Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Laxmi Chouhan vs Union Of India on 4 February, 2022

Budhsen Rathour vs Union Of India on 15 September, 2022

7. First point to be considered is the validity of exemption from public hearing for expansion of the project, as permissible as per OM dated 15.09.2017. Similar issue was considered vide order dated 25.08.2020 in Appeal no. 78/2018, Laxmi Chuhan vs. Union of India & Ors. It was held that public hearing had been earlier conducted, hence there was no prejudice by exemption from public hearing. Public of the area was benefitted by expansion of the project. Exempting public hearing in terms of OM dated 15.9.2017 could not be held to be illegal nor against EIA notification dated 14.9.2006. In the present case, we have already noted the basis for exemption in terms of 36th and 41st Meetings on 31.08.2018 and 13-14.12.2018 of the EAC and conditions subject to which EC for expansion was granted. In absence of any prejudice to the environment or interest of the inhabitants, exemption from public hearing per se cannot be held illegal. However, whether prejudice has been caused or not needs to be looked into.
National Green Tribunal Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Budhsen Rathour vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2022

9. First point to be considered is the validity of exemption from public hearing for expansion of the project, as permissible as per OM dated 15.09.2017. Similar issue was considered vide order dated 25.08.2020 in Appeal no. 78/2018, Laxmi Chuhan vs. Union of India & Ors. It was held that since public hearing had been earlier conducted, there was no prejudice by exemption from public hearing, public of the area was benefitted by expansion of the project, exempting public hearing in terms of OM dated 15.9.2017 could not be held to be illegal nor against EIA 8 notification dated 14.9.2006. In the present case, we have already noted the basis for exemption in terms of 36th and 41st Meetings on 31.08.2018 and 13-14.12.2018 of the EAC and conditions subject to which EC for expansion was granted. In absence of any prejudice to the environment or interest of the inhabitants, exemption from public hearing per se cannot be held illegal. However, whether prejudice has been caused or not needs to be looked into.
National Green Tribunal Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document

Rajeev Suri vs Union Of India on 18 October, 2022

.... First point to be considered is the validity of exemption from public hearing for expansion of the project, as permissible as per OM dated 15.09.2017. Similar issue was considered vide order dated 25.08.2020 in Appeal no. 78/2018, Laxmi Chuhan vs. Union of India & Ors. It was held that since public hearing had been earlier conducted, there was no prejudice by exemption from public hearing, public of the area was benefitted by expansion of the project, exempting public hearing in terms of OM dated 15.9.2017 could not be held to be illegal nor against EIA notification dated 14.9.2006. In the present case, we have already noted the basis for exemption in terms of 36th and 41st Meetings on 31.08.2018 and 13-14.12.2018 of the EAC and conditions subject to which EC for expansion was granted. In absence of any prejudice to the environment or interest of the inhabitants, exemption from public hearing per se cannot be held illegal. However, whether prejudice has been caused or not needs to be looked into.
National Green Tribunal Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - A K Goel - Full Document
1