Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.
Electrosteel Steels Limited – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7576-7577 of 2021, SLP (C) Nos. 11226-11227 of 2020
Decided On : 09-12-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 – Section 3, 5 – Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1955 – Forest Conservation Act, 1980 – Indian Forest Act, 1927 – Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 – Section 21(4) –Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 – Section 25(4) – Water Pollution Act – Section 31(A), 33(A) – Appeals are against an order passed by a Single Bench of High Court of Jharkhand in W. P, discontinuing interim orders earlier passed by High Court, allowing Appellant to operate its unit under supervisory regulatory control of Respondent- Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, which had been in force – Held, In passing impugned order High Court overlooked consequences of closure of an integrated steel plant with a work force of 300 regular and 700 contractual workers – High Court also failed to appreciate that judgment of this Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals (supra) was distinguishable on facts – Furthermore, continuance of interim orders allowing operation of an industrial establishment or even grant of revised EC to industrial establishment cannot stand in way of action against that establishment for contraventions, including imposition of penalty, on principle polluter pays – Scope and effect of Section 32A of IBC is a different issue – This Court need not examine into question of whether penal action can be initiated against Appellant or, whether compensation can be recovered from Appellant, at this stage – Issue may be decided by appropriate authority at the appropriate stage when it adjudicates an action for penalization of Appellant or recovery of compensation from Appellant – Application of Appellant for revised EC, CTO etc. shall be considered strictly in accordance with environmental norms – Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
INDIRA BANERJEE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These Appeals are against an order dated 16th September 2020 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Jharkhand in W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018 and W.P. (C) No. 4850 of 2018, discontinuing the interim orders earlier passed by the High Court, allowing the Appellant to operate its unit under the supervisory regulatory control of the Respondent- Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, hereinafter referred to as “JSPCB” which had been in force for over two years.
3. The Appellant owns and runs a 1.5 MTPA integrated steel plant in Bokaro District in Jharkhand. The said steel plant in Bokaro, which employs 3,000 regular employees and 7000 contractual employees, produced steel worth Rs. 4,200 crores in the financial year 2019-20.
4. The Appellant claims that about 30,000 persons other than those actually employed by the steel plant as regular or contractual employees depend on the steel plant for their livelihood.
5. Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) had commenced against the Appellant under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. As successful Resolution Applicant, Vedanta Ltd. took over the Appellant on or about 4th June 2018 upon payment of Rs. 5,320 crores for discharge of its debts.
6. Pollution and consequential deterioration of environment has been assuming alarming proportions and has become a cause of universal concern. Fumes, smoke, emission of green house gases by use of motors and machines and operation of mills, factories and plants cause environmental degradation.
7. Under the aegis of the United Nations discussions and deliberations have been held to protect and improve environment and prevent pollution.
8. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment was convened in Stockholm to work out ways and means to protect and improve the environment. In course of deliberations, it was felt that there was need to enact law to tackle environmental pollution. India participated in the conference and strongly voiced environmental concerns.
9. The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, hereinafter referred to as “the 1986 Act” has been enacted as a consequence of decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in June, 1972.
10. The statement of objects and reasons for enactment of the 1986 Act declares that the Act has been prompted by concern over environment, that has grown the world over, since the sixties.
11. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the 1986 Act empowers the Central Government to take all such measures as it might deem necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving the quality of the environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution.
12. Sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the 1986 Act enables the Central Government to take, inter-alia, the following measures:
(a) under this Act, or the rules made thereunder.
(b) under any other law for the time being in force which is relatable to the objects of this Act.
(ii) planning and execution of a nation-wide programme for the prevention, control and abatement of environmental pollution.
(iii) laying down standards for the quality of environment in its various aspects.
(iv) laying down standards for emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from various sources whatsoever:
Provided that different standards for emission or discharge may be laid down under this clause from different sources having regard to the quality or composition of the emission or discharge of environmental pollutants from such sources.
(v) restriction of areas in which any industries, operations or processes or class of industries, operations or processes shall not be carried out or shall be carried out subject to certain safeguards.
(vi) laying down procedures and safeguards for the prevention of accidents which may cause environmental pollution and remedial measur
(1) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance – Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifi....
Environmental Clearance – Where adverse consequences of denial of ex post facto approval outweigh consequences of regularization of operations by grant of ex post facto approval, and establishment co....
Stay on violation SOP does not permit operation of units installed without prior EC; proposals processible under pre-SOP law if prior valid EC existed, pending SC final orders.
Environmental Compliance requires prior clearance for expansions, with violations subject to penalties and operational restrictions.
Supreme Court stay on violation SOP permits processing EC expansions under pre-2021 law; operations continue pending final adjudication, with directions for compliance rectification and no immediate ....
Ex post facto environmental clearances should not be routine and must be limited to exceptional circumstances to uphold environmental protections.
Manufacturing units with pollution board consents can operate pending ex-post facto environmental clearance despite lacking prior EC, if applied timely post-direction and comply with norms, avoiding ....
The court affirmed that all environmental clearances, including for the coal washery, must transfer to the successful bidder, ensuring compliance with original conditions without imposing new restric....
Post facto environmental clearance is impermissible as it contradicts statutory requirements established by the Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, 2019, which mandates prior clearance.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
