The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5151 of 2025 Bantiraj Seth & Anr. …. Petitioners Represented By Sr. Adv. Ms. Pami Rath Along with Ms. Sagarika Sahoo, Adv. -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Represented By DSGI Mr. P. K. Parhi Along with Mr. S. K. Samantray, CGC Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. Aninda Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. Shanti Prakash Mohanty, Adv. (for O.P.6) Order No. 05. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI ORDER 21.03.2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition challenging the notice No.571 dated 08.01.2025 issued by the Page 1 of 7 // 2 // Opposite Party No.6/State Pollution Control Board, Odisha and the notice No.MCL/BA/PO/KOCP/2024- 25/275 dated 17.01.2025 issued by the Opposite Party No.3/Project Officer, Kulda OCP vide Annexures-1 and 2 respectively.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. Pami Rath submits that on 20.07.2024, the Petitioners came across a notice dated 21.06.2024, wherein the Collector, Sundargarh informed the State Pollution Control Board about the date, time, and venue for the public hearing regarding the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Kulda Opencast Coal Mining Project of MCL, which proposed an expansion from 634.205 hectares to 921.305 hectares. Further, the Petitioners discovered that through Notice No. 167 dated 04.07.2024, the Collector, Sundargarh had authorized the Additional District Magistrate, Sundargarh to supervise and preside over the public hearing, scheduled to take place on 02.08.2024 at MCL Stadium. 5. She further submits that the Opposite Parties failed to adhere to the procedural requirements under the Page 2 of 7 // 3 // Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 while conducting the public hearing. As a result, Petitioner No.1 approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.18034 of 2024, raising concerns that the EIA Report had not been circulated among the villagers and that the public hearing was scheduled at the MCL office, far from the affected villages, making participation difficult. Taking note of these grievances, this Court, by its order dated 31.07.2024, issued notice to the Opposite Parties and stayed the notices dated 21.06.2024 and 04.07.2024. Subsequently, by order dated 03.10.2024, the Court directed the Collector, Sundargarh, and other officials to reschedule the public hearing at Villages Tumulia and Sardega and to ensure hearings were also conducted at all locations where displaced persons had been resettled. Additionally, the Court directed that the EIA Report be properly circulated in the concerned Gram Panchayat offices. However, despite these clear directions, the Petitioners contend that neither they nor have the affected villagers been given a fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in the public hearing. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // 6. Learned counsel for the SPCB, Mr. Shanti Prakash Mohanty and learned Senior Counsel for the MCL, Mr. Atmaram Nadkarni have suggested that if the Petitioners have any grievances, they may submit written complaints, which will be collected by the District Administration on a specified date and subsequently forwarded to the Ministry of Environment for consideration. 7. Learned counsel for the SPCB and MCL have strongly refuted the allegation that the public hearing process deprived local residents of participation. However, recognizing that the affected people are key stakeholders and prospective land losers, they acknowledge that their concerns cannot be ignored and should be presented before the appropriate authority. 8. Public participation lies at the core of environmental decision-making. The Environment Impact Assessment framework is not a mere formality but an essential tool for ensuring that developmental projects are sustainable and socially just. It reflects the principles enshrined in Article 48A (protection of the environment) and Article 39(b) & (c) (distribution of material resources for the Page 4 of 7 // 5 // common good) of the Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP). 9. Economic development and industrial expansion are necessary objectives, but they cannot come at the cost of those who have the most to lose. Mining and large-scale projects alter landscapes, not just in their physical form but in the lives they uproot. Displacement does not merely take away a home or a livelihood; it severs the deep and often unspoken bonds between people and the land that has sustained them for generations. Environmental clearance, therefore, must be more than a bureaucratic hurdle. It is a safeguard which ensures that those at the margins are not rendered voiceless in decisions that affect their future. 10. Public hearings are intended as instruments of participatory democracy and good governance, yet too often they become hollow rituals, where decisions are foregone conclusions and dissenting voices struggle to find space. When those who bear the burden of development are unheard, the process loses both its legitimacy and its purpose. Industry and progress cannot be measured by profit margins alone; they must reckon Page 5 of 7 // 6 // with the land they alter, the people they displace, and the ecosystems they reshape. Environmental governance does not stand in opposition to growth; it ensures that development moves forward with responsibility, foresight, and a place for all in its vision. 11. Considering the facts and submissions, it is necessary to ensure that the affected villagers have a clear and accessible opportunity to raise their concerns before any decision on environmental clearance is made. The Collector, Sundargarh, shall depute a responsible officer to visit the affected villages between 2nd April 2025 and 4th April 2025 with prior intimation to the villagers and hold meetings at community centers or other easily accessible locations where villagers can submit their objections. Those unable to submit written objections shall be allowed to make oral representations, which shall be recorded and documented properly. The entire process shall be videographed, and a detailed report listing all objections without modification or omission shall be prepared. This report, along with the objections, shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change within seven days. The Ministry Page 6 of 7 // 7 // shall then review the objections and prepare a written response addressing each substantive concern of the villagers. This Court is also equally mindful of the fact that the industrial development is need of the hour and time is the essence in completion of any project. 12. No final recommendation on environmental clearance shall be made until these objections have been fully considered, and a reasoned order addressing them is placed on record.
Decision
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sumitra Judge (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUMITRA NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 24-Mar-2025 17:35:09 Page 7 of 7