WP (C) No.3126/2008

Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of Reserve: 28.04.2009

Pronounced on: 06.05.2009

+

W.P.(C) 3126/2008 & CM No.6045/2008

PRAFULLA SAMANTRA

……… Petitioner

Through : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Advocate

versus

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS & ORS. ……..... Respondents

Through : Mr.S.K. Dubey with Mr. K.B.Thakur, Advocates

for Resp. No.1.

Mr. Janaranjan Das, Mr. Swetaketu Mishra and Mr. P.P.

Nayak, Advocates, for Resp. No.2.

Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.C. Sen, Advocate

and Mr. Nitin D. Advocates for Resp. No.3.

CORAM:

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers

Yes

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be

reported in the Digest?

Yes

Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat:

%

1. The writ petitioner challenges an order dated 29.1.2008 of the National

Environmental Appellate Authority (hereafter, ‘the Authority’) dismissing his appeal

stating that he is not a “person aggrieved” under section 11 of the National

Environmental Appellate Authority Act, 1997 (hereafter, ‘the Act’).

2009:DHC:1946

WP (C) No.3126/2008

Page 2 of 18

2. The petitioner, claiming to be a social and environmental activist, preferred the

appeal in his personal capacity as the President of a Social Organisation viz. Lok Shakti

Abhiyan, Orissa Unit under Section 11(1) of the Act, challenging an order granting

environmental clearance, on 7.3.2007, issued by the Ministry of Environment and

Forests (hereafter, ‘the MoEF’), Central Government, for setting up of Alumina Smelter

Plant (2,50,000 TPA) based on pre-baked technology at Village Bhurkamunda /

Brundamal, District Jharsuguda, Orissa by the third respondent.

3. The petitioner claims to be a social and environmental activist involved in issues

concerning tribals and environment and also is the President of the Orissa Unit of Lok

Shakti Abhiyan, an organization dedicated to social and environmental causes. It is

claimed that together with his group, he has been closely following environmental

issues in Brundamal District, Jahrsuguda, Orissa and is working among the affected

communities.

4. The background of the case is that the second respondent i.e. Orissa State

Pollution Control Board announced a public hearing on 20.10.2005 for a proposed

aluminum smelter plant under the provisions of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

Notification, 1994. The petitioner objected to the public hearing on the ground that this

is not a separate project but a third stage of a Bauxite Mining Project. The public hearing

was cancelled and rescheduled for a later date on 9.12.2005. The petitioner made

another representation challenging the faulty EIA of the project on 9.12.2005, inter alia

stating the following:

2009:DHC:1946

WP (C) No.3126/2008

Page 3 of 18

step that is the alumina refinery that in turn will be supplied to aluminum

smelter in the third step. The following situation prevails with regard to

1.Bauxite mine: License for mining not granted. The CEC says “It is of

after an alternative bauxite mine site is identified (para 33, page 53)”

2.Aluminum refinery: The observation of the CEC is significant on the

recommended that this honourable court may consider revoking the

environmental clearance dated 22.9.2004 granted by the MoEF for

setting up of Alumina refinery plant by M/s Vedanta and directing

them to stop work on the project (para 33, page 53)”

that the proposed aluminum smelter plant will receive alumina from

2009:DHC:1946

WP (C) No.3126/2008

Page 4 of 18

the alumina refinery at Lanjigarh, Kalahandi district of Orissa which

null and void.”

5. The petitioner contends that when, allegedly, the third respondent illegally

started construction work for its proposed Aluminum smelter (2,50,000 TPA) and 5x135

MW Captive Thermal Power Plants located