'Feign Compliance' Of Guidelines Drowns Two Youth In Gushing Water, Sikkim High Court Directs Gati Hydro Power To Pay ₹70L To Widowed Mothers

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai observed that the company (respondent no.3) failed to adequately install warning sirens near river, making it impossible for the locals to know of the sudden release of water.

"Placing warning devices admittedly at a distance of six kilometers serves no purpose whatsoever and is merely a token gesture of the Respondent No.3 to feign compliance, with no attention paid to the gravity of the directions in the Notification...The reason enumerated by Respondent No.3 that due to lack of network and the terrain the sirens could not be installed is inexcusable and incongruous considering that an entire Dam project was constructed in the same isolated terrain, revealing the cherry picking attitude of Respondent No.3 and its indifference in subscribing to the safety measures prescribed... It must be borne in mind that human life is as precious, regardless of the geography of the area."

The bench thus directed that all safety measures provided in the government notification and guidelines laid down by the High Court shall be complied with by the concerned Hydro Power Projects in the entire State within three months.

The incident occurred in 2020 during national lockdown. Counsel for petitioners, Mon Maya Subba argued that there was complete disregard and violation of the directions issued by the High Court in Zangpo Sherpa v. Government of Sikkim and Others 2016 SCC OnLine Sikk 91.

It was further submitted that the siren that ought to have been placed at a distance of about one kilometer each in terms of the guidelines issued by the Home Department, were not in place nor was one installed at the site of the incident.

The Additional Advocate General for the state Sudesh Joshi submitted that the directions in Zangpo Sherpa are being complied with by the State Government but despite guidelines being issued, Respondent No.3 has been irresponsible and failed to put in place the sirens or other warning devices to prevent the death of persons who may be in and around the rivers.

The court observed that the state has duly notified the guidelines which was for the Hydro Power Projects to have strictly adhered to but there is a lackadaisical attitude with total indifference exhibited by the Respondent No.3.

The court highlighted the report submitted by the Inspection Committee constituted under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 which states- ‘it is learnt that they have installed sirens at places but not near the place of occurrence’.

It was contended by the respondent no. 3 that the victims ought not to have been out and about crossing the river during the period of National Lockdown and that, had it been imperative for them to have gone out they ought to have used the foot bridge across the river and desisted from crossing the river on foot.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court ruled:

“The Hydro Power Project Companies cannot control and put restrictions on the free movement of free citizens of the country. Their responsibility is limited to ensuring that all necessary guidelines and directions issued for safety of persons who may be in and around the rivers at any given time are followed and precautions are taken without compromising on any aspect whatsoever.”

Thus, the court ordered as follows:

i. All directions in Zangpo Sherpa (supra) shall be complied with in letter and spirit by all the Hydro Power Projects across the State.

ii. The State-Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall ensure compliance of the direction pertaining to ensuring installation of sirens and all other directions of this Court in Zangpo Sherpa (supra) and of the Notification No.26/Home/2015, dated 22-06-2015, of the Home Department.

iii. Sirens, at an equi-distance of one kilometer each along the length of the river where a Project Dam exists shall be installed immediately but not later than three months from today by the concerned Hydro Power Projects in the entire State.

Lastly, the court directed respondent no.3 to compensate each petitioner, as stated above, within 45 days.

Case Title: Dolma Kumari Thatal and Another v. State of Sikkim and Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Sik) 1

Coram: Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment