Telangana High Court
M/S. Lavybens Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd vs The Union Of India And 2 Others on 6 June, 2023
Author: N.Tukaramji
Bench: N.Tukaramji
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
WRIT PETITION No.28784 of 2022
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan) Heard Mr. Srinivas Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondent No.1; and Mr. Pranav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following relief:
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents No.2 in rejecting the proposal of the Petitioner establishment of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients ("API") - Bulk Drugs & Intermediates manufacturing unit basing on the ground that the area of the project site is short of minimum area required as per the Guidelines of SEIAA bearing F.No.4/TSPCB/EC/ SEIAA/General/2015, dated 06.09.2021 as arbitrary, illegal, capricious, high handed, perverse, without any statutory force, violate of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner 2 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.28784 of 2022 herein under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India, principles of natural justice and fair play apart from being in violation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA,2006) as amended from time to time, the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1984, as amended from time to time and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) and grant the same without reference to the Guidelines framed by the 2nd respondent and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. According to the petitioner, he proposed to establish an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients - Bulk Drugs & Intermediates manufacturing unit in the name of M/s. Levybens Pharmaceuticals Private Limited at Survey No.523E/1/1/1/2/1 & 523A/2/2, Panthangi Village, Choutuppal Taluq, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District in the State of Telangana. In this regard, petitioner submitted an application under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 read with Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 31.12.2021 for grant of Environmental Clearance before the Telangana State Pollution Control Board i.e., respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the 3 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.28784 of 2022 State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). SEAC had examined the application and proposal of the petitioner and noted the following:
"a) The total area of the project is 1.0 Acre (4.46.86 Sq. M) out of which the Green area is 0.3307 Acres (1,338.44 Sq. M) (33.07%).
b) Nearest human habitat is Aregudem (V) @ 1.7 KM, nearest water body i.e, vagu @ 490 m (SW) and nearest RF is Choutuppal RF exist at 5.39 Km from the industry.
c) The SEAC noted the EMP measures proposed by the Petitioner.
d) The SEAC observed that the total site area is only Ac 1.0 which is less than Ac 2.0 which is the minimum area required for establishment of Bulk Drug & Intermediate manufacturing unit locate outside Industrial Estate/Industrial park, as per the guidelines of State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority ("SEIAA").
e) The SEAC observed that except minimum site area criteria, all other criteria is being met by the Petitioner as per the guidelines of the SEIAA and referred the project to SEIAA for taking a decision, as the SEIAA may consider relaxation of minimum area for the project, as all other criteria are being met by the Petitioner, even as provided in the said guidelines itself."
4. Thereafter the matter was placed before the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). However, 4 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.28784 of 2022 SEIAA in its meeting held on 21.05.2022 rejected the proposal of the petitioner on the ground that the project site area is only Ac. 1.0.
5. This Court vide order dated 11.07.2022 had issued notice. Thereafter respondent No.1 i.e., Union of India in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has filed counter affidavit. Para 9 of the counter affidavit is relevant and is extracted hereunder:
"It is further submitted that under the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, SEIAA and SEAC are required to discharge their functions mentioned in the EIA Notification, 2006 strictly as per the provisions of said notification, and Office Memoranda, guidelines, etc. issued by Ministry from time to time in this regard. It is also submitted that there is no provision related to requirement of minimum area for setting up the type of project in question. Further, EIA Notification 2006 also does not provide any authority to SEIAA/SEAC for formulation of their own guidelines for consideration of projects including minimum land requirement."
6. Thus according to the 1st respondent, under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006, SEIAA and SEAC are required to discharge their functions in terms of the said 5 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.28784 of 2022 notification. It has been clarified that there is no provision in the said notification relating to minimum area for setting up of a pharmaceutical project like that of the petitioner. That apart, Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 does not confer any authority either upon SEIAA or SEAC for formulation of their own guidelines for consideration of projects including minimum land requirement.
7. In the hearing today, Mr. Pranav, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that rejection of the proposal of the petitioner by the SEIAA was on account of certain notification issued during the COVID period. However, he fairly submits that in view of the clarification issued by the 1st respondent, the rejection may no longer be justified.
8. Considering the above, we set aside the rejection of the proposal of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent on 21.05.2022 and direct the said respondent to take up the case of the petitioner afresh for grant of Environmental Clearance. This shall be carried out within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6 HCJ & NTRJ W.P.No.28784 of 2022
9. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.
10. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
_______________________ UJJAL BHUYAN, CJ _______________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.06.2023 KL