3 members skip green tribunal hearing

Pratibha Chauhan

Tribune News Service

Shimla, February 22

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has fixed February 28 as the next date of hearing for the case relating to assessing the carrying capacity of Shimla hills as three of the eight members on the expert panel were not present before the Bench today.

It is reliably learnt that three members, including one government official, were unable to attend the court proceedings. However, two members, who had refused to sign the report, confirmed that they had refused to put their signature on the report as they disagreed with the report which was not even shown to them on being compiled and submitted to the NGT.

Unhappy over the sloppy manner in which the government has handled the issue of preparation of report by experts to assess carrying capacity of Shimla hills, the NGT had ordered that all members should appear before it on February 22.

Sources in the government confirmed that since the NGT had asked for submission of a signed report, the possibility of certain changes being made in the already compiled report was very much there. There was a strong feeling that the views of the two experts, along with their dissenting note, should have been included rather than submission of the report without their opinion being reflected in it.

However, the possibility of the NGT seeking a fresh report can also not be ruled out. In case that happens, then the report will have to be compiled again. With some experts on the panel advocating the case of plot owners, who had bought land before 17 green belts were designated in December 2000, the government could move a proposal to provide them alternate chunk of land elsewhere.

These plot owners too had urged the expert committee that the government must adopt a lenient view on their request of allowing strictly need-based construction for personal use. Their plea is that since they had bought the land before the 17 no-construction green belts were designated, they should not be restricted from construction. They also pointed out that since buildings had come up next to these sandwiched plots, allowing construction on these plots would not make much of a difference. Since the government with its meagre financial resources is not in a position to provide the cost of the land owned by these persons, this possibility is virtually ruled out. The fate of further constructions, especially in the green belts ,virtually rests on the outcome of the case before the NGT.