2016 Supreme(SC) 594

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T. S. Thakur, CJI., R. Banumathi, Uday Umesh Lalit , JJ.
M/s Electrotherm (India) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7222 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.16860 of 2012)
Decided On : 02-08-2016

IMPORTANT POINTS
Public consultation/ public hearing is mandatory for grant of Environmental clearance.
Exemption from public consultation/ public hearing cannot be granted in any case; whether for new plant or for expansion of capacity.

Headnote:(a) Environmental law – Public hearing – EIA Notification of 2006 – Public hearing undertaken for establishment of the plant – As per expansion plan the pollution load and water requirement likely to increase three times original plan – Increase in pollution load and water requirement are matters where public in general and those living in the vicinity in particular had and continue to have a stake. (Para 15)

       (b) Environmental law – EIA Notification of 2006 – Public consultation/public hearing – Mandatory for granting Environmental Clearance – Committee approving Clearance on the ground of no additional requirement of land and withdrawal of ground water – Increased water requirement and entailing additional pollution load not considered – Appellant’s request for exemption from public hearing for grant of Environmental Clearance for expansion plan should not have been accepted. (Para 16, 17)

       (2011) 7 SCC 338 – Relied upon

       (c) Environmental law – Environmental Clearance granted by exempting the appellant from public consultation/ public hearing – Project already undertaken on basis of such clearance and most of the recommendations made by CPCB are complied with – Decision exempting public consultation/public hearing set aside and matter is relegated back to concerned Authorities to effectuate public consultation/public hearing – Directed that in the event of negative mandate at the public hearing, entire plant will not be closed down but the production shall be scaled down to the level of Environmental clearance dated 20.02.2008. (Para 20)

       Facts of the case:

       The Notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section(1) and Clause V of sub-section(2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Clause(d) of sub-rule(2) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 directed that the required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the Notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology would be undertaken only after prior Environmental Clearance from the Central Government or as the case may be by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

       The Appellant set up a Steel Plant at Village Samakhiyali, for manufacturing various products after having received No Objection Certificate from Gujarat Pollution Control Board on 25.02.2005, which thereafter granted consent for manufacture of Pig Iron, Steel Billets/Slabs, Steel Bars and Rods, etc.

       The Appellant later by its letter dated 30.11.2007 applied for Environmental Clearance. On 20.02.2008 the Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests granted Environmental Clearance for manufacture of Pig Iron, Steel Billets/Slabs, Steel Bars and Rods, etc.

       The Appellant thereafter, applied for expansion of Steel Plant.

       Environmental Clearance for the expansion was granted by Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests.

       On or about 10.05.2010 Respondent No.1 herein filed Special Civil Application in the High Court of Gujarat, in public interest, seeking revocation of Environment Clearance granted to the Appellant for expansion of its plant.

       The High Court allowed the Special Civil Application principally on the ground that the Environmental Clearance dated 27.1.2010 was granted without there being public consultation or public hearing which was a mandatory requirement under 2006 Notification.

       Finding of the Court:

       The decision making process in doing away with or in granting exemption from public consultation/public hearing, was not based on correct principles and as such the decision was invalid and improper.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.