Point of Law : in governmental functioning before any order is issued, the matter is generally considered at various levels and the reasons and opinions are contained in the notes in the file. The reasons contained in the file enable the competent authority to formulate its opinion.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. K. Rohan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent No. 1, Ms. Meena Shastri, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No. 2 and 6, Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 to 5 and 8, as well as Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Mr. Sourabh Sharma and Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned counsel for the respondent No.7.

2. The petitioner describes himself as an environmentalist and states that he had taken up the cause of ecology and had brought to the notice of the Courts and the Tribunals the issues concerning ecology and environment.

3. The proximate cause for filing this writ petition in the nature of public interest litigation is publication of a notice on 13.10.2021 in ‘Ispat Times’ by the Member Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board (for short, CECB), respondent No. 4, notifying a public hearing on 17.11.2021 consequent upon an application submitted by the respondent No. 7 on 22.06.2021 before the CECB in accordance with the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (for short, EIA Notification, 2006), as amended, for conducting the hearing.

4. The respondent No. 7 had submitted an application dated 20.08.2020 to the Expert Appraisal Committee (for short, EAC), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (for short, MoEF) for issuance of Terms of Reference (for short, ToR) for expansion of its Integrated Steel Plant. Pursuant thereto, ToR dated 08.09.2020 was issue in favour of respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 had submitted draft Environment Impact Assessment (for short, EIA) report on 10.06.2021 before the respondent No. 3 and the application on 22.06.2021 for conducting public hearing. The respondent No 4 issued a public notification in “Navin Kadam”, a regional vernacular daily newspaper, on 12.08.2021, for public hearing on 15.09.2021.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that when he, other villagers and the residents to be affected by the expansion of the Integrated Steel Plant of the respondent No. 7 reached the venue of the public hearing on 15.09.2021, they came to learn that the scheduled public hearing had been cancelled/postponed/adjourned. Immediately, the petitioner preferred an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for short, RTI Act, seeking documents pertaining to cancellation/postponement/ adjournment the public hearing and based on the information provided, the petitioner learnt that the Collector, Raigarh, i.e. respondent No. 6, vide his letter dated 14.09.2021, had requested the Member Secretary, CECB for postponing the public hearing scheduled on 15.09.2021 and it is on the basis of the said letter, the public hearing scheduled on 15.09.2021 was postponed and a notification to that effect was published in the 15.09.2021 publication of ‘Navin Kadam’.

6. Subsequently, as noticed earlier, another public notification was published in ‘Ispat Times’ on 13.10.2021 notifying that the public hearing will be conducted on 17.11.2021.

7. By order dated 11.11.2021, while issuing notices to the respondents making it returnable on 15.12.2021, this Court provided that no public hearing shall take place on 17.11.2021 in terms of notice dated 13.10.2021 issued by CECB. While passing the aforesaid order, this Court observed as follows:

“Drawing attention to paragraphs 7.0, 7.1 and 7.2 of notification dated 01.12.2009 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Mr. Rohan submits that public hearing is required to be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the request letter from the applicant and that if such public hearing cannot be concluded within the aforesaid period, the Central Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest, in respect of Category ‘A’ project or activity, in which the present project falls, at the request of the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Author