Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. The present petition filed as a public interest litigation, impugns the order dated 31st December, 2008 of the National Environment Appellate Authority (NEAA) dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the letter dated 26th December, 2007 granting environment clearance to respondent No.3 M/s Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd for setting up of integrated steel plant at Naharpali, Kharsia, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Notice of the petition was issued. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3. The proceedings in this petition were adjourned sine die in pursuance of an order dated 29th July, 2009 of the Supreme Court in Transfer Petition (C) No. 677-678/2009 filed by respondent No.3. On 19th May, 2010, it was informed that the Transfer Petition had been disposed off by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, this petition was listed for hearing. Since respondent No.3 in its counter affidavit was also contesting the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition, this petition was thereafter taken up for hearing by the Full Bench constituted to test the correctness and soundness of the decision of an earlier Full Bench of this Court in New India Assurance Company Limited v. UOI AIR 2010 Del. 43 (FB). The said Full Bench rendered judgment dated 1st August, 2011, partially overruling and clarifying the decision in New India Assurance Company Limited (supra). The said judgment of the latter Full Bench is reported as M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 2011 Del. 174. Thereafter, this petition was again listed for hearing. We have heard counsel for the parties.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the environment clearance dated 26th December, 2007 for the aforesaid project of respondent No.3 was granted without completing the process of public hearing and on the basis of faulty Environment Impact Study; that the procedure prescribed in the Environment Impact Notification of 2006 was not followed. The petitioner further pleads that respondent No.3, on 30th May, 2007 applied to the State Pollution Control Board for conducting public hearing; that the notice of the public hearing scheduled on 4th August, 2007 was published on 27th June, 2007; that the petitioner vide its letter dated 1st August, 2007 sought cancellation of the said public hearing for the reason of commencement of construction by respondent No.3 even prior to Environment Clearance and violation of environment laws by respondent No.3; that the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board however went ahead with the public hearing in which the petitioner participated and pointed out inadequate, misleading and false data submitted in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report; that the EIA consultant at the said hearing agreed that the EIA Report was inadequate and asked for 15 day’s time to rectify the same and file afresh; that accordingly, the public hearing was postponed by 15 days with assurance to be held again after 15 days; however, without completion of the public hearing, Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF) accorded environment clearance dated 26th December, 2007. That appeal (being appeal No.2/2008) was preferred by the petitioner to the NEAA, was dismissed on 31st December, 2008 on the ground that the petitioner had no locus to prefer the appeal.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner in the writ petition that it has the locus and the appeal ought to have been heard and decided on merits.

4. Respondent No.3, in its counter affidavit, has pleaded that the challenge, if any to the order of the NEAA, ought to have been made by a writ, which, according to the roster of this Court, would have been heard by a Single Judge of this Court; that the colour of public interest litigation has been given to have the same heard by the Division Bench; that a public interest litigation is not maintainable. It is further the plea of the respondent No.3 that its proposed plant is