Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1928

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM, Arun Kumar Verma, EM
Ajijul Khalasi & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Assam & Ors. – Respondent
Original Application No.151/2024/EZ

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Amrita Pandey, Mr. D.N. Ray, Mr. Sourav Haldar, Mr. Surendra Kumar, Ms. Malabika Roy Dey, Mr. Amit Pattnaik, Mr. Tarun Patnaik

Public Consultation under EIA Guidelines must be timely; however, delays due to extraordinary circumstances like elections do not invalidate the Environmental Clearance process.

Headnote:(A) Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Procedures for Public Consultation - Applicants claim that the public hearing conducted for a cement plant was illegal due to inadequate advertisement and delays - Public hearing was held after the Model Code of Conduct for elections, thus affecting the timeline - No major flaws found in the process that would invalidate the Environmental Clearance granted to the Respondent. (Paras 1-73)

(B) Jurisdiction of Environmental Authorities - The EIA Notification requires timely Public Hearings to ascertain environmental concerns but allows for delays due to extraordinary circumstances, such as elections - Findings reveal no material evidence of procedural breach impacting the public participation process significantly. (Paras 19-72)

Facts of the case:
Applicants, alleging violation of environmental rights, challenged the legality of the public hearing for the Respondent’s cement plant, stating it was inadequately publicized and conducted beyond the mandated timeframes.

Findings of Court:
The court found that public consultation was conducted adequately 106 days after the hearing request due to constraints of the election timeframe and noted that sufficient community participation was secured.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the public hearing process adhered to EIA Notification requirements and if alleged public interest concerns were addressed properly.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that procedural delays due to the Model Code of Conduct did not amount to illegality; adequate public consultation was achieved.

Result: Application dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Table of Content
1. public hearing procedure and compliance (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. stages of environmental clearance process (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. requirements for public consultation (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. impact of model code of conduct on proceedings (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. public hearing attendance and support analysis (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. environmental clearance granted (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
7. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
8. consequences of non-compliance discussed (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
9. intent of public consultation process (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59)
10. advertisement and public notification obligations (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
11. public participation verification (Para 65 , 66 , 67)
12. vested interests and motivations examined (Para 68 , 69 , 70)
13. concluding observations and order dismissal (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75)

ORDER

1. Affidavit dated 25.06.2025 has been filed by the Respondent No.6, M/s Taj Cement Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd.; the same is taken on record.

2. Mr. Vikram Rajkhowa, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicants states that the copy of this affidavit has been served upon him on 29.06.2025. We see absolutely no reason as to why the affidavit by the Applicant could not have been filed within one month. We, therefore, impose a personal cost of Rs. 2500/- upon the Applicant for wasting the time of the Court. The counter- affidavit shall be filed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2500/-. The cost shall be deposited with the Registrar, National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata.

(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).

ORDER

1. The Applicants who are 10 in number claim to be residents of Village-Kapalkata, Sonapur, District-Kamrup (M), Assam and have filed the present Original Application alleging that the ‘Public Hearing’ conducted on 10.06.2024 to facilitate a fourth cement plant/unit to be set up by the Respondent No.6, M/s Taj Cement Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., is illegal and in total disregard of the right of the villagers/residents to live in a clean and healthy environment.

2. It is stated that the Respondent No.6, M/s Taj Cement Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘Taj Cement), submitted an application dated 20.07.2023 with SEIAA, Assam for installation of a Split Cement Grinding Unit of capacity 1.0 MTPA at Village-Chamata Pathar, Mouza-Sonapur, District-Kamrup (M), Assam, for grant of Environmental Clearance. It is also stated that SEIAA, Assam, has issued Terms of Reference (TOR) for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)/Environment Management Plan (EMP) dated 03.01.2024

3. It is further stated that on 26.02.2024 the Respondent No.6 submitted the executive summary of the EIA Report, draft EIA Report and other documents to the Assam State Pollution Control Board requesting for conducting ‘Public Hearing’ for the proposed Unit.

4. It is stated that the procedure for ‘Public Hearing’ is provided in Appendix IV of the EIA Notification, 2006 as amended from time to time and is required to be completed within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the request letter from the Applicant, Project Proponent.

5. It is also stated that the Respondent No.6 submitted request for conducting ‘Public Hearing’ vide its letter dated 26.02.2024 whereas the Public Hearing was conducted on 10.06.2024 i.e. after 106 days from the date of receipt of the request letter. It is stated that as per EIA Notification 2006, the Assam State Pollution Control Board, shall finalize the date, time and exact venue for conduct of ‘Public Hearing’ within seven days of receipt of the draft EIA Report but the Respondent No.3, Assam State Pollution Control Board, could not produce any record on 10.06.2024 to show that the same was done within seven days of the date of receipt of request letter and draft EIA Report.

6. It

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1928

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)B. Amit Sthalekar, JM, Arun Kumar Verma, EMAjijul Khalasi & Ors. – AppellantVersusState Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Assam & Ors. – RespondentOriginal Application No.151/2024/EZ

Public Consultation under EIA Guidelines must be timely; however, delays due to extraordinary circumstances like elections do not invalidate the Environmental Clearance process.

Cases Referred (2)

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM, Arun Kumar Verma, EM
Ajijul Khalasi & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Assam & Ors. – Respondent
Original Application No.151/2024/EZ