1. The power to dispense with a public inquiry under Section 5-A by invoking the urgency provision under Section 17 is discretionary. The Government's opinion on urgency is a subjective satisfaction entitled to great weight unless based on non-application of mind, mala fides, or colourable exercise of power.
2. Mere delays in notifications or clearances do not vitiate the exercise of power under the urgency clause; in national projects, larger delay often accelerates urgency.
3. A declaration under Section 6 may be published after the notification under Section 4(1). What is mandatory is the publication of the Section 4(1) notification in the Gazette followed by a Section 6 declaration in a subsequent date in the Gazette.
4. Specifications in the Gazette notification regarding land details are vital to curing vagueness, and the declaration under Section 6 may suffice by referring to the plan available for inspection.
5. The non-availability of certain clearances, such as environmental clearance, while applications are pending and closers are awaited, does not render the project non-implementable or the acquisition proposal liable to be quashed.
6. The Rehabilitation Act, 1986, is applicable to the Jaitapur project. Fears of discrimination against project-affected persons are baseless if categorical statements by the State Government and NPCIL are true.
7. The Court draws an analogy with prior Supreme Court judgments upholding land acquisition for housing the poor, sewerage plants, IT parks, and industries. The Nuclear Power Project stands on the same or higher footing as it supplies power to millions of people and thus brooks no further delay.
