The court established that violation of principles of natural justice can warrant the entertainment of a writ petition despite the availability of alternative remedies.

JUDGMENT

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Counsel appearing on behalf of Union of India has raised preliminary objection on the point of maintainability of this writ petition and has submitted that this issue should be decided before entering into the merits of the case. He submits that the petitioner has alternative remedy of appeal under Section 5-A of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Section 16 (g) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. He submits that there are many technical aspects in connection with environment clearance which can be appreciated by the Tribunal.

3. Upon this, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has advanced extensive argument on the point of maintainability of the writ petition. He submits that this Court may not enter into the technical aspects of the matter of environmental clearance and will confine his argument on the point of gross violation of principles of natural justice and fair play while passing the order impugned in this writ petition.

4. While advancing his argument, he submits that the environmental clearance was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 21.02.2008 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. However, vide letter dated 06.06.2012 a show cause was issued to the petitioner by the said Ministry asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the environmental clearance dated 21.02.2008 be not revoked and certain allegations were made against the petitioner in the show cause notice.

5. After the receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner had responded and also requested for an opportunity of personal hearing vide its letter dated 20.06.2012. He submits that thereafter the matter remained pending and certain inspections were carried out by the respondents. In the meantime, another writ petition was filed by the petitioner relating to environment issues being W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018 and the fact about pendency of proceeding pursuant to show cause dated 06.06.2012 was brought to the notice of this court. In such circumstances, the order dated 25.08.2018 was passed to expedite the matter in connection with show cause notice dated 6.6.2012.

6. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner was required to appear before the authority for the purpose of personal hearing and accordingly a notice dated 31.08.2018 was issued to the petitioner for personal hearing.

7. By referring to paragraph nos. 28,29 and 32 of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that on 10.09.2018 an opportunity of hearing was given before Mr. Gyanesh Bharti, the Joint, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC). The petitioner at the outset had pointed out that the competent authority for the purpose is Secretary of the Ministry and it was contended that hearing by the Joint Secretary was wholly without jurisdiction. He submits that however the petitioner continued with hearing on 10.09.2018 which concluded on the same day. He further submits that transfer of the joint secretary who heard the matter was notified on 10.09.2018 and he was relieved on 12.09.2018 in the afternoon. Counsel submits that thereafter the impugned letter dated 20.09.2018 was communicated to the petitioner indicating that the matter has been examined by the Department and the competent authority has decided to revoke the environmental clearance which was granted to the petitioner as back as on 21.02.2008 and in the said order it was also communicated that the petitioner may apply for environmental clearance afresh after clearing all the issues.

8. The specific case of the petitioner on the point of violation of natural justice been stated in paragraph no. 31 of the writ petition wherein it has stated that hearing was done by the joint secretary on 10.09.2018 and admittedly the order was not passed by him. Further the person who had given the hearing was himself not the competent authority to take a decision in the matter.

9. He has also submitted b