Orissa High Court Upholds Legality of Public Hearing for Proposed Coal Tar Processing Unit
The Orissa High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the validity of a public hearing conducted for a proposed greenfield coal tar processing unit. The hearing took place on May 28, 2025, at Dangadi Bhawan in the Dangadi area of Jajpur district. The court ruled that the statutory procedures governing notice and conduct of the hearing were duly followed, thereby upholding the legality of the process.
Petitioners' Arguments and Court's Examination
The PIL was filed by eight petitioners who sought the quashing of the public hearing. They argued that villagers were not properly informed about the hearing and that it was not held at the actual project location. Specifically, the petitioners contended that the notice should have been pasted at the panchayat office and publicized through the traditional method of beating drums to ensure wider awareness among the local community.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman thoroughly examined the case. The bench referred to the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated September 14, 2006, which was issued under the Environment (Protection) Rules of 1986. This notification governs the procedure for public hearings related to environmental projects.
Court's Ruling on Statutory Compliance
The court held that the EIA notification clearly prescribes the specific mode of publication for such hearings. It emphasized that once a statute outlines a particular manner for doing something, it must be followed exactly as prescribed, without deviation. The bench observed, "It is no longer res integra (an untouched thing) that once the statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in such manner and not otherwise." This principle meant that authorities cannot go beyond or add requirements, such as pasting notices in panchayat offices or using drum beats, if they are not mandated by the law.
On January 22, the bench refused to interfere with the hearing process, stating that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity that would warrant cancellation of the hearing or a directive for a fresh one at the project site. The court noted that the law only requires the hearing to be held at a place in close proximity to the affected people, which was satisfied in this case.
Participation and Democratic Principles
The court recorded that 71 persons participated in the public hearing, during which objections were raised, and the majority of participants expressed support for the project. This fact was also corroborated by subsequent newspaper reports. In its ruling, the bench highlighted the importance of democratic principles, stating, "In a democratic polity, the decision of the majority has to be accepted." It cautioned that giving primacy to minority dissent could "disturb the very fabric of a democracy."
Questioning the Petitioners' Bona Fides
Additionally, the court questioned the bona fides of the petitioners, observing that they did not appear to be genuinely advocating for the cause of economically weaker sections. This observation further reinforced the court's decision to dismiss the PIL, as it suggested that the petitioners might not have had the best interests of the community at heart.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding statutory procedures and democratic processes in environmental matters, ensuring that development projects proceed in accordance with established legal frameworks.
