SHILLONG:
The state government during the hearing on the cleanliness of Umiam Lake on Wednesday disclosed to the Meghalaya High Court the Meghalaya Waterbodies (Preservation and Conservation) Guidelines, 2023 by way of an affidavit.
The division bench of the High Court stated that the guidelines of 2023 published by the state appear to be more of a formality without addressing the real issues.
The court said that the guidelines introduced by the state as disclosed in the affidavit fall woefully short of the expectations or the measures necessary to protect the water bodies, particularly the Umiam Lake.
“The fragile biosphere and the ecology of the state have to be protected even as, on a daily basis, large chunks of forestland are being appropriated for human habitation or use,” Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice W. Diengdoh said.
The division bench of the High Court directed that the state must indicate the measures taken by the government to arrest deforestation even as it pointed out that stretches along the highways all over the state reveals felling of trees and more and more of the mountain being chopped off for construction purposes.
The division bench said that though, officially, there are previous claims by the state that more than 72 per cent of its total area is covered by forest, it would be interesting to ascertain whether any recent survey in such regard has been conducted for such a report to be placed before the court.
The High Court also said that the guidelines disclosed to the court do not deal with the most serious aspect of buildings and construction mushrooming around water bodies.
“Though the guidelines indicate that garbage, trash and debris may not be dumped into the water bodies, it is surprising that the guidelines are issued without indicating how far away from the high-water level of every water body construction may be permissible,” the division bench stated.
The court also stated that previous orders had recorded that an expert committee had been set up by the state even as some of the suggestions given by the expert committee have been indicated in the affidavit filed by the government, but it is not clear as to how such suggestions have been given legal force.
The court also informed that respondent No. 6, which has taken a keen interest in this matter from the beginning, that certain eminent suggestions were given to ensure that the flora and the fauna around the water bodies were not devastated in the name of promoting tourism or undertaking constructions; but such suggestions have not been taken into account by the state.
The High Court said that in the absence of any other employment opportunities and in the name of promoting tourism, the natural beauty of the state should not be destroyed and the government should be alive to the problem.
“Several of the rivers, including the Umkhrah in Shillong itself are carrying such contaminated water that they may not be fit even to step into. Elsewhere, rivers and streams which may not be perennial carry so much filth and dirt that people living downstream are deprived of the use of the water altogether,” the division bench stated.
The court said that there has to be a more wholesome approach undertaken by the state and hoped that the setting up of an expert body with suggestions from knowledgeable citizens possessing qualifications in such regard would go a long way in the state preparing an action plan and persuading the District Councils to abide by the same.
The High Court said that the state has to do much better even as it stated that a report should be filed six weeks hence.
“The prohibition on construction around water bodies pursuant to previous orders will continue till the state addresses such issue in a more considered set of rules or guidelines that it frames,” the division bench said.
The High Court also informed that a set of suggestions have been made over by the advocate for the respondent No. 6 to the advocate for the state even as it stated that the state may consider such suggestions, which appear to be in greater public interest than the guidelines framed by the state.
The next hearing in the case will be held on August 31, 2023.