Cuttack: Orissa high court recently dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging a public hearing held for a proposed greenfield coal tar processing unit on May 28, 2025, at Dangadi Bhawan, Dangadi in Jajpur district, ruling that the statutory procedure for notice and conduct of the hearing was duly followed.The PIL, filed by eight petitioners, sought quashing of the public hearing on the grounds that villagers were not properly informed and that the hearing was not held at the project location. They argued that the notice should have been pasted at the panchayat office and publicised through beat of drums.A division bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice M S Raman examined the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated Sept 14, 2006, issued under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, which governs the procedure for public hearing and held that the notification clearly prescribes the mode of publication, leaving no scope for additional requirements such as pasting notices in panchayat offices or announcement by beat of drums.Accordingly, the bench on Jan 22 refused to interfere with the process, holding that the petitioners failed to show any legal infirmity warranting cancellation of the hearing or a direction for a fresh one at the project site.“It is no longer res integra (an untouched thing) that once the statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in such manner and not otherwise,” the bench observed, adding that authorities cannot go beyond or deviate from a statutorily prescribed method.On the venue of the hearing, the court noted that the law only requires the hearing to be held at a place in close proximity to the affected people. It recorded that 71 persons participated, objections were raised and the majority supported the project, a fact also reflected in subsequent newspaper reports.“In a democratic polity, the decision of the majority has to be accepted,” the bench said, cautioning that giving primacy to minority dissent would “disturb the very fabric of a democracy”.The court also questioned the bona fides of the petitioners, observing that they did not appear to be genuinely espousing the cause of economically weaker sections.
