Gauhati HC notice to govts on plea linking illegal mining to Upper: A practical reader guide

Gauhati HC notice to govts on plea linking illegal mining to Upper: A practical reader guide

The Gauhati High Court has admitted a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging that the recent floods in Assam’s Sivasagar were caused or aggravated by unscientific coal mining in Nagaland and illegal sand and stone mining in the Dikhow river in Assam, and sought detailed replies from the Assam and Nagaland governments and other concerned authorities by November 3.

Chief justice of the Gauhati High Court Ashutosh Kumar observed that the issues highlighted in the petition were genuine, noting that Saikia had maintained sustained communication with the judiciary and government authorities over the past eight years regarding environmental degradation and illegal mining in the Dikhow river basin. But if local people (in Sivasagar) one day decide to stop them, we will address the matter. There is no coal in Sivasagar as far as I know, but if anyone can provide proof, we will stop it immediately. For flood victims, Saikia has sought a separate compensation assessment mechanism to determine restorative compensation over and above the ex-gratia assistance provided by the government.

Subsequent non-compliance led to a contempt case in 2021, and in November 2022, the HC asked the government to form the task force. Saikia’s petition also refers to an official Water Resources Department field report dated January 12, 2022, which, according to him, had warned that continued excavation in the area could alter the course of the river and lead to severe consequences. In his statement following the filing of the petition, he demanded compensation of at least ₹ 10 lakh for every family devastated by the floods, citing the Himachal Pradesh model.

Because of Supreme Court guidelines, assam chief minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on August 18 had said, “We cannot stop the trucks.

However, according to Saikia, it was never formed. “The government must answer why it ignored binding judicial orders and administrative warnings for eight years,” Saikia said.