2012 (5) TMI 859 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Locus Standi of the Petitioner
3. Merits of the Environmental Clearance Process

Summary:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioner argued that since the environment clearance was granted in Delhi and the NEAA is also situated in Delhi, this Court has jurisdiction. The respondent No.3 contended that the principle of forum convenience should apply, suggesting that the High Court of Chhattisgarh is a more appropriate venue due to the location of the project and related proceedings. The Court, referencing the Full Bench decision in M/s Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., held that while it has jurisdiction, it can refuse to entertain the petition if another court is more convenient. However, the Court found no compelling reason to transfer the case, noting that the issues raised are purely legal and not specific to the local context of Chhattisgarh. The Court rejected the challenge to its territorial jurisdiction.

2. Locus Standi of the Petitioner:
The petitioner claimed that the environment clearance was granted without completing the public hearing process and based on a faulty Environment Impact Study. The NEAA had dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the petitioner had no locus standi. The Court referenced the Division Bench decision in Vedanta Alumina Ltd, which interpreted Sec. 11 of the NEAA Act, 1997, to allow a broad definition of "aggrieved person," including organizations closely following environmental issues. The Court agreed with this interpretation, concluding that the petitioner had the locus standi to appeal.

3. Merits of the Environmental Clearance Process:
The petitioner argued that the public hearing was adjourned and not completed, yet the environment clearance was granted. The respondent No.3 countered that the public hearing was completed and that multiple legal remedies were being pursued by the petitioner in different courts, which should not be permitted. The Court found that the NEAA's dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of locus standi was incorrect. The Court set aside the NEAA's order and remanded the appeal for a decision on merits, emphasizing that the petitioner qualifies as an "aggrieved person" under the NEAA Act.

Conclusion:
The Court held that it has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition, recognized the petitioner's locus standi, and remanded the appeal to the NEAA for a decision on merits. No order as to costs was made.