SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 1170

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K.PANIGRAHI, J.
Shivom Minerals Ltd., Rourkela, Sundargarh - Petitioner
Versus
Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board, Bhubaneswar & Anr. - Opposite Party
W.P.(C) No.8497 of 2025
Decided On : 30-05-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Lalitendu Mishra, Adv. Mr. Ashwini Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Partys : Mr. S. P. Mohanty, Adv.

The statutory timelines provided by pollution control legislations govern consent approvals, overriding administrative deadlines, with deemed approval claiming misinterpretations rejected.

Headnote:(A) Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Consent to Operate - Petitioner seeks formal approval for Consent to Operate for a modernization project - Consent to operate was deemed granted due to authority's inaction - Court held that statutory period overrides administrative timelines and consent granted within this period. (Paras 6, 14, 20)

(B) The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, has been in operation since 2005 without production capacity increase - Formal approval was sought for a proposed modernization project which aimed at efficiency without production expansion. (Para 2)

(C) The core issue was whether the timelines specified by the State Pollution Control Board could override the statutory timelines for consent - Court concluded that the statutory timeline remains applicable regardless of any office order aiming to expedite approvals. (Para 13)

Findings of Court:
The Consent to Operate was granted within the statutory timeline of 120 days, hence no deemed approval was valid. (Para 15)

Issues: The main issues included entitlement to deemed consent based on inaction and the applicability of environmental clearance for modernization.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that expired administrative deadlines do not change the reliance on statutory timelines, affirming the authority's discretion in approvals.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the writ petition. (Para 2)
2. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning regarding statutory timelines. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
4. ratio decidendi focusing on statutory approval timelines. (Para 12 , 19)
5. conclusion dismissing the writ petition. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner in the present Writ Petition seeks a direction to the Opposite Parties to grant formal approval of the Consent to Operate in respect of his online application No. 6003945 dated 04.12.2024.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:

(i) The Petitioner is a Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

(ii) The Petitioner has been operating an Iron Ore Beneficiation Plant at Koira, District Sundargarh, since the year 2005-2006, under a valid Consent to Operate dated 12 June 2020 which has been renewed from time to time.

(iii) In 2012–13, the Petitioner undertook modernization of the existing unit without any increase in production capacity. Following this, the Consent to Operate was renewed on 28.05.2013.

(iv) In 2015, to ensure compatibility with the Odisha Industries Facilitation Act, 2004, and the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) guidelines issued by the Government of India, and to expedite the decision-making process, Opposite Party No. 1 issued Office Order No. 6456/IND-II-NOC-MISC.198 dated 15.04.2015. This order reduced the time limit for disposal of applications for Consent to Establish and/or Consent to Operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Although the statutory timeframe prescribed under the Acts is four months, the said office order revised the limits to 60, 45, and 30 days for various categories of industries.

(v) Subsequently, by an Office Order dated 04.02.2023, the classification of certain industrial units was revised.

(vi) Due to land constraints and issues related to the storage of solid waste, the Petitioner submitted a composite modernization project, without any capacity expansion, to the Single Window Clearance Committee under the Odisha Industries Facilitation Act on 29.08.2022. This proposal was approved during the meeting held on 15.12.2023.

(vii) On 25.03.2024, the Petitioner applied for Consent to Establish in respect of the proposed modernization, expressly stating that there would be no increase in the production capacity beyond what had already been sanctioned under the Consent to Operate dated 12.06.2020. However, the said application was neither approved nor rejected within the statutory period prescribed under the office order dated 15.04.2015, read with the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. It is the Petitioner’s contention that the application was therefore deemed to have been granted in accordance with law.

(viii) The Petitioner subsequently submitted an online application, Consent Application No. 6003945, for renewal-cum-grant of Consent to Operate for the modernized unit, without any increase in product capacity, in continuation of the existing Consent to Operate, on 04.12.2024. The special features of the modernization project, as mentioned in the Consent to Operate application, are noted below:

a. Zero discharge of trade effluent outside factory premises.

b. Further reduction of domestic effluent by proposing installation of an STP, in addition to the existing septic tank.

c. Solid waste generation was proposed to reduce 28% of inputraw material in comparison to 38-40% prior to modernization. However, the petitioner succeeded reducing it toabout 20% based on current raw material quality.

d. Tailing Fe was proposed to be reduced from 44–48% Fe to about 40% Fe. The Petitioner, however, succeeded in reducing it to 36% Fe, which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top