NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain petitions challenging the implementation of the Rs. 2,400-crore Sethusamudram project through the Gulf of Mannar, the Palk Straits and the Palk Bay to allow ships to pass between India and Sri Lanka.

At this, petitions filed by Dandi Swami Sri Vidyananda Bharati of Secunderabad, Deeksha Mishra of Gwalior, and Krishna Swaroop Pandey were dismissed as withdrawn.

Earlier, counsel Krishnan Venugopal said that when the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute granted clearance for the project, the impact of dredging alone was considered. The post-tsunami effect and the impact on environment due to "controlled blasting" were not considered. Controlled blasting would have serious impact on flora and fauna.

When he said, replying to a question, no representation had been made to appropriate authorities drawing their attention to the impact on environment, a vacation Bench, consisting of Justices Arijit Pasayat and D.K. Jain, asked counsel to first approach them to consider the relevant material.

"If no action is taken on your representation, then you can come to us," the Bench said and granted the petitioners liberty to move the court later.

Proof of Ram Sethu

The petitioners said the project was to be implemented by destroying a bridge, Ram Sethu, situated southeast of Rameswaram near Pamban and connecting the Talaimannar coast of Sri Lanka. They said the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration's satellite had taken a picture of this bridge.

According to experts on tsunamis, geomorphologists and mineralogists, the project would have a disastrous effect. The government turned a blind eye to all material presented and was proceeding with the project, the petitioners said.

While seeking a stay on implementation of the project, they sought a direction to the Centre and other authorities to conduct a survey for an alternative route, if possible, excluding the Ram Sethu site.

Additional Solicitor-General R. Mohan, representing the Centre, was present to oppose the petitions but in view of their dismissal he was not heard.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail