The court confirmed the Dam Safety Authority's jurisdiction to manage water levels, highlighting the need for expert assessments in such matters as key for safety and compliance with environmental laws.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

This group of cases relate to the Kariyakam Small Hydro Electric Project across the Kakkad River in the Pathanamthitta District. There are five proceedings before us, four petitions which are pending before the learned Single Judge are tagged along with a writ appeal. W. P. (C) Nos. 33889 and 36613 of 2016 and 12736 of 2017 and W. A. No. 220 of 2017 are filed by the villagers/residents of Chittar Grama Panchayat who are having their houses and agricultural fields within the periphery of the dam. W. P. (C) No. 3008 of 2024 is filed by Ayyappa Hydro Power Ltd., a power company which constructed the dam under a Build Own Operate Transfer agreement with the Government of Kerala.

2. We have heard Mr. V. Philip Mathews, learned counsel representing the Villagers, Mr. K. Shaj, learned counsel for the power company, Mr. Sergi Joseph Thomas, learned counsel for the Grama Panchayat, Mr. S. Biju, learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for the Union of India and Mr. K. R. Ranjith, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State.

3. The prayers made by the Petitioner-Villagers range from prevention of encroachment, stoppage of construction in front of their houses which are causing damage to their houses and the direction to maintain a particular water level in the said dam to not threaten the houses and the agricultural fields of the villagers. The challenge is also raised to the conversion of the nature of the Power Plant from Captive Power Producers to Independent Power Producers.

4. W. A. No. 220 of 2017, because of which these writ petitions are tagged, arises from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W. P. (C) No. 24020 of 2016 dated 6 January 2017. This petition was primarily filed in respect of the water level in the Karikayam dam and the conversion of the nature of the dam. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that the construction of the dam and other activities of this project are in contravention of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Act of 1980). As regards the conversion of the nature of the dam and the applicability of the Act of 1980, the learned Single Judge held that, by the passage of time, the relief sought was not practicable and also belated. As regards raising the water level of the dam, the learned Single Judge in the impugned order laid down a methodology after obtaining a report from the Dam Safety Authority as to how to increase the water level and how it should be monitored. Being aggrieved by the disposal of the petition in this manner, the Petitioner Villagers are in appeal along with their writ petitions which are tagged along.

5. As far as the first aspect i.e. the change in the nature of the dam from Captive Power Producers to Independent Power Producers is concerned, it is to be noted that this has taken place over a substantially long period of time in the year 2006 and based on this conversion, the project is now being continued and it is difficult to reverse the position. Similarly, as far as the other infringements of the Act of 1980 are concerned, the dam has now come up, and the power unit has also been functional for more than ten years. Thus we find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, in not exercising writ jurisdiction on the ground of delay and the consequence. The writ jurisdiction is not to be exercised for correcting every error and the learned Single Judge has chosen to