Case Note & Summary
This public interest litigation was filed by four farmers from Wardha district challenging the public hearing conducted by the Regional Officer of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) under Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 for granting environmental clearance to a thermal power plant project by M/s. Lanco Vidarbha Thermal Power Ltd. The hearing took place on 17.09.2010. The petitioners alleged that the hearing was vitiated by ruckus, and the villagers who wanted to raise objections were not heard; they were hustled out of the meeting and suppressed by officers of the company. After the petition was filed on 22.12.2010, the Ministry of Environment and Forests granted Environmental Clearance on 24.02.2011, and the respondents started developing the site. The court considered the issue of whether the public hearing was meaningful and whether the environmental clearance could be sustained. The court noted that the hearing was a mere formality and not a meaningful opportunity for the villagers to be heard. Consequently, the court quashed and set aside the environmental clearance granted on 24.02.2011 and directed that a fresh public hearing be conducted in accordance with law. The court also directed that the status quo as of the date of the judgment be maintained until the fresh hearing.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Public Hearing - Rule 5(3) of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Validity of Environmental Clearance - The public hearing conducted on 17.09.2010 for the proposed thermal power plant was marred by ruckus and villagers were not given a fair opportunity to raise objections. The court held that the hearing was a mere formality and not meaningful, thus vitiating the subsequent environmental clearance granted on 24.02.2011. The clearance was quashed and set aside. (Paras 2-5) B) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Grant of Clearance During Pendency of Petition - The Ministry of Environment and Forests granted environmental clearance on 24.02.2011 after the petition was filed on 22.12.2010. The court noted that the clearance was based on a vitiated public hearing and therefore could not be sustained. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the public hearing conducted under Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 for grant of environmental clearance was vitiated due to ruckus and denial of opportunity to villagers to raise objections.
Final Decision
The court quashed and set aside the environmental clearance granted on 24.02.2011 and directed that a fresh public hearing be conducted in accordance with law. Status quo as of the date of judgment to be maintained until the fresh hearing.
Law Points
- Public hearing must be meaningful
- opportunity to be heard must be real
- environmental clearance based on vitiated hearing is unsustainable
- Rule 5(3) of Environment (Protection) Rules
- 1986
