7/30/2019 PHQ_IL&FS

1/6

Page 1 of 6

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR APPRAISAL OF PUBLIC HEARINGS

Name of the person attending the Public Hearing: S.Ramanathan, T.Arulselvam Name and location of the Project: IL&FS Tamilnadu power company limited , Kothatai,

Ariayakosti, Villianallur, Selimbimangalam Villages,Parighipattai(port novo) block , cuddalore

district,

Please provide a brief description of the Project:Proposed to produce a 3600 mw coal based thermal power plant

Date and location of Public Hearing: 05-02-2010 , Pudhukuppam village (project proposedsite)

Whether the Public Hearing was video-recorded by you? NOIf yes, please send a copy of the video-recording or upload it on the Internet

Date ___________

7/30/2019 PHQ_IL&FS

2/6

Page 2 of 6

1. Pre - Public Hearing Checklist

1.1 Content of Advertisement1.1.1 Does the Advertisement contain the following information?

1. Date and time of Public Hearing YES

2. Venue of Public Hearing YES

3. Names of places/offices where the public can access the draft EIA report and the SummaryEIA Report before the Public Hearing YES

1.2 Publication in Newspaper1.2.1 What is the date of publication of the Advertisement in Newspaper/s? : 05-01-20101.2.2 Has the notice for the Public Hearing been issued at least 30 days in advance of the hearing?

YES

1.2.3 Details of Newspapers in which the advertisement has been published-

SL.NO.

NAME OFNEWSPAPER

LANGUAGE PAGE NO. ONWHICH THE

ADVERTISEMENTAPPEARED

POPULARITY/READERSHIP OF THE

NEWSPAPER*

1 Indian Express English -------------- large

2 Thina tandi Tamil ------------- Large

* The popularity/readership can be rated on the basis of interviews with local persons, local news agencies, or availablestatistics. You may rate it on the scale of poor, average, reasonable, high, most popular

1.2.4 Size and Visibility of the Advertisement in the Newspapers SL.NO.

NAME OF NEWSPAPER SIZE VISIBILITY COPYANNEXED?YES/NO

1 Indian Express Maxi size Ok No (later)

2 Thina tandi -do- Ok No ( later)

7/30/2019 PHQ_IL&FS

3/6

Page 3 of 6

1.2.5 In places where the newspapers do not reach, did the Competent Authority arrange to informthe local public about the Public Hearing by other means such as by way of beating of drumsas well as advertisement? YES

1.2.6 Have the following made the draft EIA Report available on their respective website? Ministry of Environment and Forests ( we did not check the website )

If yes, when? ______

State Pollution Control Board YES If yes, when? ______ Project Proponent ( we did not check the website )

1.2.7 Has the District Magistrate/s, Zila Parishad or Municipal Corporation, DistrictIndustries Office circulated the following documents:

1. Draft Comprehensive EIA report YES

If yes, in which language? English

2. Draft Rapid EIA Report YES

If yes, in which language? English

3. Executive Summary YES

If yes, in which language? Tamil, English

1.2.8 Whether the documents mentioned above were made available free of cost?NO, only for reference /not for sale

1.2.9 Were the aforementioned documents made available at the following locations? District Magistrates YES Zila Parishad or Municipal Corporation YES District Industries Office YES Concerned Regional office of the MoEF YES

2. Venue Checklist:

7/30/2019 PHQ_IL&FS

4/6

7/30/2019 PHQ_IL&FS

5/6

Page 5 of 6

3.2 Were the proceedings recorded through videography by a representative of the State PollutionControl Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee

YES

3.3 Was every person granted an opportunity to seek information or clarifications on the Projectfrom the Project Proponent? YES

3.4 Was any person denied an opportunity to speak in the hearing? NOPlease describe the incident briefly:________________________

3.5 . Quality of discussion:

3.5.1. Were pros and cons of the project discussed? YES3.5.1.1. What was the percentage of time for discussion spent on the positive points of the Project?

Most of the time spent on discussing the benefits of the project.

Please give a brief description of the positive points discussed during the Hearing:

Most of discussion are concentrated on the benefits of the proposed project like

community development works to be undertake by the company, employment

,economical benefits.

3.5.1.2. What was the percentage of time for discussion spent on the negative points of theProject? 20 % of the time

Please give a brief description of the negative points discussed during the Hearing:

Impact of the mangrove forest and coastal and fishing impacts ,agricultural .

7/30/2019 PHQ_IL&FS

6/6

Page 6 of 6

3.5.2. Time allotted for questions and answers 20 % to 25 % of the total time

3.5.3. Whether the people posed relevant questions with respect to the projectNO

3.5.4. Were clarifications sought by the participants were responded to by the Project Proponent orMember of the State Pollution Control Board?

NO

3.5.5. Was the summary of the Public Hearing accurately reflecting all the views and concernsexpressed recorded by the representative of the SPCB or the UTPCB and read over to the

audience at the end of the proceedings explaining the contents in the vernacular language?

NO

3.5.6. Were the minutes signed by the District Magistrate or his or her representative on the sameday and forwarded to the SPCB/UTPCC concerned? NO

(the district collector signed date is 13.02.2010 )

4. Post-Public Hearing Checklist

4.1. Was a statement of the issues raised by the public and the comments of the Project Proponent

prepared in local language and in English and annexed with the proceedings?

YES

4.2. Were the proceedings of the public hearing conspicuously displayed at the office of thePanchayats within whose jurisdiction the project is located, office of the concerned Zila

Parishad, District Magistrate and the SPCB and UTPCC? NO

4.3. Did the SPCB or the UTPCC display the proceedings on its website for general information?YES