Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20232,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;dams,Environment,Forests&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20232,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20091
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;dams,Environment,Forests&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><br /> <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em></p><p align="justify">The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.</p><p align="justify">NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.</p><p align="justify">However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.</p><p align="justify">Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.</p><p align="justify">The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.</p><p align="justify">The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.</p><p align="justify">In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.</p><p align="justify">The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.</p><p align="justify">In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.</p><p align="justify">The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20232,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;dams,Environment,Forests&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20232,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20091
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;dams,Environment,Forests&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><br /> <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em></p><p align="justify">The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.</p><p align="justify">NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.</p><p align="justify">However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.</p><p align="justify">Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.</p><p align="justify">The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.</p><p align="justify">The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.</p><p align="justify">In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.</p><p align="justify">The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.</p><p align="justify">In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.</p><p align="justify">The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr6804f0e0c51fe-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20232,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;dams,Environment,Forests&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 20091,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Hindu
&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
&lt;/p&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 20232,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 20091
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;dams,Environment,Forests&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Hindu&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;em&gt;Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS&#039; Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO&#039;s lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp;amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists&#039; letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &amp;quot;no respect for the laws of the land&amp;quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &amp;quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn&#039;t submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&amp;quot;.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.&lt;/p&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><br /> <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em></p><p align="justify">The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.</p><p align="justify">NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.</p><p align="justify">However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.</p><p align="justify">Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.</p><p align="justify">The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.</p><p align="justify">The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.</p><p align="justify">In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.</p><p align="justify">The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.</p><p align="justify">In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.</p><p align="justify">The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.</p>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 20091,
		'title' => 'Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
 <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
</p>
<p align="justify">
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
</p>
<p align="justify">
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
</p>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 20232,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 20091,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon',
	'metaKeywords' => 'dams,Environment,Forests',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><br /> <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em></p><p align="justify">The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.</p><p align="justify">NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.</p><p align="justify">However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.</p><p align="justify">Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.</p><p align="justify">The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.</p><p align="justify">The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.</p><p align="justify">In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.</p><p align="justify">The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.</p><p align="justify">In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.</p><p align="justify">The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.</p>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 20091,
	'title' => 'Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Hindu
</div>
<p align="justify">
<br />
 <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em>
</p>
<p align="justify">
The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.
</p>
<p align="justify">
NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.
</p>
<p align="justify">
However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.
</p>
<p align="justify">
Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.
</p>
<p align="justify">
In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.
</p>
<p align="justify">
The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.
</p>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Hindu, 31 March, 2013, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration/article4567087.ece',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'rejected-dam-proposal-is-up-for-reconsideration-meena-menon-20232',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 20232,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 2 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 20091
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon'
$metaKeywords = 'dams,Environment,Forests'
$metaDesc = '
-The Hindu



 Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites


The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Hindu</div><p align="justify"><br /> <em>Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites</em></p><p align="justify">The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place.</p><p align="justify">NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4.</p><p align="justify">However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained.</p><p align="justify">Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week.</p><p align="justify">The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers &amp; People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category.</p><p align="justify">The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website.</p><p align="justify">In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said.</p><p align="justify">The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had &quot;no respect for the laws of the land&quot;. The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said &quot;it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF&quot;.</p><p align="justify">In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229.</p><p align="justify">The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.</p>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Rejected dam proposal is up for reconsideration -Meena Menon

-The Hindu Activists oppose diversion of forest land citing continuing non-compliance of several requisites The Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) of the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) is reconsidering its clearance for the controversial Kalu Dam in Thane district. About 999.328 hectares of forest land in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region is up for diversion for the drinking water project for Mumbai and Thane. Work on the project had been begun before all legal requirements were in place. NGO Shramik Mukti Sanghatana, which filed a case in 2011 against Kalu Dam to be built in Kudshet village, Murbad taluka, had obtained a stay on the work. Eight villages will be fully submerged and ten partially, affecting a population of over 18,000. In the last hearing, SMS' Indavi Tulpule said the MoEF told the Bombay High Court that the FAC would reconsider the proposal for diverting the forest land in its meeting on April 3 and 4. However, Gayatri Singh, the NGO's lawyer, told The Hindu on Saturday that the FAC could not reconsider a proposal it had earlier rejected, especially since no new facts had been brought to light. If the project proponents or the State government had additional facts they could go in for a review, but that was not the case here, she explained. Ms. Singh said the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other studies had not yet been done for the project. Expressing their outrage over the reconsideration of a file that was closed on April 2, 2012, activists wrote to FAC last week. The South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People (SANDRP), and Pune-based environmental NGO Kalpavriksh have objected to the FAC reconsidering a proposal that was rejected on the basis of a site inspection report by senior forest officials. The letter said forest clearance was rejected after several submissions and resolutions from project-affected groups, gram sabhas and civil society organisations, and a site inspection report of Central Zone Chief Conservator of Forests J.K. Tewari. In addition, the Maharashtra Forest Department said the project would need an EIA and had to be considered within the framework of the Western Ghat Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report as the region falls in the Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ) 1 category. The project documents are not on the website though the site inspection report by Mr. Tewari is online. The activists' letter said that if the FAC had received any additional documents from the project proponent, they should have been uploaded on the FAC website at least ten days before the upcoming FAC meeting, in accordance with Central Information Commission orders and as promised by the Union Environment Minister. As on March 25, 2013 (the date of the letter), no documents are available on the FAC website. In the forest land that is stands to be submerged by the project, individual and community rights have not been settled as per the Forest Rights Act (2006). Reconsidering the project in the absence of FRA compliance was illegal, the activists said. The site inspection report had, last year, concluded that the project had "no respect for the laws of the land". The inspection report said the Konkan Irrigation Development Corporation (KIDC) gave the work order to a contractor in May 2010, but the State government submitted the proposal to the MoEF only in August 2011. The FAC had said "it has taken note of the complaints received regarding this dam, and also that the State government hasn't submitted any of the reports requested by the MoEF". In his recommendations at the time, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra, had said that on scrutiny of the proposal, the extent of the forest area was quite large and the number of trees involved were as many as 148,229. The PCCF had not recommended the project for approval and if at all it was decided to approve the project, then several conditions would have to be imposed on it - including submission of an EIA as the project area fell within the ecologically sensitive zone of the Western Ghats, and securing WGEEP approval.