Judgment Intelligence
Petition DismissedDr. Gulabing Purohit v. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board & Ors.
2024:RJ-JD:7050
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19276/2023
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 20 February 2024
- Bench
- Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Notification dated 14.09.2006 (Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006) — 'Public Consultation' and Appendix IV (public hearing); Constitution of India — Article 226
Final Outcome
Finding no merit in the writ petition, the High Court dismissed it (para 15), so the challenge to the notice of 09.11.2023 and the plea for a fresh hearing near Thandiberi failed (paras 1, 11-15).
Key holdings
- Holding the public hearings of two projects at a common place is not barred by the Notification of 14.09.2006 or any other law (para 11).
- The test is whether the venue is at the site or in its close proximity, so that local affected persons can voice their concerns (paras 11, 13).
- Separate timings for each project at the shared venue, attended by villagers of the affected areas, achieved the object of public consultation (paras 11-13).
- A petitioner who participated in the hearing cannot ask for it to be held elsewhere (para 12).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
The Regional Officer of the Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Sirohi, published a notice dated 09.11.2023 fixing a public hearing on 15.12.2023 for environmental clearance to expand limestone production, at the respondent cement company's truck parking yard in Tehsil Pindwara (para 2). The representation of the petitioner and other villagers for a public place near Thandiberi was not acceded to; he sought quashing of the notice and a fresh hearing (paras 1-2). He argued that the Thandiberi and Amli mines were separate projects, so a common venue defeated the hearing's purpose and deprived Thandiberi villagers of participation (paras 3-5). The respondents replied that the venue was close to both sites and that the petitioner himself attended (paras 7-9).
Court's Findings
The question was whether projects at different but nearby locations can have their public hearing at a common place (para 11). The two mines' boundaries were 875.77 metres apart; the Thandiberi mine was 4.99 km and the Amli mine about 1.76 km from the venue (para 11). The hearings were held there at different times: 11:00 am for the Amli project, attended by villagers of Amli and Malap, and 12:00 pm for the Thandiberi project, attended by villagers of Thandiberi and Subela; the petitioner also attended (para 11). A common place is not barred by the Notification of 14.09.2006 or any other law. Under its ‘Public Consultation’ heading, the mandate is a hearing at the site or in its close proximity, districtwise, so that local affected persons' concerns are taken into account (para 11). Nothing on record showed that the venue was not close to both projects, so the purpose of consultation was achieved; having participated, the petitioner could not press for a hearing elsewhere (para 12). Residents cannot insist on a particular place (para 13). Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India (Delhi High Court), relied on by the petitioner, had no application on these facts (paras 5, 14).
Legal Principle
Under the Notification of 14.09.2006, a public hearing for environmental clearance must be held at the project site or in its close proximity so that local affected persons can raise their concerns. For two nearby projects, a common venue close to both, with separate timings, meets this requirement; residents cannot insist on a venue of their choice (paras 11-13).
Precedents Relied Upon
- Utkarsh Mandal v. Union of India 2009 SCC Online Del 3836
Relied on by the petitioner (Delhi High Court) for the claim that holding the public hearing away from the project site deprived villagers of their right to participate; the Court held that it has no application in the facts and circumstances of the case.
