Regional Officer Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors

P. R. Ramachandra Menon, CJ

This review petition has been filed by the Member Secretary of the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board. The error apparent on the face

of the record, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, is that as per the relevant provisions of law, the public hearing can be

conducted by the authorities mentioned therein, which need not be heard by the Member Secretary himself, due to various reasons, as explained in the

review petition.

Heard both the sides. On going through the proceedings, it appears that there is some discrepancy with regard to the competent authority to hear

the matter, which is clarified by Shri Abhyuday Singh, the learned counsel for the review petitioner in the similar Review Petition No.187 of 2019,

pointing out that the Rules been undergone change in the year 2009 and a copy of the amended Rules has been produced along with the said Review

Petition. We have gone through the same. Clause 4.0 of Annexure-A/2 Notification dated 14.09.2006 with the heading ""Supervision and Presiding

over the Hearing"" contains Clause 4.1, dealing with the authorities concerned. The said provision is extracted below :

4.0 Supervision and Presiding over the Hearing :

4.1. The District Magistrate/District Collector/Deputy Commissioner or his or her representative not below the rank of an Additional District

Magistrate assisted by a representative of SPCB or UTPCC, shall Supervise and preside over the entire public hearing process.

The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner in the present case, the learned counsel for writ petitioners as well as the Assistant Solicitor

General appearing for the Union of India and the learned Deputy Government Advocate representing the State concede the above position as to the

relevant Rules.

In the said circumstances, we hold that there is an 'error apparent on the face of record', as contained in the last paragraph of the order dated

20.06.2019 in WPPIL No. 43 of 2019, holding that the hearing on the objections shall be conducted by the 5th Respondent himself and not by the 6th

Respondent. This will stand corrected and modified to the effect that it shall be done by any of the competent authority as mentioned in Clause 4.1 of

the aforementioned Notification.

The review petition is disposed off accordingly.