Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 4149

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 bars continued operation of unauthorized expansions pending EC; pre-2021 clearance modifications processible under prior law; regulators must rectify consent discrepancies and enforce controls.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 15 and 19 - EIA Notification, 2006 - Category A industries - Operation of expansion units including additional furnace and converter without prior environmental clearance - Supreme Court stay on SOP OM dated 07.07.2021 for violation cases does not permit continued operation pending final decision; proposals for modification in prior clearances to be considered as per pre-2021 law but processing under stayed SOP barred - Pollution Control Board to rectify name discrepancies in consents and ensure fugitive emission controls - Green belt development and groundwater permissions verified through inspections. (Paras 52, 58, 65-67, 71-72)

(B) Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 33A - Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 31A - Directions issued prohibiting operation of violation portions till permissions obtained and limiting production to consented capacity; compliance monitored via affidavits and site visits confirming emission standards met. (Paras 40, 8-13)

Facts of the case:
Three consolidated applications alleged discrepancies in land area across clearances, operation without prior consents/environmental clearance for furnaces and converter, inadequate green belt, illegal groundwater abstraction, and fraudulent use of clearances between related units in industrial area; respondents filed inspection reports, affidavits detailing leases, consents valid till 2024-2025, emissions within limits, and payments for remediation/penalties under stayed SOP.

Findings of Court:
Discrepancies in unit names and land areas noted requiring rectification; valid consents and NOCs confirmed for existing operations; green belt nearing 40% total area including off-site; emissions compliant; violation portions not to operate till clearances; matter remitted to regulatory authorities subject to Supreme Court final orders on SOP.

Issues: Whether industrial units could operate expansions without prior environmental clearance under stayed SOP; adequacy of green belt, emissions controls, groundwater use; discrepancies in consents and land records.

Ratio Decidendi: Supreme Court clarification permits processing modifications for pre-2021 clearance projects under prior law but stays SOP operation barring post-facto approvals; pending EC proposals not to allow violation continuance; regulatory bodies to enforce compliance, rectify records, install controls.

Result: Original Applications disposed directing representation to regulatory authority for clearances; no closure but violation liability pending Supreme Court orders; Pollution Control Board to act on discrepancies and fugitive controls.

Table of Content
1. alleged discrepancies in land area and clearances (Para 1 , 16 , 17 , 41)
2. missing prior cte/noc and ec violations (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
3. jspcb inspection verifies operations and compliances (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 42 , 43)
4. groundwater noc issuance and renewal (Para 15 , 22 , 27 , 55)
5. violation category under 2021 sop for expansions (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 35 , 36 , 44 , 45)
6. existing ec/cto for unit-i sponge iron operations (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
7. directions for name change in consents (Para 40)
8. tribunal verifies compliances and directs rectifications (Para 51 , 52 , 53 , 57 , 58)
9. green belt development meets 33-40% requirement (Para 54 , 60)
10. supreme court stay on 2021 sop affects violation cases (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 70)
11. applications disposed; ec pending moef consideration (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)

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 Respondent No.2, till date though M/s Gautam Ferro Alloys, is a proprietorship firm owned by the Directors of the Bihar Foundry & Castings Limited and is a distinct entity from Respondent No.1.

6. The Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board has filed affidavit dated 23.11.2024 stating that the officials of the Board have inspected both the Units namely, Bihar Foundry & Casting Limited (‘BFCL’ for short) and Gautam Ferro Alloys and it was found that both the Units were in operational condition. It is also stated that the BFCL is a duly registered company whereas Gautam Ferro Alloys is not a legal entity. The BFCL has two Units;

(i) Unit-I: Sponge Iron captive Power Plant (WHRB) and Induction Furnace Unit.

(ii) Unit-II: Ferro Alloys Unit.

7. It is stated that the plot nos. and land area for the two Units of BFCL is correctly stated in the CTO for their respective Units. CTO is valid upto 31.03.2025 for Sponge Iron/WHRB/Captive Power Plant. For the Induction Furnace, it is stated that the CTO is valid upto 31.12.2024. It is stated that accor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document