Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Dr. Gulabing Purohit vs Rajasthan State Pollution Control … on 19 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:13158-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1022/2025
Dr. Gulabing Purohit S/o Samarting Ji Purohit, Aged About 67
Years, R/o Purohit Vas, Suthar Seri, Pindwara District Sirohi,
Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Rajasthan State Pollution Control Board, Through Its
Member Secretary, Jhalana Industrial Area, Jhalana
Dungari, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Regional Officer, Rajasthan State Pollution Control
Board, Regional Office Plot No. 68 Shanti Nagar, Main
Highway Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector, Sirohi, Rajasthan.
4. Unit Head, M/s Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited
(Nathdwara Cement Limited (Nathdwara Cement Works)
Villages Thandiberi And Sabela Tehsil Pindwara, District
Sirohi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, AAG assisted by Mr.
Praveen Choudhary
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order (Oral)
19/03/2026
Per :- Arun Monga, J
1. Appeal is directed against an order dated 20.02.2024 of the
learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19276/2023,
whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant seeking quashing
of the notice dated 09.11.2023, vide which a public hearing was
scheduled for the proposed expansion of limestone production
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 08:37:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13158-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-1022/2025]
capacity from 1.065 Million TPA to 6.00 Million TPA, along with
related excavation and processing activities in the villages of
Thandiberi and Sabela, was dismissed.
2. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 mandates prior
environmental clearance for specified new, expansion, or
modernization projects and lays down the procedure for
conducting public hearings. Pursuant to the same, a notice dated
09.11.2023 was issued scheduling a public hearing on 15.12.2023
at 12:00 PM at the Truck Parking Yard of Ultratech Nathdwara
Cement Limited, Amli Road, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi. The
proposed hearing pertained to the expansion of limestone
production capacity from 1.065 Million TPA to 6.00 Million TPA,
along with related excavation and processing activities in villages
Thandiberi and Sabela.
2.1 On 12.12.2023, the appellant, along with elected
representatives and local villagers, submitted a representation to
the concerned authorities seeking postponement of the scheduled
public hearing and change of its venue. The representation stated
that the notified venue was located within the premises of
Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Limited. However, representation
was ignored.
2.2. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition which was
dismissed by learned Single Judge.
3. Hence, the instant appeal.
4. At the outset, the relevant portion of impugned order is
reproduced hereinunder:-
“11. The controversy involved in the present case is that when there
are more than two projects located in different locations but in close
proximity, can the public hearing be conducted at a common place? In
the present case, since both the projects are situated nearby to each(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 08:37:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13158-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-1022/2025]other and in close proximity to the place where public hearing had
taken place, the mandate of Notification dated 14.09.2006 had been
fulfilled. The distance between the boundaries of the two mines is
875.77 Mtrs. and the distance of Thandiberi Mines from the place of
public hearing is 4.99 kms. and the distance between place of public
hearing and Amli Mines is around 1.76 kms. The respondents keeping
in mind the suitable place i.e. at Truck Parking Yard, Ultra Tech
Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road, Tehsil Pindwara kept a common
place of public hearing for the two projects but at different timings.
The public hearing for the project Amli Lime Stone Mine was held at
11:00 am and the villagers of Amli and Malap have participated in the
public hearings. Whereas, for the project which is located at
Thandiberi Limestone Mine, the villagers from Thandiberi and Subela
have attended the public hearing which took place at 12:00 pm. It is
also the fact that the petitioner along with other villagers have
attended the public hearing which was held at Truck Parking Yard,
Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Ltd., Amli Road, Tehsil Pindwara.
Since the geographic location of the place of hearing was in close
proximity of both the places, therefore, the respondents thought it
proper to hold the meeting at Truck Yard but at different timings. The
action of the respondents in holding the public hearing at a common
place is not barred under the Notification dated 14.09.2006 or any
other law. In the opinion of this Court, the mandate under the heading
“Public Consultation” of the Notification dated 14.09.2006 is that a
public hearing shall take place at the site or “in its close proximity”
district wise so that the concerns of the local affected persons can be
taken into account.
12. Since there is nothing on record to show that the place where the
public hearing has taken place was not in the close proximity of the
two projects, in the opinion of this Court, the purpose of public
hearing for public consultation is duly achieved, even if it had been
held at a common place for two projects. The place where the public
hearing took place was admittedly in the close proximity of both the
projects and the villagers of Thandiberi and Subela participated in the
public hearing and more particularly when the petitioner also
attended/participated in the public hearing, he cannot agitate the
cause for a public hearing at different place.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, the intention of the
Legislature is to provide public hearing to the persons of the nearby
area in which the project is being set up/expended and the place of
hearing should be near the project area so that the persons who are
living in the close proximity can address their concerns, but, the
residents of the nearby area cannot insist upon for holding a public
hearing at a particular place. Since in the present case, the public
hearing was conducted in the close proximity of two projects at
different timings and the same was attended by the villagers/persons
of the two areas including the petitioner, therefore, the object, for
which the public hearing has been mandated, has been achieved in
this case.”
5. Having gone through the judgment impugned herein, we are
in respectful agreement with the views expressed by learned
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 08:37:52 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13158-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-1022/2025]
Single Judge and therefore, we find no grounds to interfere in the
instant appeal.
6. The purposive construction of the EIA Notification dated
14.09.2006, envisages that the requirement of public hearing is
not rigidly site-specific but conditioned by the expression “in its
close proximity” so long as meaningful public participation is
ensured. Where two projects are geographically contiguous,
separated by less than a kilometer, and the chosen venue lies
within a few kilometres of each, the decision to hold hearings at a
common, accessible location, satisfies both the letter and spirit of
the “Public Consultation” mandate.
7. Moreover, it is not even the case that there was no
participation by affected villagers from each project area, including
the petitioner himself. Having participated, there is no prejudice
or denial of opportunity caused to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.
9. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
93-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 24/03/2026 at 12:42:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 26/03/2026 at 08:37:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
