NGT rejects TANGEDCO review plea in elephant electrocution case


Express press service

CHENNAI: The Southern Bench of the National Green Tribunal has dismissed the petition for review filed by TANGEDCO, which was asked to pay environmental compensation of Rs 75 lakh for the alleged electrocution of an elephant and other wildlife in Chungam Forest Division in Cherambadi Forest Zone in Pandalur of the Nilgiris.

TANGEDCO claimed the court-appointed joint committee in its report said the elephant could have been electrocuted as it pushed the structure, causing the jumper connecting the two ends of the insulator phase-out to jump. of pin and that it would then have touched the superior channel of the bipolar structure. It was also observed that the accident was not due to human error.

He said he gave details of the steps taken to avoid such incidents in the future in consultation with forestry officials and also submitted a future action plan to the court. The court, however, imposed the compensation, which, according to the electricity board, was contrary to the general principles of law.

He said the court had no jurisdiction as the matter would not fall under the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the same was covered by the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 which did not is not listed in Schedule I of the National Green Tribunal, 2010. “This will create an enormous financial burden on TANGEDCO,” the review petition said.

However, the NGT Judicial Member, Justice K Ramakrishnan, denying the motion for review, said that this was not a case where the issue of imposing compensation had been adopted by the court. without giving the possibility to the applicant for review. “This tribunal had…explained why TANGEDCO was responsible for paying compensation,” he said.

The court said it relied on a similar decision imposing compensation on the electricity commission by the main bench after considering their objections in a similar incident. “There is a dispute that the animals died of electrocution while running electricity from a disputed double pole…their remedy is to file an appeal under section 22 of the National Green Court Act 2010 and not to file a request for review as there is no apparent error on reading the record justifying interference with the findings reached by this court,” said Justice Ramakrishnan while rejecting the plea.


Comments are closed.