DAHANU TALUKA ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION GROUP BOMBAY ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION GROUP Vs. BOMBAY SUBURBAN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD:STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners, who are "Environment Protection Groups" objected to the clearance, by the State of Maharashtra and the Union of India, of a proposal of the Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as "BSES") for the construction of a thermal power plant over an area of 800 hectares or thereabouts in Dahanu, Maharashtra. They filed writ petitions in the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of the Central Government to that effect dated March 29, 1989. After some hearing the Bombay High Court passed an order dated 30-3-1990 adjourning the hearing to enable the Government of India to consider the representations made by the two petitioners. Government of India did this and reaffirmed its decision to clear the project. A detailed affidavit was filed on behalf of the Union on 29-6-1990. To this was enclosed a memorandum dealing in seriatim with the various objections raised by the petitioners and setting out the Governments findings thereon. After considering the same and hearing the counsel at length, the High Court, by a detailed order, dismissed the writ petitions by its order dated 12-12-1990. The objectors have thereupon filed these two petitions for leave to appeal before us.

(2.) The limitations, or more appropriately, the self-imposed restrictions of a Court in considering such an issue as this have been set out by the Court in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra vs. State of U. P. (1987) 1 SCR 637) and Sachidanand Pandey vs. State of West Bengal, (1987) 2 SCC 295). The observations in those decisions need not be reiterated here. It is sufficient to observe that it is primarily for the Governments concerned to consider the importance of public projects for the betterment of the conditions of living of the people on the one hand and the necessity for preservation of social and ecological balances, avoidance of deforestation and maintenance of purity of the atmosphere and water free from pollution on the other in the light of various factual, technical and other aspects that may be brought to its notice by various bodies of laymen, experts and public workers and strike a just balance between these two conflicting objectives. The Courts role is restricted to examine whether the Government has taken into account all relevant aspects and has neither ignored or overlooked any material considerations nor been influenced by extraneous or immaterial considerations in arriving at its final decision.

(3.) Having regard to the fact that the High Court, after giving a fresh opportunity to the objectors to have their objections considered, has gone into the matter in depth and found nothing wrong with the decision of the Government, the scope for any interference by this Court under Article 136 is indeed very narrow. However, as the project involved is a very vital one for the citizens of Bombay and its suburbs and the petitioners claim that the decision of the Governments was arrived at in disregard of certain guidelines prescribed and the recommendations of an expert committee set up by the Union Government itself, we have looked into the matter in detail. Sri Atul Setalvad, Sri Gopal Subramaniam and Sri G. S. Patel who appeared for the objectors and Sri Ashok Desai who appeared for respondents have taken us through considerable portions of the several paper books filed by them. We have also heard the Standing Counsel for the State. We have come to the conclusion that there are no grounds to grant leave to appeal from the order passed by the High Court. We shall briefly deal with the contentions urged before us :