Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3660

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL KOLKATA (EASTERN ZONE BENCH)
B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member
Manoj Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Bihar Foundry and Castings Limited – Respondent
Original Application No.148/2024/EZ|Original Application No.183/2023/EZ|Original Application No.44/2023/EZ (I.A. No.67/2024/EZ)

Advocates:
For the Applicant(s): Mr. Puran Sharma, Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Mr. Bharat Sharma, Mr. Harshit Shekhar, Mr. Ankit Burman, Mr. Anubhav Khastagir
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Mr. Shubham Upadhyay, Ms. Mansi Bachani, Mr. Surya Gupta, Ms. Rashhmi Singhee, Mr. Surendra Kumar, Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Mr. Ashok Prasad, Ms. Anamika Pandey, Mr. Gigi C George

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.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 15, 19 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Category A Metallurgical Industry - Operation of additional furnace and converter without prior environmental clearance - Violation category under stayed OM dated 07.07.2021 - Supreme Court stay on OM does not permit operation of violation units pending final EC grant - Competent authorities to process proposals under pre-OM regime if prior valid EC existed, subject to final SC orders. (Paras 52, 64-67, 71-72)

(B) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31(A); Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33(A) - Directions not to operate violation parts till permissions obtained; discrepancies in land area and consents to be rectified; fugitive emission controls to be installed. (Paras 40, 52, 58)

Facts of the case:
Three consolidated applications alleged operation of industrial units involving sponge iron, induction furnaces, and ferro alloys without prior environmental clearances, discrepancies in land areas, inadequate green belt, excessive groundwater abstraction, and operation of additional submerged arc furnace and converter as violations despite pending EC applications under violation SOP.

Findings of Court:
Units directed not to operate violation parts; pollution control board to rectify consent discrepancies and ensure fugitive emission controls; proposals for EC to be represented before MoEF&CC environmental compensation liability and closure subject to Supreme Court final orders on stayed OM.

Issues: Whether industrial units could operate additional capacities installed without prior EC under stayed violation SOP; validity of consents amid land area discrepancies; adequacy of green belt, water permissions, and emission controls.

Ratio Decidendi: Stay on violation SOP does not authorize operation of unauthorized units; prior valid EC areas allow processing under pre-SOP law per SC clarification, but violation components remain non-operational pending competent authority decisions and SC final adjudication. (Paras 65-70)

Result: Original Applications disposed directing representation to MoEF&CC for EC; no costs.

Table of Content
1. alleged operation without prior ec (Para 1 , 16 , 17 , 41)
2. consolidation of identical oas for disposal (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 7)
3. jspcb inspection confirms operational compliance (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. valid cgwa groundwater abstraction nocs (Para 14 , 15 , 22 , 27)
5. violation handling under 2021 moef sop (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 40 , 44 , 45)
6. existing ecs/cte/cto for industrial units (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
7. supreme court stay on violation sop (Para 37 , 46 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
8. green belt development compliance (Para 42 , 54 , 60)
9. rectify name discrepancies and emissions (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 58)
10. defer ec decision to moef pending sc orders (Para 71 , 72)

ORDER

1. Mr. Puran Sharma, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Narender Pal Singh and Mr. Bharat Sharma, learned Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant in O.A. No.148/2024/EZ.

2. Mr. Harshit Shekhar, learned Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankit Burman is present for the Applicant in O.A. No.183/2023/EZ.

3. Mr. Anubhav Khastagir, learned Counsel is present for the Applicant in O.A. No.44/2023/EZ.

4. Affidavit dated 27.01.2025 has been filed by the Respondent No.4, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board in O.A. No.44/2023/EZ; the same is taken on record.

5. Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board in both the Original Applications states that the same affidavit shall be treated as read in Original Application No.183/2023/EZ also.

6. Learned Counsel for the parties state that the issue involved in O.A. No.148/2024/EZ is identical to that of O.A. No.183/2023/EZ and O.A. No.44/2023/EZ.

7. In view of this matter, all the three Original Applications namely O.A. No.148/2024/EZ, O.A. No.183/2023/EZ and O.A. No.44/2023/EZ are being taken up together for disposal.

(Final order of this case will be uploaded in NGT website by separate sheets of paper).

ORDER

(Original Application No.148/2024/EZ)

1. This Original Application has been filed by the Applicant alleging that the Respondent No.1, Bihar Foundry and Castings Limited (‘BFCL’ in short), was granted lease of Ferro Alloy Unit for 3.51 acres of land by the State Government in 1985 for a period of 99 years but Environmental Clearance was granted to the Respondent No.1 for 14 acres of land which shows a discrepancy.

2. It is stated that first Environmental Clearance was issued to Respondent No.1 on 31.10.2011. It is also stated that in 2020, the Respondent No.1 executed a lease deed for 3.67 acres of land but the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board specifies the total land area as 7.26 acres. At the same time, the Pre-feasibility Report, six monthly Environmental Clearance Compliance Report and Environmental Statement (Form-V) indicates the land area as 7.76 acres which again shows a discrepancy in land area.

3. It is also stated that the Respondent No.1 has failed to obtain the mandatory No Objection Certificate (NOC) and Consent to Establish (CTE) from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for its initial 1 x 5 MVA furnace established in 1996 and its subsequent 1 x 5 MVA furnace established in 1999 which would be seen in the Factory Inspector’s letter dated 18.12.1999. It is further stated that NOC was granted by Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board only on 24.02.2000.

4. It is stated that first Consent to Operate (CTO) was obtained by the Respondent No.1 on 12.03.2015. It is also stated that the Respondent No.1 obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) on 20.05.2009 for 1 x 7.5 MVA furnace for production of 30 TPD of SiMn ferro alloy without securing the mandatory Environmental Clearance. It is further stated that Consent to Establish (CTE) a Ferro Alloy Industry falls under Category-A of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006.

5. It is stated that there is no Environmental Clearance in the name of the proprietorship firm, M/s Gautam Ferro Alloys Respon

Click Here to Read the rest of this document