In its complaint, the Center for Sustainable Development (CFSD) said the meeting was held in gross violation of rules: “More than 2,000 people were present in the pandal set up by Mahagenco in the parking space of the plant. These people were brought in large numbers and asked to sit from 8 am, due to which seats were not available for others.
“Most of them had no idea why they were there. When we asked, some of them said they were there to show their support for local politicians. They are asked to clap whenever someone speaks in favor of the project and to hoot when someone speaks against it.
Terming the hearing as staged, the organization further alleged that the scenario created a sense of fear among the people. “The most disturbing thing was that the women were abused by the youths and were not allowed to speak. Fearing an attack, many people left the place. The crowd that was brought out to support the project was very aggressive and the narrative of the entire hearing focused more on job creation rather than the environment.
Another complaint filed by environmentalist Anasuya Kale Chhabrani said that people sitting or standing in the back were assured that a mike would be sent to them, but it never happened. “Some of us who tried to speak up to oppose the project were stopped and faced hate speech. Notice regarding hearing was not uploaded on the websites of Maharashtra pollution control board or Mahagenco,” said Chhabrani.
Highlighting more violations, the CFSD said the project proponent failed to submit the required documents, which demonstrated the required permissions. Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) for undertaking such a “harmful project”. “Environmental impact, especially on human life, needs thorough investigation and accountability. Further, nine subject matter experts (SMEs) mentioned in the Environment Impact Assessment Report (EIA) were not present,” the complaint said. .
stressed that the violations raise strong concerns about the project’s compliance legal requirements and undermines the integrity of the public hearing, the complainants have demanded that the hearing be declared void and re-conducted in a “secure environment” adhering to all norms.