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
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
Anant Gopal Sheorey vs. The State of Bombay
Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax vs. Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd.
Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik and Another vs. Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and Others
State Bank’s Staff Union (Madras Circle) vs. Union of India and Others
State Bank's Staff Union Madras vs Union Of India & Ors
Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors
Virendra Singh Hooda and Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr. (2004 (12) SCC 588
AI
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.
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 re....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for transparency and fairness in the process of issuing notifications, including public notice and consideration of objections a....
The court affirmed the right of affected parties to participate in public consultations regarding environmental clearances, emphasizing the need for regulatory authorities to consider all material co....
The acquisition process must comply with statutory provisions of timely final notification and personal hearing, failure of which undermines legal validity.
Court held that amendments to the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, which shifted authority and reduced public consultation, were unconstitutional and violated environmental protections u....
Environmental clearances must adhere to statutory requirements; retrospective extensions without public consultation violate legal and constitutional mandates.
The court declared the notification extending environmental clearances for mining projects unconstitutional, citing lack of public consultation and violation of statutory procedures under the Environ....
The court ruled that amendments extending environmental clearance validity violate statutory and constitutional mandates, undermining effective environmental governance and public interest.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.