Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Challenge Against Revocation of Environmental Clearance — Emphasizes Compliance with Environmental Laws.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the revocation of Environmental Clearance (EC) granted to a steel plant operated by the appellant, Electrosteel Steels Limited, due to alleged violations of environmental laws. The appellant, which employed a significant workforce and produced substantial steel output, faced scrutiny after shifting its plant location without obtaining necessary approvals. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) issued a show cause notice for these violations, leading to the revocation of the EC. The appellant challenged this decision in the Jharkhand High Court, which initially granted interim relief allowing the plant to operate under regulatory supervision. However, the High Court later discontinued these interim orders, citing the need for compliance with environmental regulations and the findings of the Expert Appraisal Committee. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to environmental laws and the principle of 'polluter pays.' The court noted that the appellant's actions had serious implications for environmental protection and public interest, thus affirming the revocation of the EC and the refusal to grant Consent to Operate.

Headnote

A) Environmental Law - Revocation of Environmental Clearance - Justification for Revocation - Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 5 - The court examined the grounds for revocation of Environmental Clearance due to encroachment on forest land and violation of conditions. It held that the revocation was justified as the appellant had shifted the project site without proper clearance, violating environmental laws (Paras 61-62).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the revocation of Environmental Clearance and the refusal to grant Consent to Operate were justified under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to discontinue interim orders and affirmed the revocation of Environmental Clearance, emphasizing compliance with environmental laws.

Law Points

  • Environmental Clearance
  • Consent to Operate
  • Pollution Control
  • Environmental Impact Assessment
  • Natural Justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (12) 227

Civil Appeal Nos. 7576-7577 of 2021

2021-09-16

Indira Banerjee

Electrosteel Steels Limited

Union of India and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge against the revocation of Environmental Clearance and refusal of Consent to Operate.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought directions for the issuance of Consent to Operate.

Filing Reason

The appellant filed the case due to the revocation of EC and denial of CTO.

Previous Decisions

The High Court had initially granted interim relief allowing operation under supervision.

Issues

Whether the revocation of Environmental Clearance was justified. Whether the refusal to grant Consent to Operate was lawful.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the revocation was unjustified and sought to regularize its operations. The respondents contended that the appellant violated environmental laws by shifting the project site.

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the necessity of compliance with environmental regulations and the principle of 'polluter pays' in determining the legality of the revocation of Environmental Clearance.

Judgment Excerpts

The Expert Appraisal Committee of the MoEF&CC had, after detailed deliberations, found that the Appellant had been in violation of the EIA Notification 2006. The MoEF&CC had while issuing ToR for grant of EC recommended action against the Appellant under Section 19 of the 1986 Act for past violations.

Procedural History

The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the revocation of EC and the refusal of CTO, which was initially granted interim relief by the High Court. The High Court later discontinued these orders, leading to the appeal in the Supreme Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Section 3, Section 5
  • Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981: Section 21
  • Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974: Section 25
  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:
  • Indian Forest Act, 1927:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Arbitration Petition Challenging Arbitral Award Under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Upholds Rejection of Specific Performance and Damages in Development Agreement Dispute. Court Holds That Arbitr...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Gujarat Allows Appeal Against Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case — Rebuttal of Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Requires Probable Defence, Not Mere Denial. The accused failed to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued for...