Prafulla Kumar Nayak Vs Union of India

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.22536 of 2024

¶3

Prafulla Kumar Nayak & …. Petitioner(s) Ors.

¶4

Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Adv. along with associates

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. Union of India & Ors. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Dhananjaya Mund, AGA Mr. Gyanaranjan Mohapatra, ASC Mr. Pratap Chandra Mohapatra, Adv. for intervenor

¶7

Mr. Gautam Mishra, Sr. Adv. along with associates for intervenor Mr. Sushanta Mishra, Adv. for O.Ps.4 & 5

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

¶10

ORDER Order 11.09.2024 No.

¶11

¶12

1 . This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.

¶13

2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioners apprehending to lose their land, have challenged the letter dated 02.08.2024/Annexure-3 and the notice dated 08.08.2024/Annexure-4 issued by the Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 respectively.

¶14

By the said letter and notice a public hearing for the Signature Not Verified purpose of development of an all-weather multiuser Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal AssistantReason: Authentication Greenfield Port at Astaranga is scheduled to be held on Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2024 18:04:42 13.09.2024.

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that due to development of the said all-weather multiuser Greenfield Port at Astaranga, the Petitioners being the inhabitants of the Astarang Panchayat Samiti, are going to be affected. The Petitioners have been maintaining their livelihood by cultivating over the land which is in the vicinity of the proposed project.

¶17

4. He further submits that though the Petitioners are going to lose their livelihood because of the development of the said port, the public hearing at the instance of the State Pollution Control Board and the District Administration for the said project is scheduled to be held at different place which is at a distance of almost 9 to 14 kilometers from the Gram Panchayats of the Petitioners. He also contends that the said public hearing should be held at a nearer place, so that the inhabitants of the local villages can ventilate their grievances effectively and there shall be more inclusive voice. He, accordingly, prays for setting aside of the letter dated 02.08.2024 and notice dated 08.08.2024.

¶18

5. At this juncture, this Court feels it apposite to cite the

¶19

“notice of public hearing”:-

¶20

Signature Not Verified

¶21

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2024 18:04:42

¶22

“3.0 Notice of Public Hearing: 3.1 The Member-Secretary of the concerned SPCB or UTPCC shall finalize the date time and exact venue for the conduct of public hearing within 7 (seven) days of the date of receipt of the draft

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

Environmental Impact Assessment report from the project proponent, and advertise the same in one major national Daily and one Regional vernacular Daily / Official State Language. A minimum notice period of 30(thirty) days shall be provided to the public for furnishing their responses;

¶25

xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx
xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx
xxx	xxx	xxx	xxx

¶26

4.0 Supervision and Presiding over the Hearing:

¶27

4.1 The District Magistrate/District collector /Deputy Commissioner or his or her representative not below the rank of an Additional District Magistrate assisted by a representative of SPCB or UTPCC, shall Supervise and preside over the entire public hearing process.”

¶28

6. Considering the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners and looking to the factual scenario of the case, this Court finds that the Petitioners are in apprehension of losing their land and want their grievances to be heard properly.

¶29

7. Be that as it may, this Court directs that the venue fixed for the purpose of public hearing by the letter dated 02.08.2024 and notice dated 08.08.2024 need not be changed. The inhabitants of the locality as well as the persons going to be affected should attend the said public hearing.

¶30

8. However, the Collector & District Magistrate, Puri in coordination with the concerned authority of the Sate Signature Not VerifiedPollution Control Board, Odisha shall fix two or three Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENADesignation: Personal Assistant venues for conducting public hearing for the above Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2024 18:04:42 purpose, so that the voice of the local villagers, who are going to be affected, can be heard properly. The said

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

exercise shall also be completed within the time prescribed in the notice dated 08.08.2024.

¶33

9. This Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶34

(Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge

¶35

Ayaskanta

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Sep-2024 18:04:42

¶38

Page 4 of 4

Prafulla Kumar Nayak v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prafulla Kumar Nayak v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chunu @ Nutan Mohapatra Vs State of Odisha

Chandra Charu Meher Vs Sanjukta Sahu and Ors.

Madhusudan Rout Vs Md,O.F.D.C and Ors.

Managing Committee of Durgapur Vidyapitha, Mayurbhanj Vs State of Odisha

Jitendra Mahakul Vs the B.M., Chola Mandalmam, M.S. General Insurance Company, Bbsr

Rajendra Kumar Alias Raju Sahu Vs Collector,Mayurbhanj