Orissa high court lens on public hearing process for ammonium nitrate plant in Jharsuguda
Cuttack: Orissa high court on Friday issued notices to several state and central authorities over alleged lapses in conducting a public hearing for a proposed ammonium nitrate plant in Jharsuguda district.
The bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was hearing a petition filed by Biswanath Bhoi and six others from Lakhanpur area, where the plant is proposed to be set up. The project, envisioned as a high ash coal-based ammonium nitrate facility, aims for an annual production capacity of 6.6 lakh metric tonnes and would require roughly 350 acres of land.
Representing the petitioners, advocate Sankar Prasad Pani alleged that the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) failed to properly notify the affected gram panchayat before scheduling the public hearing.
OSPCB issued the notice for the hearing on Oct 10 and fixed the date for Nov 18, but did not ensure that the mandatory communication reached the local panchayat, which is a key requirement under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, Pani submitted.
Taking note of the allegations, Justice Panigrahi issued notices to OSPCB, Jharsuguda district collector, deputy director general of forests (regional office, Bhubaneswar) under the ministry of environment, forests and climate change, and managing director of the private company promoting the project. The respondents were directed to submit their responses by Monday, the next date of hearing.
Pani contended that the public hearing is a crucial step in the environmental clearance process conducted by the ministry. He pointed out that OSPCB’s own notice assigned responsibility to both the regional officer and the project proponent to publicise the hearing through direct panchayat intimation, newspaper advertisements and traditional drum beating. Despite this, the gram panchayat was not informed, he alleged.
Pani further contended that the EIA notification prescribes a minimum 30-day notice period to the concerned Kushraloi GP before any public hearing is held. Since the present hearing was scheduled without ensuring proper communication to the panchayat — the entire process was “bad in law”, he argued.
The bench of Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi was hearing a petition filed by Biswanath Bhoi and six others from Lakhanpur area, where the plant is proposed to be set up. The project, envisioned as a high ash coal-based ammonium nitrate facility, aims for an annual production capacity of 6.6 lakh metric tonnes and would require roughly 350 acres of land.
Representing the petitioners, advocate Sankar Prasad Pani alleged that the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) failed to properly notify the affected gram panchayat before scheduling the public hearing.
OSPCB issued the notice for the hearing on Oct 10 and fixed the date for Nov 18, but did not ensure that the mandatory communication reached the local panchayat, which is a key requirement under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification, Pani submitted.
Taking note of the allegations, Justice Panigrahi issued notices to OSPCB, Jharsuguda district collector, deputy director general of forests (regional office, Bhubaneswar) under the ministry of environment, forests and climate change, and managing director of the private company promoting the project. The respondents were directed to submit their responses by Monday, the next date of hearing.
Pani contended that the public hearing is a crucial step in the environmental clearance process conducted by the ministry. He pointed out that OSPCB’s own notice assigned responsibility to both the regional officer and the project proponent to publicise the hearing through direct panchayat intimation, newspaper advertisements and traditional drum beating. Despite this, the gram panchayat was not informed, he alleged.
Pani further contended that the EIA notification prescribes a minimum 30-day notice period to the concerned Kushraloi GP before any public hearing is held. Since the present hearing was scheduled without ensuring proper communication to the panchayat — the entire process was “bad in law”, he argued.
Next Story