<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>HC junks PILs opposing nod for capacity expansion at Surjagarh iron ore mines in Gadchiroli</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=47184</link>
    <description>The petition challenged Environmental Clearance and subsequent Terms of Reference for a mining capacity expansion, alleging non compliance with the EIA notification and that the public hearing was improperly located away from the project site. The court found that the public hearing was held at the district headquarters on police recommendation due to security concerns in a Naxal affected area, that local residents had an opportunity to be heard, that the ToR based procedure and applicable SOP were followed, and that the petitioner had not participated in earlier hearings or questioned the initial clearance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:16:03 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:16:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830571" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>HC junks PILs opposing nod for capacity expansion at Surjagarh iron ore mines in Gadchiroli</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=47184</link>
      <description>The petition challenged Environmental Clearance and subsequent Terms of Reference for a mining capacity expansion, alleging non compliance with the EIA notification and that the public hearing was improperly located away from the project site. The court found that the public hearing was held at the district headquarters on police recommendation due to security concerns in a Naxal affected area, that local residents had an opportunity to be heard, that the ToR based procedure and applicable SOP were followed, and that the petitioner had not participated in earlier hearings or questioned the initial clearance.</description>
      <category>News</category>
      <law>-</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 19:16:03 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/news?id=47184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>