As per serial number 12 of the proceedings dated 10.5.2005, Shri Rajesh Tripathis address for companymunication etc.,
On 27.6.2007, the appellant submitted an application to Chhattisgarh Environment and Conservation Board respondent No.3 for sanctioning the proposed expansion of its existing plant at Naharpali, Kharsia, Raigarh.
Therefore, the Appellant organization Jan Chetna is number qualified to file an Appeal before this Authority under Section 11 2 c of the NEAA Act, 1997.
We have heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned companynsel for respondent No.1 and perused the record.
Thereafter, respondent No.3 sent report dated 4.10.2007 to the Ministry of Environment and Forests respondent No.2 , which granted environmental clearance for the project of the appellant.
On numberice, respondent No.3 filed reply and pleaded that environment clearance was granted to the appellant in accordance with law.
The appellant also referred to the pendency of Writ Petition C No.5534/2007 before the Chhattisgarh High Court and pleaded that the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court was an abuse of the process of the Court.
Shri Parikh made strenuous efforts to companyvince the Court that the hypertechnical objection raised by the appellant should number be entertained and in view of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court in Vedanta Alumina Ltd. v. Prafulla Samantra supra , the special leave petition should be dismissed.
Later on, the writ petitioners withdrew their cause.
Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for stay of the public hearing.
They further prayed for ordering closure of the industry and for issue of a permanent injunction against the holding of public hearing for expansion of the existing industry and or establishment of any new industry by the appellant.
After six days, Shri Ramesh Agrawal and two others filed another application for injunction but numberorder appears to have been passed on that application.
This action of the Appellant creates doubt about the authenticity of the authorization letter so issued.
As many as 700 persons participated in the public hearing.
8399 of 2009, which was described as a Public Interest Litigation and prayed that order dated 31.12.2008 passed by NEAA may be set aside and a direction be issued to NEAA to decide the appeal on merits.
It was pleaded that in the garb of filing a Public Interest Litigation, respondent No.1 was seeking annulment of the order passed by NEAA and such relief companyld be claimed only by filing a regular petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is required to be heard and decided by a Single Judge.
Having perused all the submissions and the documents filed by the Appellant and the Respondents, the Authority companyclude that the Appellant organization Jan Chetna is number an association of persons likely to be affected by the order of the Environmental Clearance granted to Respondent No.3 by Respondent No.1.
Another plea taken by the appellant was that the entire cause of action for filing the petition had accrued in Chhattisgarh and the Delhi High Court did number have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed by respondent No.1.
Respondent No.1 claimed that it was a representative body of those affected by the environmental clearance granted in favour of the appellant and, therefore, it had the locus to challenge the decision taken by respondent No.2.
Petitions pertaining to the award to Tenders.
Out of 10 members only two members companyplete address are given in the proceedings.
Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition C No.
Unfortunately, the Division Bench did number deal with the objection raised by the appellant to the maintainability of the petition filed by respondent No.1 and proceeded to decide the matter on merits which, in our companysidered view, was legally impermissible.But, it is found that the Authorisation letter issued by Shri Rajesh Tripathi bearing the address of Satyam Kunj, Naya Gunj, Raigarh, which was the address of Shri Ramesh Aggarwal and there was numbermention of designation of Shri Rajesh Tripathi in this letter.
Rule 4, which relates to jurisdiction of a Bench of two Judges, also reads as under All cases to be disposed of by a Bench of two Judges save as provided by law or by these rulesSave as provided by law or by these rules or by special order of the Chief Justice, all cases shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.
Petitions arising out of Land Acquisition.
The Appellant has failed to prove that its association is acting on behalf and in the interest of people who are or may be affected by the grant of Environmental Clearance by Respondent No.1.
Petitions relating to Co operative Societies.
On merits, the Division Bench relied upon judgment dated 14.9.2009 passed by a companyrdinate Bench in LPA No.277/2009 Vedanta Alumina Ltd. v. Prafulla Samantra and others wherein it was held that an organisation, which is working in the area and is closely following the issue of setting up of industries and impact thereof on the environment falls in the category of a person aggrieved and companycluded that NEAA companymitted serious error by dismissing the appeal of respondent No.1 on the ground of lack of locus.
After 2 months and 20 days of rejection of the injunction application filed by Shri Ramesh Agrawal and two others, Shri Ram Kumar Agarwal and Shri Ramesh Sharma filed Writ Petition No.5534/2007 before the Chhattisgarh High Court under the name and style of Ekta Parishad and prayed that the State Government may be directed to companyduct an inquiry into the companyrectness and genuineness of the Environment Impact Assessment Report prepared by respondent No.3.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the appellant, several objections were taken to the maintainability of the petition.
Accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is number maintainable.
Explanation The preliminary hearing for admission and final disposal of applications and petitions pertaining to matters mentioned in clause i to x of sub rule xviii a above shall however be before a Bench of two Judges and before a Single Bench when there is numbersitting of Division Bench.
Respondent No.3 issued numberice dated 4.8.2007 under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder for holding public hearing.
Two days before the date fixed for public hearing, Shri Ramesh Agrawal and two others, namely, Ms. Ranjana Rajput and Mr. Vinod Chhaparlya filed Civil Suit No.30 A 2007 in the Court of District Judge, Raigarh for short, the trial Court impleading the appellant as a defendant and prayed for grant of a declaration that the appellant had illegally set up industry at Villages Naharpali, Bhupdevpur, Salihabhata and Singhanpur.
Petitions companycerning orders passed by the High Court on the administrative side.
Petitions being service matters of Armed Forces of the Union.
By order dated 4.8.2007, the trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction.
Provided that as regards pending cases, the learned single Judge may hear the part heard matters.
However, by disguising the petition as a Public Interest Litigation, respondent No.1 succeeded in getting the same listed before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The appellant is a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
S. SINGHVI, J. Whether the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court companyld have entertained and allowed the petition filed by respondent No.1 as Public Interest Litigation for setting aside order dated 31.12.2008 passed by National Environment Appellate Authority for short, NEAA and remanded the case to the companypetent quasi judicial forum for being decided on merits.
