The Plaintiffs claimed that the conduct of a waste disposal project was in contrary to the Constitution because there was no environmental impact assessment (EIA) and public hearing prior to the conduct of the project.

The Court considered that the scope of the requirements for an EIA and public hearing must be determined by implementing and existing legislation. The Court found that the project was not within the scope of projects which were required to conduct an EIA according to existing regulations. In addition, the project was aimed to improve the waste disposal system in the areas for which the Court found that the public benefits from the project outweighed the damage received by the Plaintiffs. The Court therefore decided that the Defendants did not act in contrary to the Constitution by not conducting an EIA. The Court upheld the Administrative Court’s decision that the project was not required to undertake public hearing according to the regulation of the Office of the Prime Minister on public hearing.