ShareThis for Joomla!
पार्वती कोल डैम ट्रांसमिशन लाईन पर उठी सीबीआई जांच की मांग एसडीएम, डीसी बिलासपुर से लेकर अतिरिक्त मुख्य सचिव वन और पावर की भूमिकायें सन्देह के घेरे में
- Details
- Created on Monday, 03 June 2019 12:06
- Written by Shail Samachar
शिमला/शैल। 800 मैगावाट के कोलडैम जल विद्युत परियोजना की ट्रांसमिशन लाईन बिछाने को लेकर प्रभावित क्षेत्रों के लोगों में सरकार और ट्रांसमिशन कंपनी पी के डी टी सी प्रा0 लि0 के खिलाफ स्थानीय लोगों में भारी रोश व्याप्त है। प्रभावित लोगों ने पिछले दिनों शिमला में आयोजित एक पत्रकार वार्ता में आरोप लगाया है कि यह लाईन 440 केवी की बिछाते हुए कंपनी ने न केवल स्थानीय लोगों के साथ ही दादागिरी की है बल्कि पर्यावरण वन और विद्युत अधिनियमों की भी अनदेखी की है। लोगों ने आरोप लगाया है इस पूरे प्रकरण में जिलाधीश और एस डी बिलासपुर के साथ ही अतिरिक्त मुख्य सचिव वन और पावर की भूमिकाएं भी सन्देह की भूमिका में है। प्रभावित लोगों ने इस पूरे प्रकरण की सीबीआई जांच की मांग की है।
स्मरणीय है कि जब यह ट्रांसमिशन लाईन बिछाने के लिये कंपनी ने प्राईवेट लोगों की ज़मीनों पर यह काम शुरू किया तब प्रभावित लोगों को इसका ज्ञान हुआ। क्योंकि प्रभावितों के मुताबिक उनकी अनुमति के बिना ही उनकी ज़मीनों पर यह काम शुरू कर दिया गया। इसको लेकर लोगों ने रिलायंस समूह के अध्यक्ष अनिल धीरू भाई अंबानी, रिलायंस
इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर और उसकी सहयोगी कंपनी पार्वती कोलडैम ट्रांसमिशन प्राईवेट लिमिटेड के बोर्ड आफ डायरैक्टर्ज और अन्य के खिलाफ सीआपीसी की धारा 156(3) के माध्यम से भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 120बी, 145, 351, 464, 467, 468, 405, 415, 416, 417, 422, 420, 452, 283, 271, 341, 379, 392, 506, 148, 166 के अतिरिक्त पर्यावरण की धारा 14 भारतीय वन अधिनियम की धारा 41 व 42 के तहत मामले दर्ज करवाये थे। जब यह मामले दर्ज हुए और इन पर कारवाई शुरू हुई तब इन मामलों को रद्द करवाने के लिये अनिल अंबानी और उनकी कंपनी ने प्रदेश उच्च न्यायालय में एक याचिका दायर कर दी। यह याचिका आने के बाद उच्च न्यायालय की जस्टिस राजीव शर्मा की पीठ ने पुलिस जांच स्टे कर दी थी।
पुलिस जांच स्टे होने के बाद उच्च न्यायालय में यह मामला चलता रहा। इस दौरान 29-8-2017 और 3-10-2017 को उच्च न्यायालय ने इसमें यह टिप्पणीयां करते हुए यह निर्देश जारी किये थे 29.08.2017: “Perusal of communication dated 28.10.2015, available at Page-71 of CrMMO No. 33 of 2016, suggests that Committee, constituted to inquire into the allegations having been made by the residents of area, submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Perusal of report, referred to above, suggests that various permissions as required under law, were not taken by the Parbati Koldam Transmission Company Limited (PKTCL), before laying transmission lines. This Court was unable to lay its hands on document, if any, suggestive of the fact that, action, if any, pursuant to report submitted by the Committee, was ever taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur.
In the aforesaid background, this Court deems it fit to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit specifically indicating therein the action taken pursuant to report submitted by the Committee, vide communication dated 28.10.2005. Affidavit, as stated above, shall be filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, within a period of four weeks from today. An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General, for necessary compliance by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur.
List on 3.10.2017.”
03.10.2017: “Sequel to order dated 29.8.2017, Deputy Commissioner, District Bilaspur, has filed his personal affidavit, perusal whereof suggests that the then Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, after having received a joint complaint dated 20.1.2015, constituted a Fact Finding Committee comprising of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, District Bilaspur (Chairman), Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bilaspur and Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P. Headquarter) Bilaspur, vide order dated 29.1.2015 with the direction to submit a comprehensive report within a period of twenty days. It also emerge from the averments contained in the affidavit that subsequently, vide order dated 30.3.2015, Assistant Conservator Forest, Bilaspur, was also included as member in the aforesaid committee in place of DFO Bilaspur. Above referred Committee submitted its joint report through SDM Sadar, District Bilaspur vide letter No. BLS-SDMSDR/ 2015-8839 dated 28.10.2015. The Then Deputy Commissioner after having perused report of fact finding committee forwarded the same to the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide office letter No. BLS-Peshi-15(3)92-III-57321-22 dated 29.12.2015, with the following request:-
“i) Action may kindly be initiated against the PKTCL company officers/officials for violation of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as stated above and nonadherence of parameters of Revenue, Horticulture, Agriculture and Forest Department for providing adequate compensation. ii) As observed by the Committee, the matter may kindly be taken up with the Government of India for streamlining the process for providing compensation in such major projects of national importance.”
2. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication that officials of PKTCL Company while erecting towers on the land of various stakeholders failed to comply with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 and as such, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the action against the officials of PKTCL Company.
3. After having carefully perused the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is not discernable wh29.08.2017: “Perusal of communication dated 28.10.2015, available at Page-71 of CrMMO No. 33 of 2016, suggests that Committee, constituted to inquire into the allegations having been made by the residents of area, submitted its report to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. Perusal of report, referred to above, suggests that various permissions as required under law, were not taken by the Parbati Koldam Transmission Company Limited (PKTCL), before laying transmission lines. This Court was unable to lay its hands on document, if any, suggestive of the fact that, action, if any, pursuant to report submitted by the Committee, was ever taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur.
In the aforesaid background, this Court deems it fit to direct the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur to file his personal affidavit specifically indicating therein the action taken pursuant to report submitted by the Committee, vide communication dated 28.10.2005. Affidavit, as stated above, shall be filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, within a period of four weeks from today. An authenticated copy of this order be supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General, for necessary compliance by Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur.
List on 3.10.2017.”
03.10.2017: “Sequel to order dated 29.8.2017, Deputy Commissioner, District Bilaspur, has filed his personal affidavit, perusal whereof suggests that the then Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur, after having received a joint complaint dated 20.1.2015, constituted a Fact Finding Committee comprising of Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sadar, District Bilaspur (Chairman), Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division Bilaspur and Deputy Superintendent of Police (D.S.P. Headquarter) Bilaspur, vide order dated 29.1.2015 with the direction to submit a comprehensive report within a period of twenty days. It also emerge from the averments contained in the affidavit that subsequently, vide order dated 30.3.2015, Assistant Conservator Forest, Bilaspur, was also included as member in the aforesaid committee in place of DFO Bilaspur. Above referred Committee submitted its joint report through SDM Sadar, District Bilaspur vide letter No. BLS-SDMSDR/ 2015-8839 dated 28.10.2015. The Then Deputy Commissioner after having perused report of fact finding committee forwarded the same to the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and to the Additional Chief Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide office letter No. BLS-Peshi-15(3)92-III-57321-22 dated 29.12.2015, with the following request:-
“i) Action may kindly be initiated against the PKTCL company officers/officials for violation of the provision of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 as stated above and nonadherence of parameters of Revenue, Horticulture, Agriculture and Forest Department for providing adequate compensation. ii) As observed by the Committee, the matter may kindly be taken up with the Government of India for streamlining the process for providing compensation in such major projects of national importance.”
2. It is quite apparent from the aforesaid communication that officials of PKTCL Company while erecting towers on the land of various stakeholders failed to comply with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 and as such, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the action against the officials of PKTCL Company.
3. After having carefully perused the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is not discernable whether action, if any, was taken by the Additional Chief Secretary (Power) and Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) pursuant to aforesaid recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Accordingly, in view of the above, Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) and Additional Chief Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, are directed to file their personal affidavits specifically, indicating therein action/steps, if any, taken by them pursuant to aforesaid communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner (Bilaspur), within a period of three weeks.
5. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General so that necessary compliance is made within the stipulated period.”ether action, if any, was taken by the Additional Chief Secretary (Power) and Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) pursuant to aforesaid recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner.
4. Accordingly, in view of the above, Additional Chief Secretary (Forest) and Additional Chief Secretary (Power) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, are directed to file their personal affidavits specifically, indicating therein action/steps, if any, taken by them pursuant to aforesaid communication sent by the Deputy Commissioner (Bilaspur), within a period of three weeks.
5. Authenticated copy be supplied to the learned Additional Advocate General so that necessary compliance is made within the stipulated period.” अब यह मामला उच्च न्यायालय में जस्टिस चन्द्र भूषण बारोवालिया की पीठ में सुनवाई के लिये लगा था। जस्टिस बारोवालिया ने एफआईआर रद्द करने की याचिकाओं को खारिज करते हुए विस्तृत पुलिस जांच के आदेश दिये हैं। अदालत ने साफ कहा है किThus, it is crystal clear that PKTCL Company was granted licence for 25 (twenty five) years only. The Fact Finding Committee found many irregularities in the execution of the work. The Committee found that the officials of PKTCL Company while erecting towers on the land of various stakeholders failed to comply with the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985 and as such, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the action against the officials of PKTCL Company. The learned counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 (Cr.MMO No. 33 of 2016) has argued that initially PKTCL Company was BOOT (Built, Operate and Transfer Company) and after grant of licence on 15.09.2008 it became BOO (Built, Operate and Own), if it is so, now the Company has become owner of the transmission line. In view of the above contention, learned Court below has to see whether in the above circumstances the provisions of Electricity Act, 2003 and Indian Telegraph Act, 1985, are not applicable and PKTCL Company or its officers/officials were authorized to go inside the private property without permission of the landlord, however, it is left open to be adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court. At this stage, this Court, after analyzing the available material, finds that there exists a prima facie case for registration of FIRs against the PKTCL Company and the petitioners.
Search