2012 Supreme(Bom) 504

Bombay High Court
S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, U. V. BAKRE
Ramchandra Vaman Naik & Ors.
Vs
Sesa Goa Limited & Ors.
Decided On : 6/3/2012

Headnote:Constitution of India - Article 226 - Joint petition - Converted into a PIL - Petitioners praying for quashing an approval dated 30.3.2007 of respondents State Government for a project which undertaken by respondent-1 - Petitioners also challenging environment clearance granted to this project on 3.6.2009 - Contention that their families would be affected by pollution and environment degradation caused by project of respondent - And approval and clearance vitiated by non- application of mind and violates mandate of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution.

       Held - Petition falls short of required standards of PIL - No fraud and forgery as well as fabrication is writ large in proposal of respondent-1 and approval of State Government - Clearance obtained after examining all aspects - Environmental clearance is not flawed - Approvals granted in 2007 and renewed in 2009 are subject to terms and conditions including protection of environment - Petition fails - Dismissed.

       It is pointed out on oath that its Pig Iron Unit was initially established in the year 1992. The existing plant, which is stated to be Amona-Navelim plant, Bicholim, Goa is in the same industrial complex, which constitutes a composite property. The existing unit is located very close to Arnona-Navelim villages of Bicholim Taluka. Merely because the expanded unit extends to Naveim village does not mean that it can be styled as new unit. The entire industrial area allotted by GIDC admeasures over 12 lakhs square metres or thereabout. The units are adjacent to each other and the distance alone is not relevant or guiding factor. In the same industrial complex, respondent No. 1 has the existing Pig Iron Plant, two met coke plants and by the side of which the expansion of Pig Iron Plant is coming up. It is not correct to state that one plant is existing at one village and another one is coming up in another village. The two units are in the same complex and are stated to be a contiguous plant with the object of bringing it closer to the existing met coke plant of the first respondent and the existing Pig Iron Plant. The expansion of the Pig Iron Plant is on the side of the met coke plant. The metallurgical coke produced in the metcoke plant is main raw material for Pig Iron Plant. The planning of industries is done with the help of industrial designers, who are experts in this sphere and who have taken into consideration the techno- commercial aspects of the project. The heat/gases of the Pig Iron Plant are not let off for burning or smoked out in the air but the heat and the gases are used as fuel in the waste heat recovery based power plant for generation of clean electrical energy which is also strategically located in the same complex. The project is designed and located in such a way that heat gases which are supplied to Power Plant are used efficiently. The map is also referred to in the project/proposal/report of the first respondent. The distance between the two villages was present to their mind but what they have indicated is that if the entire area is contiguous and known as industrial area and falls within the jurisdiction and authority of Goa Industrial Development Corporation, then, it is not as if a false representation was made to seek approval for putting up of a new unit in the garb of expansion of existing unit.

       That apart, the application/proposal of first respondent has been considered on the same lines as a new proposal by the authorities. They have applied the same standards and yardstick for scrutiny as would be applied by them for a new proposal or requisition to set up a new unit. Therefore, nothing much turns on this aspect and the petitioners were required to demonstrate that by making such statements and by misleading information, the first respondent got the approval and their misrepresentation was overlooked by the authorities when they granted approval. Since the allegations are of fraud, forgery and fabrication, that would mean that the authorities are also party to the alleged fraud perpetrated by the first respondent. That is not demonstrated because the Cabinet note, policy decisions and further remarks and the notings in the files all are’ part of the proceedings. These would show that the application of standards and criteria for scrutiny of both proposals is identical. Earlier, the policy was to discourage both expansion of existing unit as also setting up of new units. Now the policy envisages scrutiny of such proposals on case to case basis and merits. This contention, therefore, must obviously fail.

       The authorities have not only considered the impact on the existing and projected units but the statements made in the report of the first respondent. What the petitioners then argued is that the study on the impact and the assessment thereof by the environmental authorities is erroneous. Court does not possess either the requisite skill or expertise or their experience. Once again the petitioners are required to place entire details and the requisite data including providing the nature of industries in the vicinity, their existing capacity, potential of their expansion and new industries likely to come up. The petitioners have not even given the names of the existing industries leave alone the details. The petition is based on insufficient and inadequate data. Court cannot interfere with the view of authorities in such circumstances or make any comment merely because the petitioners state that there has been a shift in the standards. Court does not feel that the relevant facts have not been considered while granting environmental clearance for Navelim Pig Iron Plant. The allegation that the relevant evidence in relation to baseline data is not taken into consideration is also nothing but a perception or view of the petitioners. Based on contents of some communications and letters, what is stated is that the plantation of trees and houses in the vicinity would be damaged and they are facing a lot of problems because of dust pollution. The petitioners have failed to point out that this aspect has completely been overlooked or ignored by the authorities. Their case is based on the Pollution Control Board’s inspection, where it has observed that its dust particles are settled on the trees, leaves and houses in the vicinity of Sesa Pig Iron Plant. There are also some reports regarding agricultural lands. That is something, which is subsequent to the approval granted in 2007. Court is sure that all such studies by the authorities like the Pollution Control Board or the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India are not final and conclusive. The impact on environment and ecology of such project has to be studied throughout. If the observations and studies conducted from time to time indicate that there is adverse impact on ecology and environment, then, nothing prevents the authorities from taking such action as is permissible in law including imposing additional conditions by modifying their approvals and permissions granted earlier. Court has no doubt that the statements made in the affidavits of the Board and in rejoinder while assailing the environmental clearances, would be taken into consideration even now by the authorities and if they find that the consent granted earlier needs to be revoked or withdrawn, nothing prevents them from doing so by considering all the materials, including the statements made in the affidavits and the contents of the documents filed by the petitioners. As already held, that because of the perceptions and views of the petitioners and their disagreement with the opinion and conclusion of the authorities in charge of granting environmental clearances, the same cannot be quashed but at the same time, Court deems it appropriate to clarify that its conclusion will not in any manner prevent the petitioners from raising such issues and pressing their concerns and grievances about any adverse impact on ecology and environment, and for the authorities to consider them accordingly. All that held is that on the basis of available material, Court cannot conclude that the environmental clearance is flawed. The impact has been duly considered and the studies based on which the approvals were granted in 2007 and renewed in 2009, would make it abundantly clear that they are subject to terms and conditions including the protection of environment. Therefore, the authorities have taken due care and caution while approving the project that ecology and environment is not disturbed and there is no adverse impact thereon.

       How an order recording the statement of the Advocate General in a case concerning Sponge Iron unit, will apply here is not explained in any details. That was an order and not a judgment rendered on full hearing. Hence, Court cannot accept this contention of the petitioners. Besides this, Court called for the papers in that PIL Writ Petition and finds that the controversy and relief is distinct and concerns prohibition of Sponge Iron Unit within catchment area and/or within 1 Km of any river or stream classed as Aor Cin Goa.