SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Guj) 1417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Aravind Kumar, Ashutosh J. Shastri, JJ.
Bharat Gangji Gala – Applicant
Versus
Gujarat Pollution Control Board – Opponent
R/Writ Petition (Pil) No. 85 of 2022
Decided On : 18-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Mr A J Yagnik
For the Opponent :Ms Manisha Lavkumar, Senior Advocate, Mr KM Antani, AGP, Mr Parth Bhatt, Mr Mihir Joshi, Senior Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that an amended notification can apply retrospectively and not infringe the procedural law of holding public hearing.

Headnote:

Notification - Environmental Impact Assessment - Paragraph 3.3(a) - 14.09.2006, 09.05.2022 - The court examined the amendment brought about to the notification dated 14.09.2006 by notification dated 09.05.2022. The court found that the amended notification was applicable retrospectively and did not infringe the procedural law of holding public hearing. The court rejected the contention raised by the petitioners and dismissed the petition with costs.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the public notice issued by the Gujarat Pollution Control Board for a public hearing related to a proposed project. The petitioners contended that the notice did not comply with the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, specifically Clause 3 of Appendix IV, as it did not provide a minimum of 30 days period between the date of issuance of the public notice and the date of the public hearing. The petitioners also claimed that the amended notification dated 09.05.2022 did not apply retrospectively to the proceedings that had already commenced under the old notification.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amended notification dated 09.05.2022 was applicable retrospectively and did not infringe the procedural law of holding public hearing. The court rejected the contention raised by the petitioners and dismissed the petition with costs.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the compliance of the public notice with the provisions of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, and the applicability of the amended notification dated 09.05.2022 to the proceedings that had already commenced under the old notification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the amended notification dated 09.05.2022 was applicable retrospectively and did not infringe the procedural law of holding public hearing. The court also imposed costs on the petitioners for attempting to abuse the process of the court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition with costs and directed the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.1 for the welfare of project displaced persons, if any.

JUDGMENT :

Aravind Kumar, J.

1. This petition has been filed on 11.10.2022 and even before scrutiny of the papers could take place, a request for matter being listed on 12.10.2022 or 13.10.2022 was moved in open Court and it came to be rejected on ground of there being no urgency. In the meanwhile, a writ petition under Article 32 came to be filed by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No.32929 of 2022 and it seems to have been mentioned before the Hon’ble Apex Court on 13.10.2022 for being taken up. Learned counsel who represented the petitioners before the Hon’ble Apex Court conceded to the fact that petitioners had already approached this Court by filing a Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India namely the present application. However, it was submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court that matter was not getting listed. Hence, the Hon’ble Apex Court granted liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the petition filed before it and gave further liberty to the petitioners to make an appropriate mention before this Court to have the pending matter listed at an early date. Petitioners do not seem to have submitted before the Hon’ble Apex Court about the date of filing of this writ petition [Writ Petition (PIL) No.85 of 2022] being 11.10.2022, when the writ petition filed before the Hon’ble Apex Court was mentioned namely on 13.10.2022. In this background, petitioners filed yet another request for grant of circulation of this writ petition on 14.10.2022 and the request was accepted and matter was ordered to be listed on 17.10.2022. In fact, this writ petition was registered on 14.10.2022 only.

2. Today when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned advocates appearing for both the parties submitted that consideration of interim prayer and main prayer are one and the same. Hence, by passing the following order, we took up the matter for final disposal :

“Learned advocates appearing for the parties submit that consideration of interim prayer and main prayer are one and the same and as such, matter is taken up for final hearing.

Shri A.J.Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed on record the gazette Notification dated 09.05.2022 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, to which, Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Senior Advocate has seriously objected for the same. Gazette Notification dated 09.05.2022 is placed on record. To a pointed question posed by this Court to Mr. A.J. Yagnik, as to why Notification dated 09.05.2022 was not placed on record at the first instance, namely at the time of filing of the petition, he would fairly submit that it had gone unnoticed. His submission is placed on record.

This matter is listed at Serial No. 6 in Board-I, there was no attempt made by any advocate representing the parties for this matter being taken up at 11:00 am (the time of commencement of Court proceedings). Shri A.J.Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners commenced his argument at 11:56 am and xxx xxx xxx.”

3. We have heard the arguments of Mr.Anandvardhan J. Yagnik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Manisha Lavkumar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3, Mr.Parth Bhatt, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Mr.Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Perused the records.

4. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that petitioners have filed this petition for the following reliefs:

“(A) To hold and declare that the public notice dated 26.09.2022 annexed at Annexure-B issued by the respondent Gujarat Pollution Control Board notifying the scheduled date of public hearing, for the project of 120 MW Captive Co-generation Power Plant for 1100000 TPA Light Soda Ash, 500000 TPA Dense Soda Ash, 200000 TPA Sodium Carbonate under Category "A" schedule to be undertaken

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top