Case Note & Summary
These two public interest litigations were heard together by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court. PIL No.6 of 2023 was filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, a mining contractor from Raipur, Chhattisgarh, challenging the environmental clearance and terms of reference granted to Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd. for expansion of iron ore mining capacity. PIL No.10 of 2025 was filed by Vishesh Bhatpalliwar and Samarjeet Chatterjee challenging a subsequent terms of reference for expansion from 10 MTPA to 60 MTPA. The litigation arose from alleged violations of Office Memorandums dated 11 April 2022 and 30 May 2022 and Standard Operating Procedure dated 7 July 2021 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The petitioner in the first PIL initially questioned the minutes of a public hearing conducted by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, then amended the petition pursuant to court orders dated 28 February 2024 and 4 September 2024 to seek quashing of ToR dated 18 July 2022 and EC dated 24 February 2023, and to revert production capacity to the original 3 MTPA. The second PIL sought quashing of ToR dated 26 November 2024 and stay of proposed public hearing dated 28 January 2025. The court noted procedural aspects including that PIL No.10/2025 lacked specific pleadings regarding locus standi of petitioner No.2, while the cause-title of PIL No.6/2023 identified the petitioner as a mining contractor. Facts recited by the court included a public hearing held on 12 July 2005 for an earlier grant of exploration, where the committee presided over by the Collector, Gadchiroli, recorded recommendations such as public support for the project, employment generation, environmental safeguards, and welfare of the Adivasi community. Subsequently, environmental clearance was granted on 29 May 2006 under the EIA Notification 1994 with specific conditions including non-intersection of groundwater table, preparation of a wildlife management plan vetted by the Wildlife Institute of India, concurrent backfilling of float ore area starting from the sixth year, and use of ripper dozer technology to avoid blasting. The extracted text does not contain the parties' detailed submissions beyond the petitioners' contentions, nor does it include the court's analysis or final decision. The judgment text is incomplete, ending in the recitation of specific conditions attached to the 2006 environmental clearance. The court by consent tagged both PILs and heard them finally on 9 May 2025, but no substantive order on the merits is recorded in the available portion.
Headnote
A) Procedural Law - Consolidation of Public Interest Litigations - Article 226 Constitution of India - By consent and as prayed for by the petitioners, both PILs were tagged together and heard finally. Held that both PILs be heard together; no final decision is recorded in the extracted text. (Paras 1-2) B) Public Interest Litigation - Maintainability and Locus Standi - Rule 7 Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules, 2010 - The court noted that PIL No.10/2025 lacked specific pleadings regarding locus, qualification, and source of knowledge of petitioner No.2, while the cause-title of PIL No.6/2023 indicated occupation as mining contractor. No ruling on maintainability is stated in the extracted text. (Paras 2, 9) C) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance and Terms of Reference - EIA Notification 1994 - Petitioners challenged ToR dated 18/07/2022 and EC dated 24/02/2023 for expansion from 3 MTPA to 10 MTPA, and ToR dated 26/11/2024 for expansion from 10 MTPA to 60 MTPA, alleging violation of OM dated 11/04/2022, SOP dated 07/07/2021, and OM dated 30/05/2022; no final decision is recorded in the extracted text. (Paras 3-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the grant of Terms of Reference dated 18/07/2022, Environmental Clearance dated 24/02/2023, and Terms of Reference dated 26/11/2024 for mining capacity expansion were illegal, being in violation of Office Memorandums dated 11/04/2022 and 30/05/2022 and Standard Operating Procedure dated 07/07/2021; whether the production capacity of respondent company should be reverted to 3 MTPA; whether the public hearing process was valid.
Final Decision
The extracted judgment text is incomplete and does not record a final decision. The court, by consent of parties, tagged both PILs and heard them finally on 9 May 2025.
Law Points
- Article 226 Constitution of India
- Rule 7 Bombay High Court Public Interest Litigation Rules 2010
- Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 1994
- Office Memorandum dated 11-04-2022
- Standard Operating Procedure dated 07-07-2021
- Office Memorandum dated 30-05-2022
