JUDGMENT : Kauser Edappagath, J. Ext.P1 application preferred by the petitioner for environmental clearance was rejected by the respondent No.1 as per Ext.P6 order. The petitioner preferred Ext.P7 representation before the respondent No.1 with a request to reconsider Ext.P6 decision. The respondent No.1 recalled Ext.P6 and directed the respondent No.2 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, as instructed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner conducted a slope stability study through a scientist and Ext.P8 report was obtained. The scientist who conducted the slope stability study made a presentation before the respondent No.2. Ext.P8 report was also submitted. The respondent No.2 considered Ext.P8 report and passed Ext.P9 order. The respondent No.2, based on the hearing conducted and also the presentation made by the scientist, expressed satisfaction in Ext.P9 that four of the five definite questions sought by the committee in its previous meeting have been addressed. The respondent No.2 decided to entrust two senior Geologists Sri. V Gopinathan and Dr. A.N Manoharan for studying Ext. P8 report by conducting a field inspection and submitting a report before it for further action. A field inspection was done and report was submitted. The petitioner also prepared Ext.P10 expert report mainly addressing the issue found un-addressed in Ext.P9. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 in its 135th meeting, took a decision to recommend rejection of the petitioner's project. Ext.P11 is the relevant pages of the minutes of the 135th meeting. The petitioner preferred Ext.P11(a) representation to the respondent No.1 that Ext.P11 decision was taken without hearing him. Thereafter, respondent No.1 in the 122nd meeting held on 07/01/2023 accepted recommendation in Ext.P11 and rejected Ext.P11(a) representation. Ext.P12 is the relevant pages of the minutes of the 122nd meeting. Ext.P13 is the consequential order. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P11 to P13. After filing of the writ petition, the respondent No.1 gave Ext.P14 notice of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was heard thereafter. He was also furnished field inspection report. The respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to submit an argument note. The petitioner submitted Ext.P17 argument note. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed Exts.P18 and P19 confirming Ext.P11. The petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged Exts.P18 and P19 as well. 2. I have heard Sri.Philip J. Vettickattu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner submitted Ext.P17 argument note. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 passed Exts.P18 and P19 confirming Ext.P11. The petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged Exts.P18 and P19 as well. 2. I have heard Sri.Philip J. Vettickattu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Sreekrishnan, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1. 3. It is true, as rightly argued by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the petitioner was heard several times and the scientist who prepared the report has also made a presentation once before the respondent No.2. However, a perusal of Ext.P11 would show that, before passing it, the respondent No.2 did not hear the petitioner. The respondent No.2 did not consider Ext.P10 report of the expert produced by the petitioner either. The scientists who prepared Exts.P8 and P10 are one and the same. A reading of Ext.P11 would show that the scientist was heard with reference to Ext.P8 alone. In other words, the scientist was not heard with reference to Ext.P10. This lacuna was pointed out by the petitioner through Ext.P11(a). Still, the respondent No.1 accepted Ext.P11 as per Ext.P12. It is true, after filing this writ petition, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing and he was heard also by the respondent No.1. The petitioner was furnished with the field inspection report as well. However, no hearing was conducted by the respondent No.2. Ext.P10 was not considered by the respondent No.1 at the time of passing Exts.P18 and P19. The scientist who prepared Ext.P10 was also not heard. In short, Ext.P10, additional report of the expert was not considered either by the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2 before passing the impugned orders. The scientist who prepared Ext.P10 was also not heard by either of them with reference to Ext.P10. That apart, after filing this writ petition, an opportunity of hearing was not extended to the petitioner either by the respondent No.1 or the respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner should have been heard by the respondent No.2, who is the competent authority to make the recommendation. The hearing to be statutorily conducted by the respondent No.2 cannot be substituted by a hearing conducted by the respondent No.1. 4. In fact, the petitioner should have been heard by the respondent No.2, who is the competent authority to make the recommendation. The hearing to be statutorily conducted by the respondent No.2 cannot be substituted by a hearing conducted by the respondent No.1. 4. For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the respondent No.2 for the limited purpose of reconsidering the following two points:- (i) The influence of the rock joints in stability analysis and (ii) adequacy of the DEM used for slope analysis. While reconsidering the matter, the respondent No.2 shall take into account Ext.P10 report and hear the scientist who prepared it. The petitioner shall ensure the presence of the scientist on the date of hearing. The respondent No.1 is directed to fix the hearing with prior notice to the petitioner. Based on the recommendation of the respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 shall take a final decision within a period of three months. Exts.P17 and 18 are set aside. The writ petition is disposed of as above.