Environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh has finally realised his mistake.

A couple of months' after he gave final clearance to the Indira Sagar (Polavaram) project in Andhra Pradesh, flouting the laws of the land and his own "binding guideline" of 2009, he has issued a notice to the AP government asking why the project should not be stopped for not holding public hearings, as he had asked for. He has sought a reply "within 7 to 10 days".

It may be pointed out that while issuing the final 'forest' clearance on 28 July this year, he didn't talk about any public hearing. On the other hand, he said the clearance was being given on the "assurance" of the Andhra Pradesh government that there would be "no submergence" in Orissa and Chhattisgarh. In his reply to the protest letter from Orissa chief minister Naveen Patnaik in August too he had assured that the Andhra Pradesh would ensure no submergence in Orissa.

He should have actually denied final 'forest' clearance to the project and withdrawn the environment clearance because of several flaws in the way the project had been planned and then modified. Way back in December 2007, the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) had pointed out how the required public hearings had not taken place in Orissa and Chhattisgarh as the project would submerge several villages in these states. The NEAA had described that as denying natural justice to the people of these states.

Ramesh ignored that and accepted a modified plan of the Andhra Pradesh government to build 30-km-long embankments on two rivers, Sileru and Sabari, each to prevent submergence. This was a ridiculous plan and would have required several other clearances under the Forest Rights Act and the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act too. Ramesh did not apply his mind and cleared the project even when the Andhra Pradesh government had not implemented his "binding guideline" which said the clearance would be given only after forest rights were settled.

He has now realised his mistake after his acts of ommissions and commissions were pointed out and is seeking a course correction on a plea which never figured in his scheme of things so far. But instead of withdrawing the clearances to the project, he is trying to take the cover of non-compliance of a condition which he didn't care about earlier.