Status report on River Linking Project 'vague': SC

New Delhi, Apr 7: The Supreme Court today described as 'vague' the status report filed by the centre in relation to the progress made in the Rs 11,000 crore River Linking project.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Mr Justice C K Thakker today directed the Union Ministry of Water Resources to file next status report about the progress made in the project upto July 31, 2006 by the second week of August this year.

The court has issued suo motto notice in the matter as interlinking of the rivers is aimed at regulating the supply of water in such a manner that drought-prone states also get adequate water supply while other states can be saved from floods.

The World Bank has also promised financial aid in completing the project.

The Supreme Court took note of the fact that in the earlier bar chart, the Union government had promised that the project would be completed latest by 2005 but in today's status report, the government said that it would take another two to three years in completing the detailed project reports (DPR).

The court also directed that the centre shall provide an interactive contact number while uploading feasibility reports on the website so that general public can send in their suggestions.

The court was also informed that a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was signed among the water resources ministry and state governments of Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh on November 23, 2005.

The court also directed ''be that as it may the authorities will consider expediting the completion of DPRs''.

The central government informed the court that feasibility reports in relation to 14 peninsular rivers were complete and have already been placed on websites but the feasibility report in relation to two Himalayan rivers is not ready because these rivers eminate from Nepal and the matter has to be discussed with the Government of Nepal.

The last meeting was attended by representatives of 20 states.

Uttar Pradesh which was not cooperating earlier, later concurred following directions issued by the apex Court.

Though the court said there would be no public notice, it was in favour of wider participation of people and groups of environmentalists and social scientists to make the project more environment friendly.

UNI