AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is an appeal filed by the Appellant against the prior Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 5th August, 2013 granted to the Respondent No. 8 M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. for establishing Captive Thermal Power Plant (35 MW) at village Bela, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna, Madhya Pradesh for its existing cement plant at the same location
After hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant on 12th November, 2013 notices were issued to the Respondents on the ground that the public information that was notified in the Newspapers stated that the plant is to be located at village Ghoordang whereas, in fact the said plant was proposed to be set up at village Bela. It was also alleged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that no Public Hearing, at all, took place prior to the grant of the EC and the Appellant came to know this fact based on the information provided to him by the Gram Panchayat under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The aforesaid grounds were recorded in the order while issuing notice on 12th November, 2013. In response to the notice, the Respondents put in their appearance and the Respondent No. 8 filed its reply on 8th January, 2014 whereas the Respondent No. 2, the Regional Officer of the Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (in short 'MPPCB') also submitted their reply on 4th February, 2014. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 filed their reply on 7th January, 2014. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 also filed their reply on 4th February, 2014. The Respondent No. 8 in its reply stated that all the required information had been correctly furnished by the Project Proponent and that it is wrong to submit that the Public Hearing did not take place as alleged by the Appellant. In Para '6' of the reply it was submitted by the Respondent No. 8 that the Public Hearing in fact did take place on 11th November, 2011 at 11 a.m. and in support of the same, submitted documents in the form of Annexure 'R8-2' wherein it has been clearly stated that the proposed Captive Thermal Power Plant is to be established at village Bela in Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna. Notice in this regard was published in two Hindi daily Newspapers dated 8th October, 2011 in Dainik Bhaskar and Nav Bharat and the same has been placed on record along with the minutes of the Public Hering. The attendance sheet of the persons who attended the Public Hearing at the Primary School, Bela, District Satna on 11th November, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. was also placed on record.
On behalf of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e. the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) reply was submitted with the affidavit of Dr. R.K. Jain, Officer-in-Charge of the SEIAA, M.P. In the aforesaid affidavit, it has been stated that the Public Hearing was conducted under the Chairmanship of the Additional Collector, District Satna on 11th November, 2011 at the Government Primary School, village Bela, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna and copy of the proceedings of the Public Hearing has been annexed along with their reply as Annexure R-3. We, therefore, find that the averments made by the Respondent No. 8/Project Proponent in its reply regarding holding of the Public Hearing find corroboration from the documents placed on record by the Project Proponent in the form of Annexure R8-2 and from the reply filed by the Respondent No. 3 and 4 and the documents filed along with their replies in the form of Annexure R-3.
We, therefore, are unable to accept the contention of the Appellant on the question raised during the course of hearing that no Public Hearing took place before the EC was granted on 5th August, 2013. The submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the Village Panchayat has informed the Appellant that it has no intimation regarding holding of any Public Hearing on 11th November, 2011 for the establishment of the Captive Thermal Power Plant by the Respondent No. 8, has no consequential effect on the merits of the present case. A perusal of the material placed on record by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the proceedings of the Public Hearing in the form of Annexure R-3 which was conducted by the Additional Collector, Satna in the presence of the Regional Officer of the MPPCB and the attendance sheet which has been filed along with the proceedings and the minutes of the said Public Hearing as Annexure R8-2 by the Respondent No. 8, bears the testimony to the fact that suficient number of people including public functionaries and officials of the Pollution Control Board attended the Public Hearing and this leaves us to conclude that the Public Hearing did, in fact, take place on 11th November, 2011 which was attended by the villagers of village Bela and also by the adjoining villages.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the contention of the Appellant that no Public Hearing took place before granting the EC in favour of the Respondent No. 8. The aforesaid contention thus, has no merit.
The second submission made by the Appellant is that in the publication made through daily Newspapers for the general information of public it was (Annexure A-6) stated that the Project Proponent was granted EC dtd. 5th August, 2013 to establish a 35 MW Captive Thermal Power Plant at village Ghoordang, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna whereas in fact the EC was in respect of establishment of the plant at village Bela, in District Raghurajnagar. The Respondent No. 8 in its reply to the aforesaid submissions raised in Para No. '6' of the appeal, has stated that the aforesaid mistake was unintentional and on realising the aforesaid mistake, a corrigendum was also issued (Annexure R8-4 and R 8-5) by way of information that the said Captive Thermal Power Plant was being established at village Bela, Tehsil Raghurajnagar, District Satna and by mistake in the earlier notice, village Ghoordang had been mentioned and the correct location is village Bela and it may be understood as such.
While it may be true for the Appellant to allege that the information with regard to the proposed site was wrongly mentioned as village Ghoordang in place of village Bela, but we are satisfied that the aforesaid information which was published in pursuance of the EC granted on 5th August, 2013 would not construe as an illegality or deliberate misinformation as the Project Proponent in all earlier information provided by way of Project Report which was considered by the concerned officers of the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority which contains Para 1.2 the details with regard to location under column B.1 as village Bela and that even the notification pursuant to which the Public Hearing was held on 11th November, 2011 also specified that the Captive Thermal Power Plant was to be established at village Bela as it appears from Annexure R8/2 in the notices for Public Hearing published in the two newspapers i.e. Dainik Bhaskar and Nav Bharat on 8th October, 2011. The Public Hearing itself as we have also held and has borne out from the record filed by the Respondent No. 8/Project Proponent as well as by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, was held at the Government Primary School, village Bela for the aforesaid purpose and also that a corrigendum came to be issued on realising the mistake which had occurred in the notice correcting the location from village Ghoordang to village Bela as also the fact that in the notice published at Annexure A/6 mentioning village Ghoordang it was also clearly mentioned that the details of the EC dated 5th August, 2013 granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority is available on the website i.e. "http.www.mpseiaa.nic.in" as such any person who was desirous of availing more information or the exact information, had the option of visiting the aforesaid website to get the correct information and details including that of the location based upon the EC granted on 5th August, 2013 vide Annexure A/4 filed by the Appellant along with the appeal which clearly states that the said EC for the Captive Thermal Power Plant was being granted for the establishment at village Bela, Thesil Raghurajnagar, District Satna by M/s Birla Corporation Ltd. This is revealed from the reference to village Bela under the subject in the aforesaid letter as Annexure A/4 as also in Para -II of the same. Thus, the information provided in the public domain clearly spelt out that the location of the said plant was to be at village Bela and this information even if any person interested including the Appellant wishes to obtain based upon any confusion in the mind as a result of typographical error in the published notice, could easily have got the correct information as was mentioned in the said notice that the details are available on the website of the SEIAA.
We are, therefore inclined to hold that the aforesaid mistake of the wrong mention of the village in the public notice issued post EC cannot be said so as to warrant interference for declaring all actions post granting of EC to set at nought. This mistake in our view may be construed as an irregularity which could not have led any person interested to be misled as other options for gaining the information were available to any person interested based upon the information provided in the said notice itself by way of seeking the information on the website of SEIAA.
In view of the above, we find no merit in the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the Appellant and the same deserves to be rejected.
Learned counsel for the Appellant then sought to say that even some of the information provided by the Project Proponent in the project report and proposals was incorrect. It was submitted that distance from the nearest railway-station from the proposed plant was mentioned as Satna whereas in fact the nearest railway-station is not Satna but it is Kaima which is at a distance of 1 km.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8/Project Proponent stated that for the purposes of Captive Thermal Power Plant which was to come up at the location of the cement works of the Respondent No. 8, they had railway sliding at the Satna Railway Station and as such for all practical purposes the nearest railway station was considered to be Satna at a distance of 8 km and was mentioned as such in details of the project report.
Another objection that was raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant was that the distance of the nearest town was also incorrectly mentioned as 8 km. whereas in fact the residential area of Satna town extends to within 300 mtrs of the site.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 submitted that the distance measured was on the basis of the milestone on the National Highway No. 75 and since the distance of the town is taken from the point already determined and not from the outskirts, the Project Proponent has mentioned the aforesaid distance based upon the recorded distance.
Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 submitted that furnishing of the aforesaid information was not by way of any deliberate suppression or mis-statement of facts so as to prejudice the rights of any persons and in any event the Appellant did not even attend the Public Hearing despite issuing public notices and in case any such objection would have been raised with regard to the aforesaid point, it could have been clarified during the Public Hearing. It was further submitted by the Respondent No. 8 that the aforesaid contentions have been raised only by way of afterthought.
We have considered the aforesaid submission and satisfied that in the light of the explanation submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 with regard to the information regarding the nearest railway station based upon the railway sliding available for the project proponent for its cement works and also with regard to the distance from the nearest town, the same are bona fide not being deliberate mis-statement of facts so as to warrant interference.
In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find no merit in this case. This appeal is consequently stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.