Calcutta High Court seeks response from Bengal government over Deocha Pachami coal project

A division bench of the Calcutta High Court has sought a response from the State Government and the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited (WBPDCL) regarding the Deocha Pachami Dewanganj Harisingha (DPDH) coal mining project on Thursday (April 24, 2025).
Hearing a petition by economist and activist Prasenjit Bose, the division bench of Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam and Justice Chaitali Chatterjee directed respondents, including the Government of West Bengal and the WBPDCL, to file affidavits within three weeks, and a reply, if any, within a week thereafter.
WBPDCL, the executing agency, is currently in the process of excavating the 80 metres to 250 metres thick basalt layer over the DPDH coal block in West Bengal's Birbhum. Following West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee's announcement at the Bengal Global Business Summit, basalt mining work started at the DPDH coal block on February 6 this year, amidst resistance from local villagers.
In his petition, petitioner Mr Bose alleged that the respondents, including the West Bengal government and the WBPDCL, have 'reneged on their legal and contractual obligations' and have 'pursued a confounding trajectory of basalt mining in an area allotted for a coal block.'
'A government notification concerning the coal project issued in November 2021 describes the entire project in a certain manner. After the Chief Minister's announcement in February this year, officials connected to this project have made several statements about the project plan in the media, which do not tally with the initial notification,' Mr. Bose told The Hindu.
He added that no official notification has been issued as on date, either for the local population at DPDH or the public at large, specifying the current nature of the mining activities or the environmental and other official clearances obtained.
'There is no information on this coal mining project in the public domain. The people are completely in the dark over what is happening at the DPDH area. There has been no public hearing with the residents whose lands are being acquired for this project. While many have agreed to sell their land in exchange for compensation and jobs, a large section of people have not consented,' Mr. Bose said.
'The question is why a power development corporation is undertaking the work to mine basalt after entering into agreements with the Central government on account of the coal deposits. Basalt mining is a separate project, and that work should be in concurrence with the prior agreement,' he added.
During the hearing, Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam cited a past judgment in the Madras High Court in connection with the Salem Highway Project. 'There are a couple of decisions which say whether post-facto environment clearance can be granted or if it should be prior,' he observed during the hearing on Thursday (April 24, 2025).

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Standard

2 hours ago

• Business Standard

MGNREGA verdict in, but tug of war between Centre, state lingers in Bengal

In a landmark judgment last week, the Calcutta High Court directed the Centre to resume the implementation of the stalled MGNREGA in West Bengal from August 1 Ishita Ayan Dutt Sanjeeb Mukherjee New Delhi Listen to This Article Even as both the TMC and the BJP claim 'victory' after the Calcutta HC's order on resumption of MGNREGA in the state, political fault lines are likely to widen before Assembly polls next year, explain Ishita Ayan Dutta & Sanjeeb Mukherjee In a landmark judgment last week, the Calcutta High Court directed the Centre to resume the implementation of the stalled Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) in West Bengal from August 1, prospectively. The Centre had put on hold the release of funds under the scheme since March 9, 2022, in accordance with the provisions under section 27

Indian Express

9 hours ago

• Indian Express

In landmark order, Calcutta HC says transgender ID can be submitted while applying for passport; ‘big victory' says petitioner

Following an order by the Calcutta High Court after a battle lasting over a year, Anuprabha Das Majumdar, a transgender woman, can now apply for a passport with her transgender identity card. Directing the passport authority to consider the transgender identity card of Majumdar, Justice Amrita Sinha said on Wednesday, 'Transgender identity card of the petitioner shall be taken into consideration at the time of consideration of petitioner's passport application.' The ruling came after Majumdar filed a writ petition after the passport office denied her application for a passport even though she had a transgender identity card. Majumdar had applied for a passport in 2023 after getting her transgender identity card in February 2022. The Calcutta High Court's ruling effectively mandates the Regional Passport Office to recognise the transgender identity card as a valid document when processing Majumdar's fresh application, marking a significant acknowledgment of transgender individuals' rights under the 2019 Act. Speaking to The Indian Express, Majumdar's counsel Suman Ganguly said, 'As per my knowledge, this is a first case regarding the issuance of a passport on the basis of a transgender identity card. So this particular judgment will act as a precedent for the community in the future. They are being deprived of a lot of basic rights. The fight will go on, but this judgment will open a lot of doors.' Speaking to The Indian Express, Majumdar said, 'I had also faced the same issue while trying to obtain an Aadhaar card. They did not accept the transgender card but I contacted the authority under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019. After discussions, they (Aadhaar authority) took some time but they changed it.' 'Slowly, I changed everything, from my Aadhaar card to voter's card to PAN card. The passport authority said it is a major change so I have to go through the old process of gazette notification and all. They said they have not received any notification regarding the transgender ID card. We tried to contact the regional officer, sent emails, notices, etc. As a transgender person we only have this as the proof. After not getting a positive response, we moved the high court,' Majumdar added. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act 2019, enacted by the Indian government in December 2019 and with rules notified in September 2020, is a landmark legislation aimed at protecting transgender individuals' rights. It mandates equal treatment in areas such as education, employment, and access to public services, including the right to self-perceived gender identity. The Act also requires authorities to issue transgender identity cards, which serve as official recognition of an individual's gender identity. However, as Majumdar's case illustrates, implementation at the ground level has been inconsistent, often leaving transgender individuals struggling to access basic rights. During the hearings, Justice Sinha had expressed surprise at the passport authority for not knowing whether Majumdar had applied for a passport in 2023. 'The application was made in 2023. How can your authority say that she has not applied? That means they did not check it properly. How could the authority not have the knowledge of the application being made? These are online applications; they must be knowing it,' Justice Sinha had observed. Majumdar's counsel had also submitted a supplementary affidavit stating that she had applied for a passport, thus the counsel for the passport department sought time to take instructions. On Wednesday, the counsel for the passport office informed the court that the application had elapsed and if she reapplied, it will be considered. The transgender certificate and ID card are nationally recognised and provided by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Following this, the court ordered Majumdar to reapply for the passport. Majumdar told The Indian Expess, 'I am feeling very positive after the judgment. What all happened two years ago was very disturbing. As an Indian citizen, these are basic documents. This is a big victory for all transgender people. We face hurdles because of low awareness in society, but this is a law and any form of discrimination is a crime.' She said the fight will go on so that future generations do not have to face such hurdles. She has been invited for a senimar in the UK in July by an organisation that works for the legal rights of women. 'I will be applying for my passport via Tatkal once again and then a visa so that I can go for the seminar,' Majumdar said.

Time of India

2 days ago

• Time of India

Speak freely

Why all courts must protect your right to speak your mind In India, the Constitution says you have the right to speak freely – as long as you don't break certain fair rules (like spreading hate or lies). But this right only really works if all courts across the country protect it. Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) – the top court in India – stood up strongly for free speech. In the case of a film called Thug Life by Kamal Haasan, someone said their feelings were hurt and wanted the film blocked in Karnataka. But the SC said no – just because someone is offended doesn't mean another person should lose their right to express themselves. If hurt feelings were enough, then free speech would always be in danger. This isn't the first time. Just a few months ago, in a case about poet Imran Pratapgarhi, the SC said that even if lots of people dislike your opinion, you still have the right to share it. But not all courts agree. Recently, the Calcutta High Court told a young person, 'You can't hurt others just because you have free speech.' And the Karnataka High Court told Haasan something similar. Lower courts also sometimes say things that go against what the SC has already made very clear. This creates confusion and makes people afraid to speak their minds, because they don't know if a local court might punish them, even if the SC would support them. In a strong democracy, free speech matters. And if it's a right promised by the Constitution, every court – not just the top one – needs to protect it. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.