Orissa High Court Clarifies Environmental Hearing Notice Requirements
The Orissa High Court has delivered a significant ruling regarding the notification process for environmental public hearings, stating that traditional methods like 'beat of drums' or posting notices in panchayat offices are not legally mandatory when proper newspaper publication has been conducted.
Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Hearing Notification
A bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Prasannajit Nayak and others that sought cancellation of a public hearing held on May 28, 2025, at Dangadi Bhawan in Dangadi village. The petitioners had argued that the hearing was invalid because the notice was not announced through traditional means.
"We could not persuade ourselves to the contention of the petitioner that the notice of the public hearing must also be pasted in a conspicuous portion of the panchayat office or by beat of drums," the bench stated in its January 21 ruling.
Legal Examination of Notification Requirements
The court conducted a thorough examination of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, particularly focusing on a notification dated September 14, 2006, issued by the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The bench found that:
- There is no legal provision requiring notices to be pasted in panchayat offices or announced through 'beat of drums'
- The prescribed mode of publication is advertisement in a major national daily and one regional vernacular daily
- Once statutory requirements specify a particular method, authorities cannot deviate from it
"Once the statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in such manner and not otherwise," the court emphasized.
Petitioners' Arguments and Court's Findings
Advocate Gopal Prasad Jena, representing the petitioners, argued that:
- Residents were not properly informed due to lack of traditional communication methods
- Newspaper publication alone cannot substitute ground-level communication in rural areas
- The hearing should have been conducted at the project site rather than Dangadi Bhawan
The court, however, found that:
- The notice was duly published in vernacular newspapers with complete details of time, date, and venue
- The public hearing was conducted in close proximity to affected communities
- Seventy-one persons participated in the hearing, with some raising objections
- The majority supported the project, as corroborated by subsequent newspaper reports
Democratic Principles and Final Ruling
The bench highlighted democratic principles in its decision, stating: "In a democratic polity, the decision of the majority has to be accepted, even if there is a dissent by the minority. It would disturb the very fabric of a democracy in the event the minority dissenting with the majority view is being given supremacy over the majoritarian views."
The court expressed skepticism about the petitioners' motives, noting that they "do not appear to be trustworthy nor in reality espousing the cause of an economically impaired section of the society."
Finding no legal infirmity in the conduct of the public hearing or the notification process, the High Court dismissed the PIL with no order as to costs, reinforcing that compliance with statutory newspaper publication requirements suffices for environmental hearing notifications.
