Chattisgarh High Court
Ranjeet Yadu vs Union Of India on 7 February, 2024
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:4122-DB
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 70 of 2023
• Ranjeet Yadu S/o Shri Nand Yadu, Aged About 42 Years
R/o Village Marracona, Post Colliha, Thana Simga District
Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of
Environment, Forest, And Climate Change, New Delhi.
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Housing And Environment, Mahanadi
Bhavan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board Through Its
Chairman, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector 19,
NRANVP, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
4. The Member Secretary, Chhattisgarh Environment
Conservation Board, Paryavas Bhavan, North Block, Sector-
19, NRANVP, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
5. State Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Chhattisgarh Through Its Chairman, P4b/226, Near Canara
Bank, Sector-27, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
6. The Gram Panchayat, Village Kesda And Rigni, Tehsil
Simga, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh)
7. The Goods And Services Tax Council (Gst), Ministry Of
Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi.
8. The Collector, Simga, District Balodabazar (Chhattisgarh)
9. The Director, M/s Apl Apollo Building Products Private
Limited Village Ringni And Kesda, Tehsil Simga, District
Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondents
Neutral Citation
2024:CGHC:4122-DB
2
For Petitioners : Mr. Apurv Goyal, Advocate
For Respondent No.1/UOI : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Asstt.
Solicitor General
For Respondents No. 2 & 8 : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Addl.
Advocate General
For Respondent No.3 to 5 : Mr. Nirnay Gupta, Advocate
For Respondent No.9 : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Sr.
Advocate assisted by Ms. Srishti
Upadhyay, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Order on Board
Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J.
07/02/2024 Heard Mr. Apurv Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for respondent No.1/Union of India, Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No. 2 & 8/State, Mr. Nirnay Gupta, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 to 5 and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Srishti Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.9.
2. The present public interest litigation has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:
10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to restrain the respondent No.9 for any operations in their second unit situated in village Ringni and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 3 Kesda Patwar Circle No.20 and 19 and Revenue Circle Simga District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara (CG) without obtaining proper sanctions/permissions/environmental clearance.
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No.9 to immediately halt/stall/stop all the illegal activities carried on without any prior Environmental Clearances.
10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set aside the Consent to Establish dated 20.06.2022 and Consent to Operate dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P/2) granted to Respondent NO.9 for second unit as the same is in violation of the environmental laws.
10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order an independent investigation/constitute an expert committee into the actions of Respondent No.9 and other Respondent authorities and hold them liable for their failure to fulfill their Constitutional duty and statutory obligation and should be held liable under polluters pay principle.
10.5. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent authorities to impose heavy cost on the project proponent for their indulgence in causing huge amount of environmental loss and endangering public lives for their own profits.
10.6 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 4 pleased to impose strict penalties, including fines and imprisonment, on the responsible authorities/ management of the project proponent and respondents for their willful disregard of environmental laws and public safety.
10.7 To award the cost and expenses of this petition.
10.8 To issue any other writ or direction or orders in favor of the petitioner and against the Respondents upon these facts and int he circumstances of the case int he interest of justice and equity.
10.9 Any other relief/reliefs, which this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. "
3. The present writ petition, styled as public interest, litigation has been filed by the petitioner who is a resident of village Marracona, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh. The petitioner herein is challenging the gross violation of environmental laws, hazardous waste being done by the project proponent, en-masse cutting of numerous green trees, illegal encroachment of government land, and destruction of agricultural land and depletion of ground water in villages Ringni and Kesda, Tahsil Simga, District Baloda Bazar-Bhatapara. The respondent No.9 has established and expanded industrial units without obtaining any prior Environmental Clearance (for short "EC") which is mandatory under law. The project proponent have Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 5 fraudulently and by suppression of material facts previously submitted before this Hon'ble Court has obtained the consent to operate, which is resulting in grave environmental pollution in the area. The petitioner has raised objections, made representations, issued legal notice and complained to the State authorities, but they have failed to fulfill their legal duty and statutory obligations. It is further submitted that the industry is being operated without environmental clearance as defined under the environmental laws and causing environmental damage.
4. Mr. Apoorv Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier also a Public Interest Litigation was filed in which an undertaking was filed by the industry that if they go for expansion they will obtain the necessary environmental clearance and now they have gone for expansion of the industry but did not obtain any environmental clearance. The action of the respondents are in direct violation of EIA Notification 2006 and the observations made by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2023, passed in W.P.PIL No. 84 of 2021. The concerned respondent gave the following undertaking before this Court in the said order:
"Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.6, on the contentions of the Intervener, submitted that as the Respondent No.6 Company intends to go in for an expansion, it was under the said circumstances that the Respondent No.6 had made an application for grant of Environmental Clearance. However, the necessity for the Environmental Clearance would only be required as and when the Respondent No.6 goes in for the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 6 expansion, which is yet to begin."
5. It is submitted by Mr. Goyal that the respondent No.9 at present has already expanded one more unit of the project and has not acquired the required environmental clearance till date. Thus, the petitioner had filed the instant petition for the welfare of the general public for the protection of agricultural land, ground water and depletion of the environment and surroundings of the village.
6. It has been further submitted that the Respondent No.9 has now expanded the two units wherein the first unit is for manufacturing of GP Pipe, Precision Pipes, Special Pipes, Corrugated Galvanized Sheets, Hollow Section Black Pipes, CRFH Pipes and Color Coated Coils/sheets. The second unit is of manufacturing of hot rolled pickled oiled coil/sheet and cold rolled coil/sheet which is evidence from their consent to operate purportedly given by the State Pollution Control Board.
7. The Respondent No.9 had applied for 'Consent to Establish' for the second unit, on 20.06.2022 and had applied online for 'Consent to Operate' on 08.05.2023 and subsequent correspondence dated 12.05.2023 to the Chhattisgarh State Environment Conservation Board which was granted on 31.05.2023.
8. It has been submitted by Mr. Goyal that in the Notification dated 14.09.2023 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 7 Forests, there is a requirement for obtaining prior Environmental Clearance as the second industrial unit of Respondent no.9 which falls under Clause 3(a) of the Schedule annexed to the said notification. It is pertinent to mention here that such prior environmental clearance has to be obtained before any construction work or preparation of land by the project management except for securing land is started on the project. The relevant extracts from the Notification dated 14.09.2006 are reproduced as under:
"2. Requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) : the following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and forests for matters faling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at the State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:
I) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;
ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 8 beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;
iii) Any change in product-mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in the Schedule beyond the specified range.
9. Mr. Goyal further submits that the respondent No.9 has set up and commenced the operations in the same premises of the second unit through 'Consent to operate' for manufacturing of Hot Rolled Pickled Oiled Coil/Sheet and Cold Rolled Coil/Sheet. As per the 'Consent to Operate' granted, the Respondent No.9 can only manufacture 28000 MT per year, however, they have been exceeding the manufacturing limits and is gravely polluting the environment and degrading the ground water and agricultural lands of the villagers.
10. It is further submitted that the respondent No.3 has granted the 'Consent to Operate' pm 31/-5/2023 imposing certain 'special conditions' which is again in violation of the applicable law and is self-contradictory as the Respondent No.3 during the initial permission dated 02.03.2021 granted to the first unit had itself imposed a condition for obtaining a prior EC for second unit or any activities which falls under the EIA notification. The said notification is reiterated below:
"Industry shall apply for ToR followed by environment Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 9 clearance as per the MoEF and CC notification No. S.O. 3250 (E) dated 20.07.2022 within specified time mentioned in this notification, failing which, this consent shall be treated as cancelled."
11. The consent to operate granted to the Respondent No.9 by the Respondent No.3 on 31.05.2023 for the second unit is in direct violation to Notification dated 14.09.2006 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest which was further clarified vide Notification dated 20.07.2022 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The respondent No.3 has failed to adhere to the obligatory procedures established by the law. Their disregard for the significant notification of 2022 has resulted in the unwarranted issuance of the 'Consent to Operate'. However it is universally recognized legal maxim that Ignorantia juris non excusat, which renders their actions indefensible.
12. It is submitted that few other residents have also previously raised similar issues and have approached this Court through WP PIL No. 84/2021 which was dismissed vide order dated 12.04.2023. The previous order has not been considered on the merits. The respondent No.9 is misrepresenting and misleading the authorities and has suppressed the material fact that they are not secondary metallurgical industry and they do not require any prior environmental clearances. The respondent No.9 has suppressed the material facts and have obtained illegal Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 10 permissions and advances from the State Pollution Control Board. The respondent No.9 is in grave violation of the environmental laws and is polluting the neighborhood and the whole vicinity and is continuously putting in danger the lives of the residents and the public. Lastly, it is submitted that the time period has been expired and the notification dated 20 July 2022 which the respondent No.9 is relying upon is applicable to operating and existing units and their unit is a new unit i.e. separate CTE consent to establish and consent to operate have been granted.
13. Mr. Mishra, learned ASG for Union of India/respondent No.1, in its reply has stated that it has been notified by the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change, New Delhi dated 20th July 2022 that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), the Central Government has directed that all the standalone re- rolling units or cold rolling units, which are in existence and in operation as on date of this notification, with valid Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the concerned State Pollution Control Board or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee, as the case may be, shall apply .
14. Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Learned State counsel submits that the respondent No.9 is a private entity and for grant of environmental clearance, a separate legal entity namely the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board has been Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 11 constituted and it is the sole duty of the Board to issue the environmental clearance upon application in this regard and the answering respondents are not the competent authority to issue the environmental clearance.
15. Mr. Nirnay Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 submits that according to the latest inspection of the industry which was conducted on 15.05.2023, in reference to the last CTO application, the following Air and Water Pollution Control arrangements are made by the said industry-Sewage Treatment Plant of Capacity - 3x70 KLD for treatment of domestic waste water. Effluent Treatment Plant of Capacity-110 KLD for treatment of Effluent (spent acid) generated from the process. Acid regeneration plant (AR)) of capacity 12 KL/hours for recovery of spent acid. Scrubber with chimney (2 Nos.) of height 30 meters for control of acid fumes. Separate chimney of height 30 meters for dispersion of emission from LNG/LPG gas fired boiler, acid regeneration plant and DG set. To reiterate their commitment to the principles of sustainable development and environmental protection, the regulatory bodies shall continue to diligently monitor and enforce compliance with all environmental norms and regulations by any industries within their jurisdiction. It is also submitted that the Board has given the reply that they have not obtained the environmental clearance. The Board itself has filed in its reply that environmental clearance is required. The private respondent i.e. respondent No.9 has filed its reply stating that the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 12 EC is not required. He submits that the project proponent has applied in the wrong category and a meeting was convened in which they withdrew the same however it has been shown online as rejected because the categorization of the industry has been wrongly quoted the input by the industry and if the respondent No.9 falls under this category as per the notification, it has to apply for the EC appropriately because of the products and nature which they are making and the respondent No.9 has applied in a wrong category.
16. Learned counsel for respondent No.9 submits that initially a different person filed a PIL alleging the same grounds and after hearing the parties, dismissed the PIL and after dismissal, the second PIL has been filed alleging that certain incorrect submissions were made at that point of time and they required EC for which there is already adjudication by this Court no prior is required in respect of the products which are being manufactured. Thereafter, two more additional products have been added in respect of which there was a judicial pronouncement subsequently by the National Green Tribunal of Gujarat considering the fact that the Union of India has modified and stated that there would a requirement of EC but since it has come later on a judicial pronouncement therefore a period of one year and extended period of further six months has been granted and thus, one and half year has been granted to all those industries which are producing all those products which come under the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 13 said notification and under that the respondent No.9 has applied it has been shown in the website as rejected and therefore, the petitioner is making a wrong case that the respondent No.9 is required a prior EC whereas on the face of notification, it is not required. Earlier the petition was by the person against whom an offence was registered on a complaint made by the respondent No.9 for their agitation and once it has been dismissed, now another person has put in who also has some political connection and now they are agitating the same ground before this Court which was earlier dismissed. The Board has stated that the industry of the respondent No.9 is in operation since 1½ years. It is submitted that the necessity for EC would only be required when the industry will go for an expansion, which has not yet happened. The project proponent's manufacturing unit in question, is a single unit and not two different units as purported and alleged by the petitioner. The respondent has established its manufacturing unit in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. The necessary permissions and clearances were sought from the State authorities at different stages of establishment process. He further submits that he has followed all the prescribed environmental norms and obtained the necessary permissions from the Chhattisgarh State Environment Conservation Board for the establishment and operation of its manufacturing units and is not violating any environmental laws and regulations. It is thus submitted that the prayers made by the Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 14 petitioner are not tenable and liable to be dismissed on the ground that challenge to grant of CTE and CTO is appealable under Section 31 of the AIR Act and Section 28 of the Water Act and the issue of environment is cognizable by statutory NGT and no case has been made out to bypass the remedy available.
17. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent No.9 that the self styled PIL is misleading the selective and half baked apart from being incorrect. The correct position is that the answering respondent No.9 has due permission to establish and consent to operate for manufacturing the 9 products which are being manufactured as on date. As per the EIA notification dated 14.07.2006 S.O. 1533 (E) Annexure P/3 to the petition, the 9 products manufactured falling within the category B of the notification as per clause 3(a) of the schedule appended to the notification does not require prior Environmental Clearance.
18. All the 9 plus 2 total of 11 products which are being manufactured with respect to which valid CTE and CTO's as details supra do not require any prior EC as per EIA notification 2006 schedule 3(a) appended to it Annexure P/3 to the petition. As is discernible from the bare perusal of the same and found to be correct by the Hon'ble Court in para 13 of the order dated 12.04.2023 (Annexure P/1 to the petition). It is also pertinent to mention that apart from the two products covered in CTE dated 20.06.2022 and CTO dated 31/05/2023.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 15
19. So far as two products covered under CTE and CTO dated 20.06.2022 and 31.05.2023 respectively are concerned also did not require prior EC on the date of decision of the earlier WP nor it is required in terms of Schedule 3(a) V(II) as the production capacity is less than 30000 MT per annum. Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that there is the violation of EIA, 2006 notification and submission with respect to seeking prior EC on expansion is devoid of any merits and has been deliberately being misrepresented by giving incomplete information and twisting facts, establishing the ulterior motive and interest behind the petition.
20. He further submits that it is correct that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 84/2021 was previously filed before the Hon'ble High Court challenging the establishment and operation of the respondent No.9 which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.04.2023. The court, while dismissing the PIL, took note of submission and intention to go for an expansion and clarified that the necessity for EC would only be required when the industry will go for an expansion, which has not yet happened.
21. He next submits that the Project Proponent's manufacturing unit in question, is a single unit and not two different units as purported and alleged by the present petitioner. The answering respondent has established its manufacturing unit in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations. The necessary Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 16 permissions and clearances were sought from the State authorities at different stages of the establishment process. He submits that he has followed all the prescribed environmental norms and obtained the necessary permissions from the Chhattisgarh State Environment Conservation Board (CECB) for the establishment and operation of its manufacturing units and is not violating any Environmental Laws and regulations. This apart, the project proponent's unit initially manufactured comprising GP pipe, Precision Pipe, Special Pipes, Corrugated Galvanized Sheets, Hollow Section Black Pipes, CRFH Pipes and Color Coated Coils/Sheets which requires cold rolled process for manufacturing for which the Project proponent was granted consent to establish on 02.03.2021, and consent to operate on 18.04.2022. It is important to note that prior to notification dated 20th July 2022 Cold/re-rolling of stainless steel does not fall under the purview of secondary metallurgical and required prior environment clearance. The National Green Tribunal vide its order dated 12th February 2020 in Original Application No. 55 of 2019 (WZ) Gajubhajesar Jadeja Vs. Union of India & Others) has inter alia observed that Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Manufacturing Industries require prior environment clearance but, having regard to the fact that there were a large number of such mills operating on the strength of Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CT)), the Tribunal has held that opportunity should be provided to such units to fall within the Environment Clearance Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 17 regime by granting a period of at least one year to operate for the purpose which subsequently was amended vide notification dated 23rd July 2023. Stainless steel re-rolling operations fall under the purview of the secondary metallurgical processing Industry vide notification dated 20th July 2022 classified stainless steel cold rolling and re-rolling under secondary metallurgical process and requires environment clearance. The project proponent subsequently added manufacturing of Hot Rolled Pickled Oiled Coil/Sheet and cold Rolled Coil/Sheet, for which Permission of Establish was granted on 20.06.2022 and in furtherance to the said CTE, applied for Consent to Operate on 08.05.2023, which was granted by the CECB on 31.05.2023, ie. prior to the EIA Notification July 2022. The project proponent is not manufacturing stainless steel cold rolled/hot rolled product and therefore will not fall within the ambit of strict requirement of EC as per the said notification. Even otherwise the period for making the application or for EC in respect to the Units which are required to have EC as per notification dated 20.06.2022 has been extended vide 23.07.2023 EIA notification for a further period of 6 months within which an application has to be moved by the existing units for EC and therefore also there is no violation giving rise to cause of action to the petitioner for the reliefs prayed in the petition.
22. Further the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MOEFCC) issued a notification dated 20.07.2022 and it is clarified that Cold Rolled Stainless Steel Manufacturing Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 18 Industries that had already obtained Consent to establish and Consent to Operate shall be provided with at least one year for grant of EC. This notification further supported compliance with environmental norms and also the unit does not produce any product of stainless steel and cold rolled process of stainless steel. A subsequent EIA notification was issued by MOEF&CC on 26thJuly 2023 further extended the period to one year and six months. These notifications reinforce their adherence to environmental norms and their commitment to comply with all necessary clearances. He submits that without prejudice to the other contentions that the project proponent has also implemented robust pollution control measures, including an effluent treatment plant, to ensure compliance with environmental standards and minimize the impact on the environment as is committed to sustainable development and follow the principles of environmental jurisprudence.
23. Lastly, it has been submitted that by mistake of fact that an application was moved before the SEIAA, which was later on withdrawn as is evident from Annexure R-9/6 and there is no requirement of prior EC with respect to the products mentioned in that application as per EIA, 2006 notification. This fact was not brought on record and the minutes of the meeting was not available therefore, in that background if a statement has been made, it cannot be made basis of having a prior EC, if otherwise not required under the EIA notification or the law. It is submitted Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 19 that no second unit has been commissioned and only the two products have been regularized under the valid permission of quantity less than 30000 MT per annum and the same has not been exceeded for the simple reason that it has been only 3 months after the commencement of the said products. So far as the stipulations in CTO dated 31.05.2023 for which the application has to be made within one and a half year and the same has not been expired and the answering respondent has made an application within the stipulated time without prejudice to the other contentions.
24. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties it is revealed that the respondent No.9 has applied in the wrong category in support of which he has filed the affidavit. The issues which have been considered in the earlier petition have been raised again in the present petition. The project proponent has consistently prioritized the well being of the villagers and taken extensive steps to control pollution such as establishing an efficient effluent treatment plant to adhere to the environmental standards and minimize environmental impact. Further, this Court has heard on the earlier PIL and dismissed the same. This is the second round of litigation alleging that certain incorrect submissions were made at that point of time and they require EC for which there is already an adjudication by this Court that no EC is required for the products which are being manufactured.
Neutral Citation 2024:CGHC:4122-DB 20
25. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that no strong case for issuance of Writ as such has been made out. Hence, the Public Interest Litigation, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
suguna