By: Staff Writer
July 18, Colombo (LNW): Adani Power’s 234 MW renewable energy project in Pooneryn has encountered a legal challenge. The Court of Appeal has issued notices to various ministries and officials following a case filed by H.J.A.W. International Ltd. and Dutch Bay Holdings Ltd.
These Petitioners had planned a 50 MW wind power plant on the same site before Adani’s proposal. They challenge the State’s acquisition of their privately owned lands intended for their project, alleging misuse of the Land Acquisition Act and appropriation of their proprietary information. The Court has scheduled a hearing for 11 September 2024.
The Petitioners seek to have the acquisition process overturned if the Court rules in their favor. Legal representation for the Petitioners includes PC Navin Marapana, Kaushalya Molligoda, and Ruwantha Cooray, instructed by Sarravanan Neelakandan Law Associates
The acquisition was allegedly for the purpose of facilitating the Adani Group’s proposed wind power project in the area, leading to notices being issued to the Respondents.
The Minister of Lands, the relevant Divisional Secretary, the Secretaries of the Ministry of Power and Energy, and the State Ministry of Solar, Wind, and Hydro Power Generation Projects Development, and the Sri Lanka Sustainable Energy Authority were some of the Respondents named in the said application.
The Petitioners disclosed that they proposed to build, own, and operate a 50 MW wind power plant on the lands subject to acquisition, consequent to an invitation for proposals to generate and supply electrical energy from renewable energy resources on build, own, and operate basis by the State Ministry of Solar, Wind and Hydro Power Generation Projects Development.
Further, the Petitioners noted that despite the relevant authorities acknowledging the receipt of their proposal along with a detailed feasibility study and the requisite financial payment, they had received no response about the outcome of the proposal.
The Petitioners also submitted to the Court that they were shocked to learn that their lands were subject to acquisition by the Ministry of Lands for apparently the same purpose for which they proposed to utilise their own lands and that the Petitioners’ intellectual property and the proprietary and confidential information contained in their project proposal had allegedly been appropriated by the relevant officials in the said process.
The Petitioners accordingly submitted that the draconian provisions of the Land Acquisition Act have been wrongfully invoked by the State to acquire land otherwise earmarked for the same public purpose purportedly disclosed in the Gazette published by the State.
