National Green Tribunal
Petro Carbon And Chemicals Limited vs Commission For Air Quality Management ... on 24 December, 2025
Item No. 1A Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Appeal No. 36/2024
(I.A. No. 532/2025)
Petro Carbon and Chemicals Limited Appellant
Versus
Commission For Air Quality Management
in NCR and Adjoining Areas & Anr. Respondent(s)
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order: 28.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of order: 24.12.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Ms.
Mansi Bachani, Mr. Shubham Upadhyay & Mr. Anubhav Anand, Advs.
for Appellant
Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. for CAQM
Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi & Ms. Kanishka Pamecha, Advs. for MoEF &
CC
ORDER
1. By this Appeal filed under Section 18 of Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Area Act, 2021 (CAQM Act, 2021), Appellant has challenged Paragraph10(I)(i)(i) of the report dated 15.02.2024 issued by the of Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and the letters dated 19.04.2024 and 17.05.2024 issued by the CAQM.
2. The facts as mentioned in the Memo of Appeal are that the Appellant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) at its unit located at Haldia in West Bengal. The Appellant is primarily dependent on imported Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) for manufacturing CPC.
1
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 26.07.2018 had permitted use of imported Pet Coke in the four industries, namely, cement, lime kiln, calcium carbide and gasification for use as feedstock or in manufacturing process and not as a fuel. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) had issued the Guidelines dated 10.09.2018 for regulating the use of imported Pet Coke in the above four industries.
4. Further plea of the Appellant is that the six port-based members of the Calciner industry, including the Appellant, had filed application before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking direction that they may be permitted to import pet coke. The members of calciner industry, including the Appellant were permitted to be impleaded in pending Writ Petition (C) No. 13029/1985. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the report of the Environment Pollution (Prevention and Control) Authority (EPCA) by the order dated 09.10.2018 had permitted the import of Raw Petroleum Coke as feedstock only by placing a ceiling of 1.4 Million MT. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, CAQM on 10.08.2023 submitted the report wherein the Sub-Committee had taken the view that upper limit of 1.4MMT per annum for importing RPC was intended only for six calciners (including the Appellant). Accordingly, the Appellant had also filed IA No. 176291/2023 praying that all further allocation of 1.4 MMT quota for RPC should be confined and limited to only six port-based calciners. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 10.10.2023 directed the CAQM to look into the matter afresh keeping in view the availability of pet coke and requirement of import of pet coke. The CAQM had issued notice dated 02.11.2023 informing about the constitution of the Sub-Committee to deal with the issue of import of RPC and had sought information from the CPC manufacturing industries and giving them opportunity of hearing. Another notice dated 09.11.2023 was issued by the CAQM giving opportunity of 2 hearing to the industries manufacturing CPC before the Sub-Committee. The Appellant had initiated the plan for capacity augmentation of its pet coke plant located at Haldia and vide e-mail dated 14.11.2023 submitted its present capacity and proposed extended capacity to the CAQM. According to the Appellant, in the CAQM meeting dated 15.11.2023 only the issue of RPC quantity allocation of 0.40 MMT for FY 2023-24 was discussed. The CAQM had passed the order dated 24.11.2023 on the aspect of interim direction for allocation of balance 0.4 MMT for FY 2023-
24.
5. The Appellant vide letter dated 12.12.2023 requested the MoEF&CC for consideration of its proposal of expansion by submitting the Environment Clearance (EC) application. The EC application was uploaded on Parivesh Portal website of the MoEF&CC. The Appellant had also submitted the letter dated 07.02.2024 to the CAQM informing the plans and progress on capacity augmentation. The CAQM had released the final report dated 15.02.2024 which has been impugned in this appeal.
6. Further plea of the Appellant is that Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) in its 55th meeting held between 29.02.2024 to 01.03.2024 had granted/issued the TOR of the Appellant for expansion of the project. The Appellant vide letter dated 13.03.2024 conveyed to the CAQM about its on- going capacity augmentation project. The CAQM vide communication dated 19.04.2024 had advised the MoEF&CC to reconsider the capacity augmentation permission. The EAC had accordingly withdrawn its recommendation for grant of TOR. The Appellant had represented to the CAQM to consider its capacity augmentation project and vide impugned communication dated 17.05.2024, the Appellant was informed by the CAQM that new expansion of CPC manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calciner units will not be allowed. Hence, aggrieved with the Paragraph10(I)(i)(i) of the report dated 15.02.2024 and 3 the communications dated 19.04.2024 and 17.05.2025, the present appeal has been filed.
7. The submission of Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that the CAQM had exceeded its jurisdiction while issuing the impugned communication as the jurisdiction of the CAQM is limited to National Capital Region and Adjoining Area whereas the industry of the appellant is located in West Bengal.
8. Further submission of Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 contains no restriction on capacity augmentation of CPC plants, therefore, Appellant cannot be prevented from the capacity augmentation. Learned Counsel further submits that the final report/directions dated 15.02.2024 of the CAQM are arbitrary and unreasonable and the CAQM has committed an error in rejecting the Appellant's proposal for capacity augmentation of its CPC manufacture units. He submits that an error was also committed by the CAQM in sending the letter dated 19.04.2024 to MoEF&CC for reconsideration of capacity augmentation permission of the Appellant. He further submits that some units surrendered their quota which can be utilized in the expanded capacity.
9. As against this, learned Counsel for the Respondent - CAQM has supported the impugned action and the orders.
10. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 26.07.2018 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 13029/1985, in the matter of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (In re: Pet Coke), while considering the issue of ban on import of pet coke, took note of the meeting held by MoEF&CC on 18.07.2018 with the Officers of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and EPCA 4 wherein decision was taken to permit use of imported pet coke only in cement, lime kiln, calcium carbide and gasification industries that too for use as a feedstock or in the manufacturing process and not as fuel and accordingly directed to implement the said decision. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.07.2018 reads as under:
"ORDER REPORT NO. 79, 80 AND 87 SUBMITTED BY EPCA On 10.05.2018, we had passed the following order with regard to ban on import of pet coke:
Ban on import of Pet Coke The learned ASG assures us that the exercise receiving of inputs from Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and DGFT with regard to ban on import of pet coke and the State Governments is under way and will be completed within six weeks.
We expect and direct that a decision will be taken in this regard on or before 30th June, 2018 failing which we may have to deal with the matter.
The targeted dated of 30th June, 2018 is over.
Notwithstanding that the targeted date was over, we passed an order on 16.07.2018 to the following effect:
Ban on import of pet coke Learned Additional Solicitor General stated before us that the Report of the Technical Expert Committee to evaluate the pollution load of pet coke versus possible alternatives is ready. A copy of it has been handed over to learned amicus curiae.
Learned Additional Solicitor General says that the matter will be discussed by the officers of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change with EPCA during the course of this week and final decision taken and communicated to this Court next week.
List the matter for this purpose on 26th July, 2018.
Today, the learned ASG has placed before us an affidavit of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change in compliance of order dated 16.07.2018.
On a reading of the affidavit, it is clear that a meeting was held by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change along with officers of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and EPCA and discussions were also held with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade.5
In the Minutes of the meeting dated 18.07.2018, it is recorded in paras 1.10 and 1.11 as follows:
1.10 EPCA stated that based on extensive discussion between MoEFCC, MoPNG and DGFT, a regime for regulating import of pet coke had been suggested by DGFT, which is also compliant with WTO norms. EPCA stressed that this regulatory framework should be immediately implemented and import of pet coke should be permitted only in those industries where pet coke is used as a feedstock or in the manufacturing process and not as a fuel. These industries, which have been permitted to us pet coke in NCR states and accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are the following: cement, lime kiln, calcium carbide and gasification. Import should be allowed only for these industries in the country, which will make the regime compatible with WTO requirements. EPCA also said that it would prefer an arrangement, which priortises the use of domestic pet coke as against imported pet coke.
1.11 The Ministry officials responded to this by stating that the views of EPCA in the matter have been noted and that a suitable decision would be taken in the Ministry.
From a reading of the above decisions, it is quite clear that a consensus decision has been taken that the use of imported pet coke all over the country may be permitted only in the following industries:
cement, lime kiln, calcium carbide and gasification. It is stated that this would be in compliance with the WTO norms and these industries may be permitted to import pet coke for use as a feedstock or in the manufacturing process and not as a fuel.
EPCA has also stated that it will prefer an arrangement, which prioritizes the use of domestic pet coke as against imported pet coke.
The learned ASG says that a suitable decision is required to be taken by the Ministry. The Ministry concerned has not been mentioned. We take it that the Ministry concerned is relatable only to EPCA preferring an arrangement of prioritizing the use of domestic pet coke as against imported pet coke. The preference of EPCA deserves serious consideration.
Since the decision to permit limited import of pet coke has been taken by consensus by all the authorities mentioned above and since the time already fixed by us expired on 30.06.2018, we direct that the decision taken in para 1.10 in terms of the Minutes dated 18.07.2018 be notified and implemented with immediate effect.
Report Nos. 79 stands disposed of."
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 09.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 13029/1985, in the matter of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors. (In re: Pet Coke) had considered the issue of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) and after considering the report of the CPCB, view of the MoEF&CC and submission of learned Amicus Curiae had permitted use of 6 RPC as a feedstock for producing calcined pet coke with the cap of 1.4 MT per annum by observing as under:
"xxx .....................................xxx...........................................xxx Consequently, raw pet coke (domestic and imported) can be used as a feedstock for producing calcined pet coke.
We make it clear that the imported raw pet coke for this purpose cannot exceed 1.4 MT per annum in total."
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 13029/1985 (supra) had delegated all the concerning issues in this regard to the CAQM after taking note of the fact that the pet coke is highly polluting especially when used as fuel and in unregulated industries. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by the order dated 10.10.2023 had directed as under:
"We have heard learned counsel for parties for some time.
Learned Amicus has given a way forward, more so, as it is practically very difficult for this Court to monitor and see the quotas for different industries and periodically this Court is being approached by applications in view of the earlier orders passed. The ground reality is also stated to have changed from the time action was taken in pursuance to Report No.91. The suggestion, thus, is that the Commission for Air Quality Management should look into the matter afresh keeping in mind the availability of Pet Coke in the country and the requirement for import of Pet Coke which would depend, thereafter.
There is also a change which has occurred on account of different industries' requirement of Pet Coke. An example of this is the Aluminum industry. Thus, a holistic view would have to be taken as to the distribution of the Pet Coke available in the country and the Pet Coke required to be imported and how both of them should be distributed inter se the industries.
The aforesaid course of action is acceptable to all the learned counsel here and the only aspect urged is an anxiety about the time period required for it because a lot of industries are closed.
We, thus, delegate all these issues to the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) and, if one may observe, this is their job.
This is more so, as the origination of regulation by this Court arose from the fact that Pet Coke is highly polluting, especially when used as a fuel and in unregulated industries.
There is also another aspect arising from the allocation of six calciners which are near the ports. It is the say of 6 of the parties before us that they alone are entitled to it, while another set of parties states that 7 right up to 2023, 1 million tonne was being distributed amongst the six persons and remaining 0.4 million was being distributed to the rest. It is the say that now 0.4 million is not being distributed on account of some orders passed in the year 2023.
Be that as it may, it is appropriate that the CAQM bestows consideration even on this aspect and wherever any interim directions are required, the Commission itself can pass those directions, uninfluenced by other orders which may be passed by any other Court.
Needless to say that all concerned parties will be heard in this process and insofar as the interim directions are concerned, an earlier consideration will be bestowed.
Learned counsel for the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change requests for three months to complete the task. However, insofar as the interim directions are concerned, the Commission may take an action between 4-6 weeks.
The aforesaid would take care of the various applications before us qua the issue of import and enhancement of import quota and thus, these applications stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.
The applications for impleadment and intervention are also disposed of."
14. Thus, it is clear that the CAQM has passed the impugned orders in view of the delegation of the issues to the CAQM by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while passing the above order dated 10.10.2023. Thus, the argument of Counsel for the Appellant that the communication/orders of the CAQM are without jurisdiction are found to be without substance.
15. The record further reflects that after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.10.2023, the CAQM has constituted a Sub- Committee under the Chairmanship of its full time Technical Member and consisting of Members from the Commission, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (MoPNG), Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoC&I), Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) and Central Pollution Control Board(CPCB) to examine the issues delegated to the Committee. In that Committee, Member from the National Environmental Engineer Research Institute (NEERI) was co-opted. The Sub-Committee formed by it had given 8 opportunity of hearing to the CPC manufacturers and Aluminium industries and had deliberated in detail the issues relating to distribution of pet coke available in the country and the pet coke required to be imported and its distribution inter-se amongst the industries. It also examined the issue of allocation of balance quantity of 0.4 MMT RPC out of total 1.4 MMT for the year 2023-24. The Sub-Committee in its report Annexure-I (page 402) after detailed deliberations decided to continue with a cap on import of RPC/CPC in an effort to provide adequate checks and balances towards incremental emissions. The Committee in the interest of environment recommended that no new establishment of CPC manufacturing unit or augmentation of the existing calcining units may be allowed by observing as under:
"xxx .........................................xxx.......................................xxx h. The suggested cap on the import of respective quantities of RPC/ CPC is considering the present capacities / consents of the regulatory authorities including the ongoing manufacturing capacity augmentations and is expected to take care of the requirements in all sectors for the next five years and thus ordinarily a review would be required accordingly, except for emergent and unforeseen conditions that may arise in future. Accordingly, any new establishment of CPC manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calcining units may not be allowed purely in the interest of environment."
16. The CAQM had considered the report of the Sub-Committee in detail and thereafter had passed the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 on the issue of import, allocation for RPC and CPC in the country. While passing the impugned order, the CAQM took note of the recommendation of the Sub-Committee in detail and thereafter had issued following directions:
"I. Import of RPC and CPC by Calciners / Aluminium Industry i. Import of total 1.9 MMT RPC for CPC Manufacturers and 0.5 MMT CPC for Aluminium Industry respectively shall be permitted during 2024-25 and 1.9 MMT RPC for Calciners and 0.8 MMT CPC for Aluminium Industry respectively from 2025- 26 onwards, strictly subject to the following conditions:9
a. Use of pet coke shall be permitted only as a feedstock / raw material and under no circumstances to be used as fuel;
b. Import of pet coke (CPC/RPC) shall be permitted to cater entirely to the domestic needs of aluminium industry and other industries, for the processes as permitted under various regulations / statutes and export of calcined pet coke through such calcining units shall be discouraged. However, "deemed exports to SEZ units would be permitted;
c. For the calciner industries, SO2 emissions shall be managed and controlled through a flue gas desulphurization system, so as to comply with the standards of emissions prescribed;
d. Emission limits for SO, for anode making process in aluminium industries are yet to be notified, which needs to be fast tracked by the CPCB and the MoEF&CC, to be endeavoured to be notified in a period of about six months from now;
e. Continuous analysers for measurement of PM, SOx, NOx shall be installed by the calciners in the stacks of processes where waste/process gases are used; f. Regulation and monitoring of such import shall be as per the guidelines of MoEF&CC's OM dated 10.09.2018; g. The overall availability of RPC and CPC may be assessed from time to time by MoC&I in consultation with MoPNG, to prioritise the use of domestically available RPC; h. Allocations to individual units/industries may be continued to be carried out by the DGFT in line with their extent policies and guidelines duly taking into account the statutory environmental clearances, regulations etc. and the consented quantities for individual units; i. The suggested caps on the import of respective quantities of RPC/CPC is considering the present capacities / consents of the regulatory authorities including the ongoing manufacturing capacity augmentations and is expected to take care of the requirements in all sectors for the next five years and thus ordinarily a review would be required accordingly, except for emergent and unforeseen conditions that may arise in future. Accordingly, any new establishment of CPC manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calcining units shall not be allowed purely in the overall interest of environment."
17. The CAQM had accordingly fixed the cap of import of RPC for CPC manufacture and CPC for Aluminium industries respectively for the year 2024-25 after duly considering the report of the Sub-Committee. The CAQM also accepted the report and by the decision contained in Para 10(I)(i)(i) had categorically decided that no new establishment of the CPC 10 manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calcined units shall be allowed purely on overall interest of environment. The impugned order of the CAQM is uniformly applicable to all the similarly situated industries and it is not arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. It is based upon the recommendation of the Sub-Committee comprising of all the concerned representatives of all the concerned Ministries and the Expert. Hence, we do not find any error in the impugned clauses of the order of the CAQM dated 15.02.2024.
18. It is worth noting that inspite of the aforesaid order, the Expert Appraisal Committee of MoEF&CC on 12.03.2024 had recommended the proposal of the Appellant for expansion of existing calcined petroleum coke plant. Since the said recommendation was contrary to the recommendation of the Sub-Committee and contrary to the order of the CAQM dated 15.02.2024, therefore, the CAQM vide impugned communication dated 19.04.2024 had brought it to the notice of the MoEF&CC and requesting the MoEF&CC to look into the matter and take appropriate action. The CAQM was well within its power and was justified in sending the impugned communication dated 19.04.2024 to the MoEF&CC. The Expert Appraisal Committee in its 57th meeting dated 09.05.2024 had noted the discrepancy in its earlier recommendation and had accordingly withdrawn its recommendation made in the 55th meeting held on 29.02.2024 and 01.03.2024 and further recommendation to return the proposal duly disclosing the reasons mentioned in the minutes of the meeting. Thus, the TOR submitted by the Appellant has been returned by the EAC.
19. The CAQM accordingly while passing the impugned order dated 17.05.2024 took note of the fact that the EAC had withdrawn the TOR on 24th - 25th April, 2023 and also taking note of Clause-10(I)(i) of the CAQM order dated 15.02.2024 had rejected the Appellant's request for allocation 11 of RPC for proposed expansion of CPC plant finding it to be without any merit by observing as under:
"xxx.....................................xxx............................................xxx
4. Also, as informed by you, TOR for expansion of capacity of CPC manufacturing was applied on 16.12.2023, which was after notice dated 02.11.2023. As gathered, the EAC has withdrawn TOR on 24/25.04.2023 which was earlier recommended by EAC on 12.03.2024 (i.e. well after CAQM order dated 15.02.2024) been only on 12.03.2024.
5. Further, it is quite clear as per Para 10(1)(i) of the Commission order dated 15.02.2024 that any new establishment of CPC manufacturing unit or capacity augmentation of existing calcining units shall not be allowed purely in the overall interest of environment. Therefore, your request for allocation of RPC for proposed expansion of CPC plant does not have any merit."
20. The above sequence of events clearly reveals that the CAQM has acted within its jurisdiction and has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 and issuing the communications dated 19.04.2024 or 17.05.2024. Due opportunity of hearing was given to the Appellant, therefore, principle of natural justice has been complied with.
21. The Appellant has also failed to point out that contrary to the decision of the Sub-Committee or order of the CAQM dated 15.02.2024 if any calcining unit has been permitted capacity augmentation. Thus, a uniform approach for all the units has been adopted purely in overall interest of the environment.
22. Thus, we find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. The Appeal is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed. All the pending I.A's, if any, will also stand disposed of.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM December 24, 2025 Appeal No. 36/2024 dv 12