Orissa High Court says public hearing notice for environmental projects need not be announced by ‘beat of drums’

The Orissa High Court said that there is no mode provided for pasting of the said notice in a conspicuous portion of the panchayat office or by “beat of drums”. (Image enhanced using AI)

Findings

• The court examined the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, particularly the notification dated September 14, 2006, issued by the union ministry of environment and forests.
• There is no mode provided for pasting of the said notice in a conspicuous portion of the panchayat office or by “beat of drums”.
• The mode of publication of the said notice should be advertised in a major national daily and one regional vernacular daily.
• Once the mode is provided in a document which has a statutory flavour, the authorities cannot transgress the same nor can act in violation.
• Once the statute provides a thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in such manner and not otherwise.
• The mode of publication is by publishing in a national daily and a regional vernacular daily.
• It appears from the documents that the same has in fact been done.
• The public hearing shall be done at a place in a close proximity of the people.
• A total of 71 persons participated in the public hearing and some of them raised objections.
• The majority supported the project, which is corroborated by the news published subsequently in the daily newspaper.
• In a democratic polity, the decision of the majority has to be accepted, even if there is a dissent by the minority.
• It would disturb the very fabric of a democracy in the event the minority dissenting with the majority view is being given supremacy over the majoritarian views.
• This PIL has inculcated such a sense in us and the petitioners do not appear to be trustworthy nor in reality espousing the cause of an economically impaired section of the society.
• We do not find any ground warranting interference in the instant writ petition.
• The writ petition is, thus, dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs.

Background

• The PIL sought cancellation of a public hearing held on May 28, 2025, at Dangadi Bhawan, Dangadi village alleging inadequate notice to the residents and improper venue.
• The notice for public hearing was duly published in a daily newspaper in the vernacular indicating the time, date and the place at which it is to be held.
• The outcome of the said public hearing was also widely published in the daily newspaper.
• The resolution in approving the project was agreed by the majority of the persons, who were present at the time of the public hearing.
• However, the petitioners later opposed the entire exercise on two counts.
• Firstly, the mode of publication of the notice is not appropriate as such notice was neither pasted in the panchayat office nor was communicated to the people by “beat of drum”.
• Secondly, the place of the public hearing should be at the project site and not at any other place.

Petitioners’ argument: No ‘beat of drums’, no valid notice

• Advocate Gopal Prasad Jena, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the residents of the village were not informed properly.
• Jena argued that traditional modes of communication, especially announcement by beat of drums, a common practice in rural areas were not adopted.
• The counsel argued that mere newspaper publication could not substitute for ground-level communication, particularly in villages with limited access to print media.
• He contended that the failure to use traditional modes wasted the entire public hearing process.
• The petitioners contended that the hearing violated principles of transparency as the notice was neither announced by beat of drums nor pasted in the panchayat office.
• They also said that the hearing should have been conducted strictly at the project site.

Decision

• Finding no legal infirmity in the conduct of the public hearing or in the mode of notice adopted, the high court dismissed the PIL with no order as to costs.