Himachal HC orders Rs 12 lakh for trout revival ​

Chandigarh, April 16 (IANS) Holding that economic gains cannot override environmental rights, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has restrained the Punjab-run Shanan Hydroelectric Project from undertaking any de-silting at the Barot site before March 1 every year, thereby protecting the trout breeding season. ​

It has also ordered scientific tracking of sediment discharge and directed the payment of Rs 12 lakh for the restoration of trout populations. ​

“It is on the basis of the admissions that we found that in spite of the recommendations made during the lean season, de-silting was being carried out. ​

Respondent-Shanan Hydroelectric Project has, thus, carried out the de-silting solely for the economic gain as such of the project,” the Bench of Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin Chander Negi observed. ​

The court initiated proceedings on its own after receiving a communication alleging that silt discharge from the Barot dam in Mandi district was degrading water quality and causing the loss of aquatic life. ​

“The present case is about the rainbow trout and brown trout fish being caught in the sandstorm of silt and not being allowed to breathe and breed,” the Bench said while issuing a set of mandatory directions. ​

Making the restriction explicit, the court ordered that the project “shall not do any de-silting on the site in question before March 1 of every year.” ​

The timeline coincides with the notified closed season for trout breeding, which runs from November to February under the Himachal Pradesh Fisheries Act. ​

To regulate future activity, the Bench directed installation of sensors below the scour outlet and at multiple downstream points to record Total Suspended Solids (TSS) levels and ensure real-time monitoring during de-silting. ​

The Fisheries Department has been tasked with ensuring the release of at least 15 per cent of the minimum discharge mandated by the National Green Tribunal during lean flow periods, and with verifying that water is not being stockpiled by the project. ​

The state has also been asked to set up a River Monitoring Committee, headed by the Deputy Commissioner, comprising officers from the Fisheries and Electricity Departments and a representative of the project proponent. ​

The panel will advise on timing and manner of de-silting, including whether it should be confined to daytime, and suggest safeguards for other trout-rich stretches. ​

Taking note of the ecological damage already caused, the court directed the project proponent to deposit Rs 12 lakh with the Fisheries Department. The amount is to be utilised for the phased stocking of Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout, with the liberty to use the funds for broader aquatic restoration, subject to the submission of utilisation details and certification at the level of the Assistant Director (Fisheries). ​

Examining the record, the Bench found that during 2024–25, desilting had apparently been carried out in the lean and breeding months from November to February without adequate monitoring, resulting in excessive turbidity and ecological harm. ​

This was despite earlier directions, local residents' complaints to regulatory authorities, and media reports. ​

“The undertaking given as such by the respondent that it would be done in a scientific manner in the Uhl river apparently has been blatantly violated,” the court observed. ​

Referring to expert inputs, the Bench likened the impact of silt to a “perpetual sandstorm” in water bodies, noting: “The fish obtain oxygen by filtering water through their gills, a task made harder in turbid waters.” ​

Stressing the need to protect trout in the Barot dam and in the Uhl and Lambhadagh rivers, the court said power generation concerns must be balanced with ecological survival.​

“The interests of the generation capacity of the unit have to be such that they are to be safely balanced with the marine life and at the cost of the de-silting as such of the project, the respondent cannot take defence,” the Bench observed. ​

It admonished the authorities for allowing silt to accumulate over the years, then attempting large-scale desilting within a short period. ​

“In a knee-jerk reaction over a period of one month, as such to desilt has affected the marine life downstream apart from the fact that the TSS levels have gone up out of control from the permissible limits…” the court noted. ​

Invoking the “polluter pays” doctrine, along with the constitutional duty under Article 51-A(g), the Bench held that river protection and the preservation of aquatic life are fundamental obligations, justifying the imposition of environmental compensation in the present case. ​

The matter has been posted for further monitoring on July 31 with directions to file a compliance affidavit, indicating that the court will continue to oversee implementation of its directions.

--IANS

vg/dan