2012 at Unit at Nakkanery village with the
support of the concerned Ministries of the Government of India, Officials
of the State Government and the local authorities, etc., and that the next
exercise will be conducted as per the guidelines shortly after the
Parliamentary Elections are over. With regard to direction no.12, it was
pointed out that under the Neighbourhood Development Programme (NDP) being
implemented by the Unit, a sum of Rs.200 crores has been earmarked for
various projects. It was pointed out that the projects have been
identified and that an Apex Committee has been constituted to oversee
implementation of the NDP. Further, under NDP, a sum of Rs.45 crores has
been sanctioned towards first instalment of the total amount of Rs.200
crores and from the released funds, work for the installation of Solar
Street Light (200 Nos.) and Solar Motor Pumps (32 Nos.) has been completed.
Further, it was also stated that the upgradation of Koodankulam Primary
Health Centre to Government Hospital and improvements to Chettikulam Sub
Centre, construction of new PHC are nearing completion. The construction
of new PHC at Ovari is completed and the improvement and widening of roads
(29 roads) around the Unit has been completed. Further, it was also
pointed out that around the Kudankulam surrounding area, the Government
issued an order to construct 5000 houses at the estimate of Rs.150 crores
during the year 2013-2014. With regard to direction no.13, it was pointed
out that training had been conducted in August, 2011, for the State
Government officials of various departments including revenue, police,
medical, fire, etc. and that a refresher course was organised in June,
2012. Further, it was stated, schedule for refresher course is being
planned in consultation with District Administration. With regard to
direction no.14 relating to the consent of withdrawal of criminal cases
filed against the agitators, it was pointed out that out of 349 cases, 248
cases had already been withdrawn since in those cases no violence was
noticed. However, with regard to other cases i.e. cases of lay siege
through sea (6 cases), cases of violence against private individuals (40
cases) and cases of violence against Government officials (55 cases), it
was stated, it is not possible to withdraw the cases as the violations and
crimes committed are very serious in nature. The question whether the
rest of the cases be proceeded with or not is for the trial court to decide
on which we express no opinion.

8. After perusing the various affidavits filed by the Respondents, we
notice that the directions given by this Court are being properly addressed
by the Respondents and there is no laxity on the part of the Respondents in
not carrying out various directions of this Court. For full
implementation of directions, evidently, it may take some more time and we
are sure that the Respondents would make earnest efforts to give effect to
all the directions of this Court in letter and spirit.

9. Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, submitted that a team headed by a former Chairman of the AERB
be constituted to examine as to whether these directions are being properly
implemented or not. We find it unnecessary to appoint any Committee at this
stage since the status report and the affidavits indicate that the
Respondents are taking necessary steps so as to give effect to various
directions, even though some of the directions are yet to be fulfilled,
which naturally would take some more time. At the moment, we find no
reason to give any further directions.

10. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as above, so also the I.A.

 
………………………….J.
(K.S. Radhakrishnan)
…………………………J.
(Vikramajit Sen)
New Delhi,
May 08, 2014.

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,848,935 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,868 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com