Before the National Green Tribunal (Principal Bench: New Delhi) Justice A.S.Naidu (Acting Chairperson) and Dr.

G K Pandey (Expert Member)

Jan Chetna and Others v Ministry of Environment and Forests, M/s Scania Steel and Power & Others Facts of the Case
M/s. Scania Steels and Power Ltd. was operating a sponge iron plant in Punjipatra village in the district of Raigarh in Chhattisgarh. Their capacity of the existing unit was 66,000 TPA of sponge iron and the rules governing at that time did not mandate any need for seeking environment clearance from any authority. In 2008, the company applied to MoEF for clearance seeking to expand the project by increasing the capacity to 1, 32,000 TPA, installing a steel melting setup, Ferro alloy plant and a captive plant. After consideration of the proposal and analysis of the submitted documents, MoEF granted the environmental clearance on the 5th of November, 2008. Clause 7 of the EIA notification, 2006 required a public hearing prior to the granting of EC and Jan Chetna challenged such grant of EC without holding a public hearing and requested the Court to quash the EC granted by the MoEF. Initially, the appellants in the case approached the NEAA for grievance redressal which was rejected for being presented beyond the prescribed period. The appellants approached the High Court of Delhi, which vide WPC No. 11157 of 2009, set aside the order of NEAA and directed the authority to dispose of the appeal on merits. While the matter was sub-judice in the NEAA court, the NGT Act was passed and all existing cases from the NEAA were transferred to the National Green Tribunal.

Issues in Question
The primary contention of the case was regarding the necessity of conducting a public hearing under Clause 7 of EIA notification, 2006 before the grant of environmental clearance by the MoEF when the company in question was expanding operations. Apart from this point of substantial litigation, the Court also touched upon very important matters of interpreting

the locus-standi in environmental cases, which can be very important in subsequent cases of green litigation.

Contentions of the Parties

I. Arguments of the Respondents

The company initially challenged the locus-standi of the appellants and prayed to the Court to dismiss the appeal in limine on grounds of insufficiency of locus-standi. The company also claimed that the EC was granted by the concerned authorities following due procedure and alleged that the appellants were meddlesome interloper. The respondent relying upon a Bombay High Court judgment in Dighi Koli Samaj v Union of India contends that no public hearing is required for purposes of expanding a project. The respondent also argues that Clause 7 (ii) would also apply to projects which were existent prior to the EIA notification of 2006. II. Arguments of the Appellants

The Appellants relied upon the intention of mandatory public hearing as to make the process of decision making more inclusive in nature and relied upon numerous cases 1 to project that state action should be subject to the needs and demands of the public and should be made keeping in considerations the views of the general public. The appellant also claimed that the act of expansion was more in the nature of establishing a new industry itself under the veil of expansion. The appellant specifies that the nature of the expansion is no expansion in the real sense, but independent units are being created with an attempt to bypass the requirements of the law. On the question of locus-standi, the counsel for the appellant point out that the appellant holds agricultural land besides the iron plant, and hereby is directly affected by the acts of the company and hence, his appeal perfectly holds ground.

Judgment of the Court

1. Before proceeding to the crux of the controversy, the Court rightly discussed some very important principles of sustainable development with regard to some specific
1

The Appellant relied on S.P. Gupta v Union of India where the SC had made it clear that the citizens right to know regarding the administration of the country is essential in a democracy.

case laws as passed by the Supreme Court like Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v Union of India and on some important declarations like the Rio Declaration of 1992. 2. The Court rightly refused to interpret the term any person aggrieved in narrow terms and construed in very liberal terms. The Court discussed the far-ranging effects of environmental pollution and held that a constricted use of the law can defeat the very purpose of the law which it seeks to promote.2 Irrespective of the outcome of the judgment, this pronouncement definitely is a boost to the green litigation in the country which increases the ambit of aggrieved person. 3. After analysing the requirement of granting a EC, the Courts discussed the need for holding a public hearing by relying on judgments of SC in Dinesh Trivedi v UOI and State of UP v Raj Narain. After a cumulative reading of the provisions of EIA Notifications, 2006, the Court held that public consultations as incorporated in 2006 Notification is in recognition and in furtherance of the rights to the environment which form a part of the broader principle of greater public participation. Keeping in view the facts of the case, the Court held that the decision to exclude public hearing was not fair and was unjust to the cause of the general public who must have a greater say where the concerned activity could lead to significant increase in pollution load and environmental damage. 4. The Courts also rightly dismissed questions with regard to the Courts ability to deal with cases of great technical intricacies by relying on the presence of an expert member, who is equipped to deal with such technical cases. Apart from the legal points in question, the whole idea of expert members was demonstrated when the Court pointed out some serious flaws and discrepancies in the EIA report. 5. Further, upon claims of Scania that other companies have been granted ECs without public hearings in cases of expansion, the Court rightly pointed out that every case is decided on the merits of the prevailing facts and circumstances and universal application of certain cases would be abuse of the process of law. 6. The Court ordered the MoEF to conduct public hearing and rightly suspended the grant of EC for the proposed expansion till the public hearing was made and a fresh EC was issued with regard to public consultation and other directions.

The Court relied on Gulam Qadir v Special Tribunal where by the Supreme Court had held that a very liberal approach was taken in determining the locus standi of a party in construing cases which are remedial in nature. Apart from the Gulam Qadur case, the Court also discussed similarities with the discussion on locus standi contention in the case of Prafulla Samantra v MoEF which gave even more credence to the Courts judgment.