ORDER
1. Koel Karo Hydroelectric Project was envisaged keeping in mind the potentiality of the project in the matter of generation of Hydroelectric power. The relevant project report was prepared by the Bihar State Electricity Board in the year 1973. This was preceded by a report of the Central Water Power Commission made during the Hydroelectric survey of the Central Indian Rivers in the year 1954. The plan envisaged construction of two earthen dams; one in river south Koel near Basia and the second, in North Karo near Lohajima; a transbasin channel, an underground power house and a small surface power house. The State Government accorded sanction in the year 1980 and in the year 1981, the Public Investment Board gave clearance for the project estimated to cost Rs. 444.61 crores. Steps for implementation of the project went ahead. Some disputes were raised by some people of the locality and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. A scheme of rehabilitation of the displaced was agreed upon. Meanwhile, the project estimate was revised and enhanced to Rs. 629.52 crores. In the year 1990, clearance of the Ministry of Environment and Forests was obtained and the enhanced price level of the Rs. 1334.81 crores was also approved by the Central Cabinet. There were delays. The environmental clearance had to be re-validated. The land was acquired. By the time the cost components were assessed and taken note, it became apparent that the power tariff per unit at the time of commercial generation, would be Rs. 7.87, though by about twelfth year of the commencement of generation, it could gradually be brought down to Rs. 4.77 per unit. The cost of the project envisaged was then pegged down at Rs. 3223.68 crores.
2. The petitioner, a resident of the State and claiming to be a public spirited citizen and a social worker, has approached this Court with this writ petition for the issue of a direction to the State and the Central Government to wind up the Koel Karo Hydroelectric Project which he describes as static. According to the petitioner, Rs. 10 crores per year was being spent on this project for the last 20 years. But thus far, it has not taken off. This has resulted in wasteful expenditure of public money. A number of employees were being paid unnecessarily, without any work being got done and such wasteful expenditure of public funds should be prevented. As a citizen, he has a right to approach this Court for the relief prayed for in the writ petition. Of course, in the prayer portion, at the end of the writ petition, he has also made an alternative prayer for the issue of a direction to the respondents to perform their public duty, to shrug off their apathy, take up the work of the project in right earnest and make a periodical report to the Court on the progress of the work in the Project. Thus, in short, the petitioner seeks the issue of an appropriate direction to the State and the Central Government, either to proceed with the work and complete the project in time or to abandon it, so that no further unnecessary expenditure would be incurred in relation to the project.
3. In its counter affidavit, the Central Government only expressed serious concern at the inordinate delay in the implementation of various Central sector projects and expected a number of specific measures to cut delays in the Implementation of the projects to be taken. It is pleaded that the Central Empowered Committee had, at its meeting on 26.2.1997, recommended the shelving of the project and freezing the expenditure on the project. It is pleaded that it was also decided that no further expenditure should be incurred on the project in question without the approval of the Cabinet Committee on economic affairs. According to the Union, though the recommendation was to shelve the project, the matter was taken up by various representative of the State with the Central Government, to persuade it to change its stand. Steps were afoot to examine whether the project would be viable and the neighbouring States have been asked whether they would be willing to purchase power at the tentative rate of Rs. 7.13 per unit, from this project. The States of Orissa, Sikkim and West Bengal had declined the offer, but the State of Bihar had agreed to purchase power from the project. It was estimated that the tentative tariff on completion of the project would be Rs. 7.99 per unit. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar and the creation of Jharkhand with effect from 15.11.2000, a fresh decision has to be taken and a fresh power purchase agreement has to be entered into. But as of now, no decision has been taken. The counter affidavit refers to the decision dated 6.11.2002 to send a letter to the Government of Jharkhand so as to ascertain whether the State Government was interested in pursuing the implementation of the Koel Karo project within the proposed time-frame. The National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd, was directed to immediately reduce its establishment expenditure by 50%. That Corporation had taken steps to reduce its establishment expenditure on this project. The staff deployed in the year 2000 was 331. It was reduced to 202 in the year 2002 and measures were being taken to further reduce the establishment expenditure.
4. In its counter affidavit, the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation has submitted that it has done its work properly; that it was for the Governments concerned and particulary the State Government, to take the necessary steps for a final decision; that there has been no wasteful expenditure as alleged by the petitioner; that they are not responsible for the delay and that it was the slow progress made by the State Government, particularly the delay in completing the land acquisition proceedings that has led to the delay and resulted in lack of progress.
5. The State Government has not chosen to file a counter affidavit inspite of the allegations made in the writ petition. There is no response to the plea on the utility of the project for attaining self-sufficiency in the matter of generation of power and the importance of the project as originally envisaged. But the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State, stated that no final decision has been taken by the State on the question whether to go ahead with the project or to wind it up. Law and order problems were created by the locals. He could not say that the State Government was not interested in the implementation of the project. A decision had to be taken. But, the Court could not issue a writ of mandamus directing the winding up of the project. Nothing much was said about the allegation of wasteful expenditure and non-productive nature of the expenditure incurred thus far.
6. The State of Jharkhand came into existence on 15.11.2000. Still there linger disputes with the State of Bihar, to be resolved in terms of the Bihar Reorgnization Act, 2000. But regarding a project like the one in question, it appears to us that it is for the State of Jharkhand to take a final decision one way or the other, on whether to proceed or not to proceed. To be or not to be does not become the State. It cannot dither. It must take a firm decision. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Union shows that on the last occasion, when certain decisions were taken, the State was not even represented, inspite of time being granted to it earlier to enable it to be present. Taking a firm decision based on an indepth study and a proper and bona fide investigation into feasibility and other matters is the need of the house. The petitioner has a point in saying that wasteful expenditure is being incurred upon the establishment, when no progress is made on the work of the project and it has lingered on for about 20 years. A State rich in resources has also to keep itself ready to exploit those resources for public weal and common good, but without offending nature and without forgetting the need to protect the environment. The learned Advocate General may be right in saying that the Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to wind up the project or to take it up and complete it. But certainly, cannot the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to take a decisions on continuing, abandoning or shelving the project, within a time-frame especially in the background of the fact that for 20 years, nothing much has been achieved, though a substantial amount has already been spent? We thing, the Court can. Though the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation has stated that it was taking steps to reduce its expenditure, it is seen that still, a considerable amount of expenditure is being incurred for maintaining the infrastructure of the Corporation in relation to the project. It is in that context that the petitioner has submitted that the expenditure was wasteful and should be prevented.
7. This is a Public Interest Litigation. The decision, whether to go ahead with the commissioning of the Hydroelectric project or to abandon it or to shelve it, may be a matter of policy for the Government, but a decision has to be taken on the basis of all the relevant aspects, feasibility, economically and environmentally. Going by the BALCO principle, it may not be for this Court to trench into that field. But considering the lapse of time, the expenditure already incurred, the steps already taken and the continuing expenditure as highlighted by the petitioner, we are of the view that State of Jharkhand has to take a decision and, if it takes the decision to go ahead with the project, to take all necessary steps immediately to get the project on its feet. The learned Advocate General stated that there may be law and order problem in completing the project. There was a feasibility study followed by a study of other relevant aspects. There was acquisition of land. There was litigation taken up to the Supreme Court wherein most of the aspects relating to the acquisition of land were settled. In that context, the argument that there may be some law order problem cannot be appreciated. According to some, maintaining law and order in the State is the primary duty of those who govern. It is, therefore, not open to the learned Advocate General to raise the bogy of law and order to justify not taking a final decision on the project.
8. Considering the escalation in cost, it is also necessary to take a fresh look at the feasibility of the project. If, ultimately, a decision is taken that it is not viable, it is necessary to ensure that further unnecessary expenditure is avoided. On the whole we think that the Court can be instrumental in compelling the State Government to take a decision one way or the other on the envisaged project. We are, therefore, satisfied that there should be a direction to the State Government to take a decision on whether to go ahead with the project or not.
9. We, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the State Government to take a decision on whether to go ahead with the project or not and to take up the matter further with the Union Government, if it decides to proceed with the implementation of the project. The decision in this regard will be taken by the State within four months from today. If the ultimate decision is to shelve it, the Union Government, the State Government and the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation, should take steps to avoid wasteful expenditure in contemplation of the project.