TC-12

4TH SURANA & SURANA AND UILS NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT LAW MOOT COURT

COMPETITION, 2021”

DECEMBER 3, 2021 TO 5, 2021

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MINDIA

SLP(CIVIL) NO. ____/2021

RIVOLA HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER PLANT……………………(PETITIONER)

V.

SRISHTI FOUNDATION ………………….……………………(RESPONDENT)

PETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF MINDIA

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS LORDSHIP’S COMPANION

JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF MINDIA

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF PETITION

 TABLE OF CONTENT:-

LIST OF ABBREVIATION ------------------------------------------------------------

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ---------------------------------------------------

STATEMENT OF FACTS --------------------------------------------------------------

ISSUE RAISED --------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS -------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ----------------------------------------------------------

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION –

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the Petitioner Under

Article 136 of Constitution of Mindia has filed the Special Leave Petition against the action

of National Green Tribunal.

 STATEMENT OF FACT

¶1 Mindia is part of 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto protocol the government was

constantly striving to produce renewable energy through Hydel Power generation. Taking

into consideration the demand for electricity by the people and the potential of

industrialisation in the area, the government of Mindia decided to construct a Mega hydel

power plant, by the name of Rivola Hydroelectric Power Plant (RHEP) of 1091-MW which

would not only give these villages access to electricity but will also make the Unicorn-sezza

valley a potential hub for industrialization bringing a plethora of employment opportunities

for the indigenous population living in the nearby villages. The public consultation was done

from 1 February 2007 to 5 February 2007 and prior environment clearance was granted on 5

April 2007. The firm received the environment clearance after filing the requisite

application. MoEFCC granted the environmental clearance stating the project was cleared

because it has huge potential for generating clean energy.

¶2 The RHEP became operational in June 2010 and became a significant source of renewable

energy. It also became a major source of revenue for the state. On the night between 16-17

June 2020, due to a glacial lake outburst in the mountain peaks to the north of Unicorn-Sezza

Valley flash floods, soil erosion, landslides and uprooting of trees took place at various

places. Due to the sudden rush of water, mud and boulders in the reservoir of RHEP from the

glacier; the capacity of the reservoir within no time reached its saturation point. The water in

the reservoir reached the danger mark; to avoid damage to RHEP after sounding the alarm,

the floods gates were immediately opened. Allegedly, there was loss of life and property

caused due to this incident. On 5 July 2020, the Principal Bench of the National Green

Tribunal (NGT) took suo moto cognizance of the matter against RHEP.
 STATEMENT OF ISSUE -

 Whether NGT can take suo moto cognizance of the issue?

 Whether RHEP is liable for the loss of life, property, and damage to the environment

caused by the flash floods and release of muck?

 Whether the NGT’s order of closure of RHEP is justified?

 Whether compensation awarded is adequate and if not, what should be the extent of

compensation
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1. Whether NGT can take suo moto cognizance of the issue.

The National Green Tribunal does not hold any statutory power to assume the jurisdiction to

take suo moto cognizance of the issue. As per the Section 14(1) of the National Green

Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, the NGT have the jurisdiction over all the civil cases where a

substantial question relating to environment is involved. However, the Act on its own does

not offer any power to the NGT to assume the suo moto powers.

ISSUE 2. Whether RHEP is liable for the loss of life, property and damage to the

environment.

The Petitioner is not liable for the loss of life, property, and damage to the environment

caused by the flash floods and release of muck. The act was an 'act of god", an exception

under the 'principle of strict liability'. Also, the act does not constitute liability of RHEP

under 'absolute liability principle' as no hazardous activity was carried out on the land. RHEP

is also not liable for negligence as the RHEP took all the reasonable care as a prudent man at

all times.
ISSUE 3. Whether the NGT's order of closure of RHEP is justified.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

ISSUES 1

I Whether NGT can take suo moto cognizance of the issue?

¶1 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia that the NGT does not

have the right to take suo moto cognizance of the present matter.

(I.1) The National Green Tribunal does not hold any statutory power to assume the

jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance of an issue.

¶2 NGT does not have any jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance of a matter. As per the

Section 14(1) of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, 2010, the NGT have the

jurisdiction over all the civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment is

involved. However, the Act on its own does not offer any power to the NGT to assume the

suo moto powers. Section 18(2) of the NGT Act lays down the essentiality of the party to

make an application for the grant of relief or compensation or settlement in the dispute. In the

absence of the same, the NGT cannot take the charge of the matter on its own and hear the

dispute. In the case of Techi Tagi Tara vs Rajendra Singh Bhandari1, the Supreme Court

held that as per the NGT Act, for the tribunal to exercise this jurisdiction ‘there must also be

a claimant raising that dispute which is capable of settlement by the NGT.”

¶3In the case of Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath2, it was observed that “On a

careful analysis of the provisions of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the Tribunals are

creatures of the statute and derive their power from the express provisions of the statute. The

District Forums and the State Commissions have not been given any power to set aside ex

parte orders and the power of review and the powers which have not been expressly given by

the statute cannot be exercised.” The NGT also being a tribunal created as per the

constitutional mechanism of Mindia is also restricted by the compliance of the NGT Act,

2010.

¶4 Further, the Section 14(2) of the NGT Act, 2010 clearly mentions that there is a need of

dispute to be originated for the NGT to take the actions. In the absence of the same, the NGT

does not hold the power to act upon its own and take a matter into its own hand. In the case of

Prabhakar v. Deptt. of Sericulture3, the definitions of dispute are analyzed. The emphasis

was made on the Black Law ,dictionary meaning of ‘dispute’. As per Black Law Dictionary,

1
Techi Tagi Tara v. Rajendra Singh Bhandari, 2018 (11) SCC 734
2
Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath, (2011) 9 SCC 541
3
Prabhakar v. Deptt. of Sericulture [(2015) 15 SCC 1: (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 149]
‘dispute’ means Dispute.—"A conflict or controversy; a conflict of claims or rights; an

assertion of a right, claim, or demand on one side, met by contrary claims or allegations on

the other. The subject of litigation; the matter for which a suit is brought and upon which

issue is joined, and in relation to which jurors are called and witnesses examined.” From the

definition, it is clear that for a dispute to take place, there is a need of a suit to be brought

before the court, in the present case- NGT. However, in the present case, there is no dispute

that has taken place as no such suit has been filed before the NGT. And in the absence of the

same, the NGT cannot override its power and assume the role of Supreme Court and High

Courts to take suo moto cognizance of a matter.

¶5 The NGT does not have the power to judicial review. As per the case Tamil Nadu

Pollution Control Board v. Sterlite Industries4, the Tribunal exercising appellate

jurisdiction cannot strike down rules or regulations made under this Act. Therefore, it would

be fallacious to state that the Tribunal has powers of judicial review akin to that of a High

Court and the Supreme Court exercising constitutional powers under Article 226 and Article

32 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is not within the category of Writ Courts as under

Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The absence of the power of NGT to

judicial review clearly shows the intent of the legislature to curb the suo moto powers of the

NGT.

¶6 The language used in the NGT Act, 2010 is very plain and unambiguous and nowhere

talks about the power of NGT to take suo moto cognizance. Thus, the NGT cannot take any

suo moto powers. In the case of Shrikrishna Sitaramji Fande v. State of Maharashtra,

AIR 2008 Bom 64, the Bombay High Court held that “Power to act suo moto should be spelt

out by the provisions and it is normally difficult to infer such power more so when specific

mode to initiate such process is mentioned in the statute itself”.

4
¶7 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court of Mindia that on account of

the arguments advanced and the case laws cited, it is well established that the NGT does not

hold any statutory ground to assume the suo moto powers in its hand in absence of a

disputing parties, a dispute being arose, and the absence of the power in the hand of the NGT

to judicial review.

¶8 Assuming but not accepting that the NGT hold the suo moto powers to take a matter in its

hand,the present matter is not a matter of substantial question relating to environment.

[¶8.1] As per Section 14(1) of the NGT Act, 2010, the NGT only have a jurisdiction over the

civil cases concerning a substantial question relating to environment and such question arises

out of the implementation of the enactments specified in schedule 1 of the NGT Act, 2010.

[¶8.2] As evident from Section 2(m) of the Act, the ‘substantial question relating to

environment’ arises out of the two instances-

[¶8.2.1]When there is a violation of a statutory environmental obligation by a person. And

the violation in consequences shall affect or likely to affect the community at large other than

an individual or a group of individuals.

[¶8.2.2]When the environmental consequences relates to a specific activity or a point source

of pollution.

¶9 It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that the present matter does not

meet the criteria to be regarded as a matter related to the substantial question relating to

environment. As mentioned above, the substantial question relating to the environment arises

out of the two instances. For the first instances, it is clearly visible from the facts of the

subject matter that the Rivola Hydroelectric Power Plant (RHEP) did not in any way violated

and any statutory environmental obligation. The dam was constructed and made into

working under all the statutory guidelines and principles.

¶10 The dam obtained the environment clearance by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and

Climate Change (MoEFCC) well within the start of the operation of the dam. The fact that

the dam was awarded the environment clearance by the MoEFCC appeal to the fact that the

construction of the dam was conducted without the violation of any statutory environmental

obligation.

¶11 The RHEP also followed the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) which was

formulated on the recommendation of the Expert Appraisal Committee. As per the direction

of the EMP, the report was conducted in the year 2015. The report of the Multi-disciplinary

Committee submitted in 2015 revealed no major damage to the ecosystem of the valley. The

fact that the report did not show any major damage to the ecosystem is sufficient to hold the

claim that the project was led down and operated in the safe manner, without the violation of

any environmental statutes, neither under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 nor any

other.

¶12 The public consultation was also done from 1 February 2007 to 5 February 2007 and

prior environment clearance was granted on 5 April 2007.

¶13 Cumulating all the argument made above from 1.2.3 to 1.2.6, it is evident that there has

been no violation of any statutory environmental obligation on the part of RHEP.

¶14. As mentioned in 1.2.2 (ii), the second instance in which the issue can be of a matter

relating to the substantial question law is when the environmental consequences relates to a

specific activity or a point source of pollution. In the present matter, there has been no

activity or a point source of pollution violative of the limits prescribed the law, of which the

consequences relate to environmental damage.

¶15 As per Section 8 of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, persons handling

hazardous substances to comply with procedural safeguards. No person shall handle or cause
to be handled any hazardous substance except in accordance with such procedure and after

complying with such safeguards as may be prescribed. In the present matter, RHEP has

conducted all its work in a very safe manner, which is evident from the 2015

Multidisciplinary Committee Report. As far as the storage of muck is concerned, the

definition of the hazardous substances should be observed. As per the Environment

(Protection) Act, 1986, hazardous substance means any substance or preparation which, by

reason of its chemical or physico-chemical properties or handling, is liable to cause harm to

human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism, property or the environment.

Neither the muck has chemical or physic-chemical property nor the disposal of the same has

been handled in the unsafe manner. As clearly mentioned in the Expert Committee Report

dated August 20, 2021, the muck locations were covered with rigid retention walls and were

designed to resist the lateral pressure of the soil to the slope. The wall which broke out was a

bulkhead that was restraining soil from the backside and water from the front side. As clearly

mentioned in the ECR, the said Hydropower Project had been taking precautionary measures

which included a wall bearing 4 meters of height, a slope of 1 inch which was provided for

every 12 inches of the project land, with a proper drainage system for optimum safety. And

further, the muck location no. 7 and 8 were severely attacked by a high velocity of 8m/sec

and a deep flow of water. The project experienced an unusual 10600 cumecs catastrophic

flood against the highest 8000 cumecs in the last 10 decades. Also, it is to be noted that the

area of Razwal including houses, terrace fields, fruit orchards, forest sites was covered with

sediments released from muck dumping sites no. 7 to 9. The said calamitous incident led to

the destruction of the retention wall. The breakage of the walls was due to their low quality

but because of the unusual catastrophic flood.

¶16 Further, it is submitted before the hon’ble court that the concept of negligence and strict

liability is not applicable in the present case. The dam had been functioning properly before
the heavy floods caused by the bursting of glacier near the area. The heavy flood was ‘an act

of god’. The RHEP cannot be held liable for negligence. The RHEP took all the general

standard of care which are necessary for the commission of the project. In the case of

Charvoz v. Bonneville Irr. Dist. (Utah, 1951), the standard of care is dependent upon the

reasonable foreseeability of the risk. The legal duty of reasonable care become a calculus of 3

components- the risk of an accident occurring, the magnitude of harm, and the availability of

alternatives. In the present case, the risk of the accident occurring were unforeseeable. In the

ECR, it is evident that the calamity was unusual even in the high toped state of Barigua.

There are already 45 Small Hydro Power units and 9 Mega Hydro Power Plants cumulatively

of 26,536 MW have been operating in Barigua at considerable distances, so it is unreasonable

and unforeseeable to see the tendency of unusual catastrophic flood like this one.

¶17 Established from the famous case of Rylands v. Fletchers, strict liability is a concept

which held the defendant liable in case the dangerous thing which he brought into his land for

unnatural use escapes and cause damage to the public. However, as per Province of Madras

v. T.S.C., AIR 1956 Mad 589, an ‘act of god’ is a valid defense under to escape the liability

under strict liability. In the present case, the unusual catastrophe was an act of god and caused

the damages to the property and life.

¶18 On account of all the arguments advanced and case laws cited to provide the legal

backing, it is submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that the NGT does not have the

power to take to take suo motu cognizance in the present matter, because of the following

reasons-

[¶18.1]The National Green Tribunal does not hold any statutory power to assume the

jurisdiction to take suo moto cognizance of an issue.

[¶18.2]The present matter is not a matter of substantial question relating to environment.

 ISSUE 2

II Whether RHEP is liable for the loss of life, property and damage to the environment

caused by the flash floods and release of muck.

¶19 It is submitted from the side of the Petitioner before the hon’ble court that the RHEP is

not liable for the loss of life, property, and damage to the environment caused by the flash

floods and release of muck. That-

[II.1] The release of water from the dam was an ‘act of god’.

1.1.1. “When a person, for his own purpose, brings on his land and collects and keeps there

anything likely to do mischief if it escape, must keep it in at his peril; and if he does not do so

is prima facie answerable for all the damages which is the natural consequences of its

escape.”(add footnote Ryland v. Fletcher). This is the principle of ‘strict liability’.

1.1.2. In the present matter, it is not a point of contention from the side of the Petitioner that

the loss of life, property and damage to the environment was caused due to the flow of water

by the flash floods. However, there is an exception to the strict liability principle, popular

known as ‘act of god’. Any event that cannot be prevented or predicted by a human being is

considered to be the act of God. It’s an irresistible act that could not be foreseen, or if

foreseen, it could not be controlled by the act of a human being. Thus, the acts like a storm,

lightning, extraordinary rain, etc are considered to be the act of God.(add foot-note of R v. F

case).

1.1.3. In the present case, the damage was done due to the bursting of a glacier lake which led

to the breakage of the retention walls. In the Expert Committee Report, it is clearly

mentioned that the RHEP was taking all the precautionary measures which included a wall

bearing 4 meters of height, a slope of 1 inch which was provided for every 12 inches of the
project land, with a proper drainage system for optimum safety. Also, the rain was

catastrophic in nature as mentioned in the ECR and it was highly unforeseeable. The project

experienced an unusual 10600 cumecs catastrophic flood against the highest 8000 cumecs in

the last 10 decades. Under such circumstances, the RHEP took all the precautionary measures

and the act was unforeseeable.

1.1.4. In Blyth v. Birmingham Water Works Co, ‘Negligence’ was defined as the omission

to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something which a prudent or

reasonable man would not do. AS evident from the facts mentioned above, the RHEP took all

the reasonable care that a prudent man would take.

Thus, the act falls under the ambit of the ‘act of god’ and falls outside the purview of the

‘strict liability principle’.

1.1.4. In the case of Nichols v. Marshland, the defendant has some of artificial lakes on his

land. Extraordinary rain inclusive of had by no means been witnessed in residing

reminiscence brought on the banks of the lakes to burst and the escaping water over excited 4

bridges belonging to the plaintiff. It changed into held that the plaintiff's bridges have been

swept through an act of God and the defendant changed into now no longer liable.

1.2. The act does not fall within the ambit of ‘absolute liability’.

1.2.1. “If any entity or enterprise is involved in any dangerous thing or hazardous activity,

causes any damage will be held liable. The escape of the dangerous thing from the land of the

person is not necessary under this rule. The damage caused to anyone even within the

premises due to such hazardous activity will make the owner of the land liable.”(add M.C

Mehta v. UOI in footnotes) 1987 AIR 1086, 1987 SCR (1) 819. There is no exception of ‘act

of god’ under the principle of absolute liability.

1.2.2. The main ingredient for the applicability of the principle of absolute liability is the

engagement in the hazardous activity or inherently dangerous activity. In M.C Mehta v. UOI,

it was observed by the court that “We are of the view that an enterprise which is engaged in a

hazardous or inherently dangerous industry which poses a potential threat to the health and

safety of the persons working in the factory and residing in the surrounding areas owes an

absolute and nondelegable duty to the community to ensure that no harm results to anyone on

account of hazardous or inherently dangerous nature of the activity which it has

undertaken.” .

1.2.3. In the present matter, there is no hazardous activity or inherently dangerous activity

took place at the dam. As per section 2(c) of the The Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991,

hazardous substance under this act is defined as any substance which by reason of its

chemical or any properties is liable to cause any damage to human beings, other living

creature, plants, microorganism, property or to the environment. In the present matter, the

rain was the natural catastrophic event which was unforeseeable. Over the course of time, . 45

Small Hydro Power units and 9 Mega Hydro Power Plants cumulatively of 26,536 MW have

been operating in Barigua at considerable distances and the power plants like the RHEP is

normal and does not essentially constitute any dangerous activity. Thus, the principle of

absolute liability is not applicable in the present matter.

1.3. It is the submitted from the side of the Petitioner before the hon’ble Supreme Court that

the in view of the argument advanced, it is established that the RHEP is absolved from the

commission of negligence. The RHEP is not liable under the principles of strict liability and

absolute liability. The loss of life, property and damage to the environment caused by the

flash floods due to the bursting of the glacier lake, which is an ‘act of god’.

ISSUE 3
the first question would be: whether NGT has power to order closure of entity/source that is

causing environmental harm? Secondly, if yes, what are the requirements to pass such order?

Whether those requirements have been met in the present case?

¶1. The impugned order of NGT after hearing the arguments of the concerned parties ordered

the closure of RHEP cancelling the earlier granted environmental clearances. It directed of

carrying out fresh Cumulative EIA and get fresh Environmental Clearances from the

concerned authorities before making the plant operational is beyond the power of NGT.

(1.1) The order of Closure is beyond the power of NGT.

¶2. The NGT is a creation of the National Green Tribunal ACT, 2010 and is bound to fund

within the ambit of said parent legislation. It can’t go beyond the parent legislation and any

act or decision of tribunal which goes beyond the enacting legislation is in exercise of

excessive jurisdiction. As Section 15 of NGT act 2010 provides that NGT may passed an

order granting relief, compensation, and Restitution of property and environment.

(1.2) The impugned order of NGT perpetuates illegality and hence is an error manifest on the

face of the record.

An error apparent must be one which does not take prolonged argument to bring it to the

surface. The error apparent should be based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provision

of law. The concept of error of law on the face of record is not capable of precise or

exhaustive definition, there is an element of indefiniteness, inherent in its very nature and it

has to be determined judiciary on the facts of each case. It was observed that the concept is

comprised of many imponderables ; It is not capable of precise definition as no object criteria

can be laid down, the apparent nature of the error to a large extent being dependent upon the

subjective element. Error in this context means error of law and law in this context means and

includes a mixed question of fact and law.

Therefore, the environment issues must and should receive the highest attention in the courts.

¶3. In the case STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V. CENTRE FOR ENVIRONMENT

PROTECTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ORS., the Supreme Court said

that, “The appeals are thus allowed. The impugned judgments and orders of the learned

Tribunal are set aside to the extent that the learned Tribunal as directed the Appellant State to

make a deposit of Rs.25 crores by way of security and also to the extent that the learned

Tribunal has directed the appellant State to issue orders.

ISSUE 4

Whether compensation awarded is adequate and if not, what should be the extent of

compensation?

¶1 Compensation awarded for the damage caused by RHEP is adequate because for an act of

God, the 'liable' party is not actually liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, RHEP should

not be held liable to pay any compensation for the damage which was caused by natural

disaster.

As per case data “on night between 16-17 June 2020 due to a glacial lake outburst in the

mountain peaks to the north of Unicorn-Sezza Valley flash floods, soil erosion, landslides

and uprooting of trees took place at various places.” This clearly sates, that the harm is not

caused by RHEP it is because of GLOF.

In the case STATE OF U.P V. ALLIED CONSTRUCTIONS the court has said that “the

liability of loss because of unpredictable rain cannot be thrust upon appellant.”

In the article the lake overflowed published in THE HINDU on 4 June 2016, the responsible

for thousands of deaths in Kedarnath Uttarakhand is as per the research done by WIHG,
Dehradun, which is an autonomous research institute of the Central government’s

Department of Science and Technology.

Just because the reservoir is artificial that dose not meant disaster took place because of

reservoir as per case data it is clearly stated that “On the night between 16-17 June 2020, due

to a glacial lake outburst in the mountain peaks to the north of Unicorn-Sezza Valley flash

floods, soil erosion, landslides and uprooting of trees took place at various places.” It meant

that it is the case of natural GLOF.

NGT has given the order of compensation numerous time and the amount was adequate

in every order

In case Threat to life arising out of coal mining in south Garo Hills district Versus State

of Meghalaya& Ors (O.A. No. 110(THC)/2012) imposing the penalty of Rs 100 crore on the

state and state could be made liable for colluding with the polluters apart from

noncompliance.

Another case in which for cleaning of river Yamuna Manoj Mishra versus Union of India

&Ors. (O.A. No 6/2012) for the execution of directions based on the expert committee

recommendation and to furnish a performance guarantee of Rs 10 crore to ensure compliance.

Solid Waste Management in Agra city and areas under the Agra Cantonment Board, and eco-

sensitive Taj Trapezium Zone Social Action for Forest and Environment (SAFE) Versus

Union of India &Ors. (O.A. No. 306/2016) directed state to furnish a performance guarantee

of Rs 25 crore to the satisfaction of the Central Pollution Control Board within the timelines

in a month.

Cleaning of River PeriyarSuo Motu proceedings initiated based on the representation

received from Justice R.Bhaskaran Former Judge Versus State of Kerala & Ors.
(Original Application No. 585/2018) (Earlier O. A.No. 395/2013 (SZ) (THC) The Tribunal

constituted a Joint Committee of CPCB, Kerala SPCB, and District Magistrate to forthwith

prepare an action plan for compliance of law particularly the biomedical waste and solid

waste management Rules and furnish.

In these cases, the court has given directions to the government authorities to giving

compensation to defaulters and setting up expert committees wherever required, create the

oversight committee, furnishing guarantee for performance and payment of damages in cases

of environmental degradation. In all above case the compensation amount decided by NGT

was adequate. Therefore, the compensation decided by NGT in our case is adequate.

One should focus on the part that the construction of RHEP is for the beneficiary of public as

per the case data “Due to their remoteness, these villages do not fall under the national grid.

After sunset, the poor families relied on small handmade kerosene lamps to do household

chores. Enjoying the gift of electricity after the sunset had been a distant dream for the poor

people residing in these villages.” Hence this dam was made under the scheme 'Har Ghar

Mein Bijli' to provide electricity to the indigenous people. Also, the case facts said the

benefits of RHEP for the people of Mindia as “The RHEP became operational in June 2010

and became a significant source of renewable energy. It brought worldwide appreciation to

the State of Barigua for its contributions to reducing levels of carbon-emission of Mindia. It

also became a major source of revenue for the state. Deliberations are being conducted to

supply electricity generated from RHEP to neighbouring states.”