Rama Setu -1

[Guest]

The (anti-)Hindu reports:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday sought to know from the Centre whether the Sethusamudram Shipping Channel Project (SSCP) could be implemented without affecting the Adam’s Bridge/Ramar Palam.

Making it clear that the court would not stay the implementation of the project, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice P. Jyothimani said: “We are not inclined to grant any interim relief at this stage, so as to hamper the project work. We leave it to the Union of India to decide whether the cutting of the Adam’s Bridge/Ramar Palam could be postponed till the issues involved in these petitions are considered by this court and are finally disposed of.” The Bench, however, directed the Union of India to file a counter-affidavit, “explaining as to whether any study has been undertaken by the archaeological or any other department in respect of the Adam’s Bridge/Ramar Palam.” The Judges also sought to know whether the bridge could be regarded as a national monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments (Protection) Act 1958. The Bench said: “The Union of India may also explain as to whether the project can be implemented without affecting the Adam’s Bridge/Ramar Palam, resorting to some other routes as discussed by previous committees.” Pointing out that the prayer of the petitioners was the implementation of the project without affecting the bridge, the Judges said, “according to them it is a national monument.”

Seeking to distinguish the earlier writ petitions, which were dismissed by the court, the Bench said the issue in those petitions was whether the project would cause environmental damage and degradation in the region.

As for the NEERI’s report on the project, the First Bench said the report did not discuss whether any other route was possible in order to avoid the cutting of Adam’s Bridge.

Referring to Additional Solicitor-General V.T. Gopalan’s stand that the structure was not man-made but a natural formation, the Bench said, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>“be that as it may. The definition in the 1958 Act it is apparent that a national monument has a very wide meaning, and included stone, river, etc.” Citing several experts’ accounts and historical evidence, the Bench said <b>there was ample evidence to the existence of a bridge in the project area.</b></span>

The Bench then adjourned the matter to July 23 for further proceedings, and impleaded the Dravidar Kazhagam (DK) president, K. Veeramani, also as a party to the proceedings.

http://www.hindu.com/2007/06/20/stories/...070800.htm
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

1. The quoted above highlighted in red are the exact words. Written order to follow tomorrow.

2. Same veeramani who burns Ramayana and Gita, as those are insultful to women.