Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dr. Gulabing Purohit vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:7050]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19276/2023
Dr. Gulabing Purohit S/o Samarting Ji Purohit, Aged About 67
Years, R/o Purohit Vas, Suthar Seri, Pindwara, District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board,
Regional Office Plot No. 68 Shanti Nagar, Main Highway
Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
4. Unit Head, M/s Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited
(Nathdwara Cement Limited (Nathdwara Cement Works)
Village Thandiberi And Sabela Tehsil Pindwara, District
Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sajjan Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
REPORTABLE
Judgment Reserved on : 09/02/2024
Judgment Pronounced on : 20/02/2024
1. The present writ petition has been filed with the prayer of
quashing the Notice dated 09.11.2023 to restrain the respondents
from holding public hearing on 15.12.2023 at Truck Parking Yard,
Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited, Amli Road Tehsil Pindwara,
District Sirohi at 12:00 pm and to hold fresh public hearing at
public place for environmental clearance for expansion of
respondent No.4 Unit.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the
respondent No.2- Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution
[2024:RJ-JD:7050] (2 of 7) [CW-19276/2023]
Control Board, Sirohi published a notice dated 09.11.2023
(Annex.2) in the newspaper informing that a public hearing for the
purpose of environmental clearance for expansion in limestone
production capacity is scheduled to be held on 15.12.2023 at
Truck Parking Yard, Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road
Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi. The petitioner along with other
villagers submitted a representation before the respondent Nos.2
& 3 requesting that the public hearing for environmental clearance
scheduled to be held on 15.12.2023 may be postponed and the
same may be held at a public place in close proximity of village
Thandiberi instead of private place i.e. Truck Parking Yard,
Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Pindwara. Since the request in
the representation of the petitioner was not acceded to, hence the
present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there
are two projects located at different locations i.e. one at
Thandiberi Limestone Mine (ML No.7/94) and second at Amli Lime
Stone Mine (ML No.6/94), thus, the public hearing should have
been conducted in the near vicinity of the two sites. The learned
counsel submitted that for the two projects, which are located at
Thandiberi Limestone Mine and Amli Stone Mine, the public
hearing could not have been taken place at a common place i.e.
Truck Parking Yard, Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road,
Nathdwara, Tehsil Pindwara district Sirohi. He further submitted
that the purpose of public hearing is defeated if the same had held
at a common place for two projects and the same being not in the
close proximity of the two projects.
[2024:RJ-JD:7050] (3 of 7) [CW-19276/2023]
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the
petitioner during public hearing has submitted written objection
mentioning therein that the public hearing is not being conducted
at Gram Panchayat/ Mining site/close proximity of mining site and
the public hearing was conducted at a distance of 7-8 kms. from
the project.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that since the public
hearing took place at Truck Parking Yard, Ultra Tech Nathdwara
Cement Ltd., Amli Road, Nathdwara, Tehsil Pindwara District
Sirohi, therefore, the villagers of Thandiberi were deprived of their
rights to participate in the public hearing. To butress his
contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
judgment rendered in Utkarsh Mandal Vs. Union of India
decided by the Delhi High Court reported in 2009 SCC Online
Del 3836.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed that the
writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed
to hold fresh public hearing in the close proximity of village
Thandiberi.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that as per Gazette Notification dated 14.09.2006, the
public consultation was undertaken in its true letter and spirit. He
submitted that the public hearing was done at Truck Parking Yard,
Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road, Nathdwara, Tehsil
Pindwara District Sirohi, which was in close proximity to both the
sites where the upcoming expansion projects are located.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner himself was present at the time of public hearing at
[2024:RJ-JD:7050] (4 of 7) [CW-19276/2023]
Truck Parking Yard, Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road,
Nathdwara, Tehsil Pindwara District Sirohi. The learned counsel
further submitted that a number of persons who are residing in
the close proximity of the villages located in Thandiberi were
present and participated in the public hearing.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
public hearing was conducted at Truck Parking Yard, Ultra Tech
Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road, Nathdwara, Tehsil Pindwara
District Sirohi for the villagers who are residents of village
Thandiberi and Subela at 12:00 p.m. and a number of persons
from these two villages attended the public hearing. He further
submitted that the villagers from the villages Amli and Malap of
Pindwara Tehsil attended the public hearing at 11:00 am. The
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the word used
in the Gazette Notification dated 14.09.2006, under the heading
"Public Consultation" prescribes that a public hearing at the site
or "in its close proximity" is required to be carried out in the
manner prescribed in the Appendix IV for ascertaining the
Concerns of local affected persons and the place where the public
hearing took place was in close proximity of both the places where
the upcoming projects are located and not only this, the villagers
from both the places have attended the public hearings which
were scheduled at different time periods on the location
mentioned above. He, therefore, prayed that the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the submissions and have gone through
the relevant record of the case including the Notification dated
14.09.2006.
[2024:RJ-JD:7050] (5 of 7) [CW-19276/2023]
11. The controversy involved in the present case is that when
there are more than two projects located in different locations but
in close proximity, can the public hearing be conducted at a
common place? In the present case, since both the projects are
situated nearby to each other and in close proximity to the place
where public hearing had taken place, the mandate of Notification
dated 14.09.2006 had been fulfilled. The distance between the
boundaries of the two mines is 875.77 Mtrs. and the distance of
Thandiberi Mines from the place of public hearing is 4.99 kms. and
the distance between place of public hearing and Amli Mines is
around 1.76 kms. The respondents keeping in mind the suitable
place i.e. at Truck Parking Yard, Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement
Ltd., Amli Road, Tehsil Pindwara kept a common place of public
hearing for the two projects but at different timings. The public
hearing for the project Amli Lime Stone Mine was held at 11:00
am and the villagers of Amli and Malap have participated in the
public hearings. Whereas, for the project which is located at
Thandiberi Limestone Mine, the villagers from Thandiberi and
Subela have attended the public hearing which took place at
12:00 pm. It is also the fact that the petitioner along with other
villagers have attended the public hearing which was held at Truck
Parking Yard, Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road, Tehsil
Pindwara. Since the geographic location of the place of hearing
was in close proximity of both the places, therefore, the
respondents thought it proper to hold the meeting at Truck Yard
but at different timings. The action of the respondents in holding
the public hearing at a common place is not barred under the
Notification dated 14.09.2006 or any other law. In the opinion of
[2024:RJ-JD:7050] (6 of 7) [CW-19276/2023]
this Court, the mandate under the heading "Public
Consultation" of the Notification dated 14.09.2006 is that a
public hearing shall take place at the site or "in its close
proximity" districtwise so that the concerns of the local affected
persons can be taken into account.
12. Since there is nothing on record to show that the place
where the public hearing has taken place was not in the close
proximity of the two projects, in the opinion of this Court, the
purpose of public hearing for public consultation is duly achieved,
even if it had been held at a common place for two projects. The
place where the public hearing took place was admittedly in the
close proximity of both the projects and the villagers of Thandiberi
and Subela participated in the public hearing and more particularly
when the petitioner also attended/participated in the public
hearing, he cannot agitate the cause for a public hearing at
different place.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the intention of the
Legislature is to provide public hearing to the persons of the
nearby area in which the project is being set up/expended and the
place of hearing should be near the project area so that the
persons who are living in the close proximity can address their
concerns, but, the residents of the nearby area cannot insist upon
for holding a public hearing at a particular place. Since in the
present case, the public hearing was conducted in the close
proximity of two projects at different timings and the same was
attended by the villagers/persons of the two areas including the
petitioner, therefore, the object, for which the public hearing has
been mandated, has been achieved in this case.
[2024:RJ-JD:7050] (7 of 7) [CW-19276/2023]
14. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner has no application in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.
15. In view of the discussions made above, the present writ
petition is bereft of any merit and, the same is hereby dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
/Anil/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
