AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as respondents particularly Mr.Syed Nurullah Sheriff, learned counsel appearing for the MoEF & CC.
The prayer in the application is for granting permanent injunction restraining the 8th respondent from setting up of the proposed API manufacturing unit at Plot No.332/10, 322/6B, 322/9 at Kaverirajapuram Village, Thiruthani Taluk, Thiruvallur District, Tamil Nadu.
The learned counsel appearing for the MoEF viz., Regulatory Authority would submit that in respect of the project proposal for granting EC to the 8th respondent, based on the Form I proposal, the Regulatory Authority has issued TOR on 31.08.2015 and thereafter further proceedings are under process. Learned counsel appearing for the MoEF & CC further submits that the application itself is premature and therefore the Tribunal cannot interfere at this stage.
The learned Senior Counsel Mr.Ilango appearing for the applicant, would vehemently oppose this that on the face of it, the particulars given by the project proponent in Form I are misleading and there is every possibility for the Regulatory Authority to take the misled statement as correct and therefore a direction must be given to MoEF & CC to find out the correctness of the statement.
When a project proponent makes an application in Form I, it is for the regulatory authority to decide on merit and in accordance with law and as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006. One cannot presume that the MoEF & CC will close its eyes when a false statement or suppression of facts is made in Form I. In any event, the Tribunal at this stage cannot interfere and issue directions to the Regulatory Authority. However, as per the provisions made under EIA Notification, 2006 public hearing and obtaining responses from public in writing, form part of 'Public Consultation'. Therefore, if any representations are made by the applicant, the Regulatory Authority shall consider the same on merit and decide in accordance with law.
Except observing the above, we are of the view that the application at this stage is premature and stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.