Find an amicable solution: HC tells India Bulls, Vidarbha activists | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Mar 24, 2017-Friday
New Delhi
  • Humidity
  • Wind

Find an amicable solution: HC tells India Bulls, Vidarbha activists

mumbai Updated: Oct 01, 2011 01:29 IST
Kanchan Chaudhari

The Bombay high court on Thursday suggested that the parties should try to find some amicable solution to the row over proposed allocation of 87.6 million cubic meters of water from Upper Wardha Irrigation Project by the executive director of Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation, for an upcoming power plant of India Bulls Ltd. in Amravati district.

"Sit down and try to find out some amicable solution," the division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice Roshan Dalvi told counsels for India Bulls Ltd. and the Society for Backlog Removal and Development, Amravati, who have filed counter petitions regarding diversion of irrigation water for the company's thermal power plant.

"You may consider diverting some power generated back to the farmers in Vidarbha," the judges told Vineet Naik, counsel for India Bulls, and posted the petitions for further hearing on October 13.

The court sought information from India Bulls about quantity of power required for drawing 87.6 MCM ground water using tube wells, number of tube wells required and approximate expenditure for putting up the tube wells.

India Bulls is setting up a thermal power plant with generation capacity of 2640 MW and investment up to Rs14,000 crores, and agreed to supply 1250 MW of the power generated to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company for 25 years at a reduced rate of Rs3.26 per unit.

The Society, comprising social and political activists claiming to represent the Vidharbha farming community, challenged the allocation of water and also sought implementation of directives issued by the governor of Maharashtra for removal of backlog in Vidarbha and Marathwada.

India Bulls contended that under Article 371(2) of the Constitution of India, there was no provision empowering the governor to interfere in the functioning of regional development boards.