HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR jDtVISJON_BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRl RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HOiSi'BLE SHRSSUNiL KUMAR SiNHA, J. Writ Petition (PiU No. 2432 of 2010 Pefitioner Govind Singh Netl S/o Shri Sunder Sai, aged about 57 years, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Gorni, P.S. and Tehsjl 1 arTiHSi SHG h rSSiCISHt OT s>srpsnCii !ar BlocK. R/o Viilage Gorhi; Tshsii TSITEHSF, Distrlct RatQafh fC.G.) State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur /" '"* \ ^.U.J The Union of tndia, through the Secrefar/, 1'vlinistry of En'v'ironmenS and :orest, Government of India, New Deeihl. The Secretary, Commerce industries, Government Chhattisaarh, Mantraiay at D.K.S. of iha; F- /<nt f. \ lipur ^.^3.^ 4 Chhattisgarh State Envlronment and PoSSution ControS Board, Chhattlsgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 5 Chhattisgarh Mineral DeveSopment Corporation Llmited (C.M.D.C.) Gaare Pelma, Sector 1 Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) The Sub Divisional Officer, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) 7 The Regional Officer, Chha Pary'avaran iaigarh (C.G.) Sanrakshan •"»?• 8 Tehsiidar, Tamnar, District Raiaarh. 9 The District Environment Officer. Ralgarh (C.G.) 10 Zlla Vyapar Udyog Kendra, Rsigarh. 11 The Executive Director, Jindal Llmlted, Tamnar (C.G.) District Raigsisrh, i-'resent Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India Shri Shallendra DuDev, counsei ror tne petrtioner. Shrl Klshore Bhaduri, Additional AdvocaSe GeneraS for the State/ respondents No. 1,3,5, 6, 8& 1 0. Shri Krishnan Venugopal, Senlor Counse! with Shri Saniay K. Aarswal and Shri Anil Dutt, counse! for respondent No.11. ORDER rth The foliowina order of the Court was passed Rajeev Gupta. C.J. Learned counsel forthe paraes are heard on admission. 2. Petitloner Govind Sinah Neti claiming himself to be Sarpanch of Gram Panchavat Gorhi and President of Sarpanch Union, Tamnar Block, District Raigarh, has filed this writ petition styled as 'Pub!ic interest Litigation' forthe following reltefs: "1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the resDondent no.7 to produce the entire record leadina to issuance of the Impugned Pubiic Hearing notice dsted 5.4.2010 for kind perusai ofthis Hon'bie Court; 2. That Shis Hon'ble Court may kindiy be pleased to quash the impugned public hearing notice dated 5.4.2010 Annexure P-1 issued by the respondent no.7; 3. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondents authorities to not to accord permission to the respondent no.1 1 for expansion of 4x600 MW Power PSant at Tamnar; 4. Any other reiief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may kindly be pleased to pass in favour of the petitioner: Cost of the petition;" 3. From the above quoted retiefs, it is apparent that the petitioner's main grievance is against the public hearing scheduled to take place on 08-05-201 O as per Annexure P-1 . The petitioner aiso appears to be aggrieved of the likely grant of permission to respondent No.11 for expansion of 4x600 MW Povi/er Piant at 4. From a bare perusal of Annexure P-1 it becomes apparent that the pubiic hearing on 08-05-2010 is mainly convened for givin! an opportunity to one and all to raise their objections, if any, in regard to the expansion project of respondent No.11. How the petitioner can have any legitimate grievance about public hearing in the matter as he himseif wil! get an opportun'ty in the pubiie hearing on 08.05.201 O to raise all the objections about the expansion project of respondent No.11. In this yiew of the matter, v/e dectine to entertaln the writ petitton fiied bythe petltioner as 'Pubiic Interest Litiaation'. 7. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and is hereby dismissed summarily with the iiberty to the petltioner to file another writ petition if the future developments so warrant. 8. The security amount of Rs.5,000/- deposited by the petitioner be refunded to the petitioner immediatelv. subbu Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge