The petitioner is a company and is in process of establishing a 'green field' 3 MTPA integrated steel plant in Chas-Chandankyari Block in the District of Bokaro. The industry is to be set up on investment of Rs. Ten thousand crores. According to the petitioner, out of the said amount they have already invested more than Rs. Eight thousand crores. For arranging the said heavy amount, the petitioner has to raise loan from the bank and other financial institutions on which they have to pay heavy amount of interest. Substantial amount has also been raised from the general public by issue of shares.

2. The petitioner has claimed that the proposed steel plant is being constructed with the latest technical know how and with virtual no pollution due to waste water and air emission. The waste water is to be recycled with the application of modern technology as also the air pollution shall be controlled by advanced devices bringing the standard of emission well within the norms provided by Pollution Control Board. The company has invested Rs.525 crores on pollution control measures.

3. Before proceeding with the project the petitioner obtained terms of reference from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and they were directed to approach the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for conducting public hearing/public consultation. After public hearing, the Environmental clearance was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for taking consent to establish the said industry. The petitioner, for that purpose, made an application under the Provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

4. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, was granted consent and 'No Objection Certificate' by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner, thereafter, started the construction work. The said 'no objection' was issued on the basis of furnishing tentative locations of the project cited within the study area. The construction was started and information was duly furnished to the respondents. The period of 'no objection' was also extended from time to time after being satisfied with the petitioner's construction in accordance with the environmental norms.

5. The petitioner, in the same manner, made an application for extending the validity of consent to establish beyond 4.5.2010. The respondent-Board thereupon served a notice to show-cause purportedly on the basis of a report submitted by a memo dated 4.5.2010 alleging that the construction work is being carried out on a part of forest land. The petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why the petitioner's application be not rejected and an order of closure be passed on that ground.

6. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause stating, inter alia, that the land claimed by the Forest Department in Bhagabandh including Plot No.1159, 1389 and 1120 was frivolous. No notification was ever issued declaring the area as a protected forest. A similar claim of the Department was under the challenge in another case being Title Suit No.26/1989 and the claim was rejected and the order was upheld up to the Supreme Court. The Board, on being satisfied after considering the reply and the materials on record, extended the validity period of NOC till 4.5.2011 by a fresh order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-5/1). The petitioner, thereafter, resumed the construction activities and made further constructions.

7. When the petitioner was about to complete the construction of blast furnace, they applied for 'consent to operate' the said unit as specified in the NOC for 'consent to establish' dated 5.5.2008.

8. In stead of granting consent, the Pollution Control Board issued another show-cause notice asking the petitioner as to why the application for 'consent to operate' be not refused.

9. The petitioner filed reply stating, inter alia, that there was