National Green Tribunal
Jindal Power Limited vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 8 April, 2025
Item No. 01
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL
(Through Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 11/2025(CZ)
(I.A. No. 14/2025)
(I.A. No. 17/2025)
Jindal Power Limited
through its Authorized Representative
Tamnar District, Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh- 496107
Applicant(s)
Versus
1 Ministry of Environment, Forest &
Climate Change
Through its Secretary,
Indira Parayavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi - 110003 Respondent No. 1
2 Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation
Board
Through its Member Secretary,
Paryavas Bhavan, North Block Sector-19,
Atal Nagar District - Raipur,
Chhattisgarh-492002 Respondent No. 2
3 Ministry of Coal
Through its Secretary
A-Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
Dr. Rajender Prasad Marg,
New Delhi -110001 Respondent No. 3
COUNSELS FOR APPLICANT(S):
Mr. Gopal Jain, Sr. Adv.
(with Ms. Gauri Rasgotra, Adv.
Mr. Dinesh Moorjani, Adv.
Mr. Priya Shri Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Girish Ahuja, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kharbanda, Adv. &
Ms. Ekta Gupta, Adv.)
1
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
COUNSELS FOR RESPONDENT(S):
Ms. Suhasini Sen, Adv.
(with Ms. Masooma Rizvi, Adv.
Ms. Surbhi, Adv.)
Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Pooran Chand Roy, Adv.
Ms. Parul Khurana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER
Date of completion of hearing and reserving of order : 20.03.2025
Date of uploading of order on website : 08.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This original application has been filed to enforce the order of Government of India, Ministry of Coal, issued under Section 6 of the Coal Mines Special Provision Act, 2015, named as vesting order with its terms and conditions specifically annexure-03/vesting order in light of the EC granted in favour of the project proponent-applicant in the year 2012.
2. Ministry of Coal issued a letter dated 01.07.1998 allotting the subject coal mine to the prior allottee, JPL. Pursuant to the allocation, MoEF on 22.09.2004 granted. EC to JPL for opencast coal mining of 5.25 MTPA in the subject coal mine. On 27.01.2006, CECB issued letters granting CTO to JPL under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 25 & 26 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Pursuant to the CTOs, JPL started mining operations at the subject coal mine.
3. On 22.08.2007, MoEF issued Terms of Reference ("TOR") to JPL for expansion of mine capacity for opencast coal mining from 5.25 MTPA to 6.25 MTPA and for underground coal mining of 0.75 MTPA. On 22.08.2007, MoEF also issued another TOR for Coal Washery of 4.75 2 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. MTPA proposed to be established by JPL. The EAC recommended preparation of an integrated EIA-EMP report for the coal mine and the washery, both being in the adjoining area. The TOR, inter alia, included preparation of EIA-EMP assessing impact of operation of coal washery, transportation of washed coal to pit head, and other related issues of air, water, and solid waste generation and proposed mitigative measures.
4. MoEF, on 12.06.2012, granted EC to JPL for expansion of opencast coal mining from 5.25 ΜΤΡΑ to 6.25 MTPA and underground mining of 0.75 MTPA (having total combined production of 6.25 MTPA). The EC further granted permission to JPL for establishment of a pit-head coal washery of 4.75 MTPA, wherein the specific conditions (xx), (xxi), (xxii), (xxii), (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxxii) were included in the EC dated 12.06.2012 with respect to coal washery. It may be noted that the only reason behind the combined EC was that the mining and washery proposals were in the adjoining area. Further, CECB granted CTOs for mining and washery separately, being two distinct activities.
5. On 12.02.2013, CECB granted two CTOs to JPL for the Coal Washery of 4.75 MTPA under Section 21 of Air Act and Sections 25 and 26 of the Water Act, for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the said letter i.e., till 11.02.2014 which was subsequently renewed from time to time. Similarly, on 01.01.2014, CECB also granted CTOs to JPL for opencast and underground coal mining project for 6.25 MTPA under the Air Act and Water Act, for a period of one year from the date of issuance of the said letter. Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 24.09.2014 in W.P. (Crl.) 120 of 2012 cancelled allocation of 204 coal blocks including the subject coal mine. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order identified 42 operational mines, which included the subject mine and permitted such mines to continue their operations till 31.03.2015. 3 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. CECB on 09.10.2014 renewed CTOs granted to JPL for Coal Washery of 4.75 MTPA, from 12.02.2014 to 11.02.2016.
6. The Central Government conducted auction in 2015 of the subject coal mine (without the coal washery as the same is not part of mine infrastructure as defined under Section 3(1)(j) of the CMSP Act, 2015) wherein JPL emerged as preferred bidder. However, an order was passed by the MoC on 20.03.2015 to the effect that JPL was not declared as the successful bidder on the ground that the highest bid of JPL did not reflect the fair value. Further, by way of an Office Memorandum dated 23.03.2015, MoC directed the subject mine to be allotted to CIL till further auction. JPL challenged the said orders of the MoC and filed WP(C) No. 3001 of 2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by its order dated 27.03.2015 appointed CIL as designated custodian for the subject mine under Section 18 of the CMSP Act, 2015. Accordingly, CIL. appointed its fully owned subsidiary, SECL, to act as the designated custodian of the subject coal mine.
7. JPL issued a letter dated 31.03.2015 informing SECL, who was authorized to act on behalf of CIL, that JPL has stopped mining operations and have given physical possession of the subject mine to representatives of SECL in terms of the order dated 27.03.2015 passed in WP(C) No. 3001 of 2015.
8. On 31.03.2015, SECL submitted an application to MoEF requesting exemption from certain conditions of the EC dated 12.06.2012 based on the fact that the coal washery and other plant facilities (CHP, CCPC, etc) doesn't fall within the custodianship of SECL. The exemption sought were such as a) transportation of coal by road instead of CCPC, b) backfilling of ash in coal mine, and e) mine water management as the washery was not under the custodianship of SECL. However, on the other hand, SECL also 4 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. sent letters dated 06.04.2015 and 08.04.2015 to JPL to hand over the coal washery, coal handling plant ("CHP"), cross country pipe conveyor ("CCPC"), etc. which were partly inside the allocated block area of the subject coal mine.
9. In view of the SECL letters dated 06.04.2015 and 08.04.2015, JPL was constrained to file application bearing CM No. 6595 of 2015 in WP(C) No. 3001 of 2015 seeking clarification of the order dated 27.03.2015 passed by the Hon'ble High Court that the CIL/SECL cannot take over coal washery, CHP and CCPC and to direct CIL/SECL from preventing JPL from operating these facilities. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court by its order dated 16.04.2015 in CM No. 6595 of 2015 allowed JPL to retain control over the coal washery, CHP and CCPC as these items were excluded from the auction process of the subject coal mine.
10. MoEF by its letter dated 16.04.2015 stated that based on the submissions made by SECL, the EAC was of the view that the conditions related to coal washery and fly ash dumping in the mine area are not applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, the MoEF allowed exemption to certain conditions of the EC dated 12.06.2012 of JPL (prior allottee) by permitting SECL to operate the subject coal mine in public interest to ensure continuous coal production at the mine and the following interim arrangement till further orders from the Court was granted:
i. The OB is to be managed in the same way as stipulated in the EC albeit without fly ash and washery rejects. ii. In the original proposal. the entire mine water generated was not envisaged to be used in the washery and therefore the management plan prescribed for treatment of mine water not utilized in the washery would be applicable. 5 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. iii. On the issue of the coal transportation by road the Committee noted that there would be a major change in air environment due to road transportation of about 6 MTPA / 18000 TPD of coal. As an interim measure, the road transport of coal can be permitted, and the PP has to come back with the Rapid study on the impact of road transport on the air quality including route and traffic survey within one month.
11. Pursuant to the exemptions granted by MoEF to SECL, JPL issued various letters dated 24.04.2015, 13.05.2015, and 07.09.2015 requesting MoEF not to change the conditions related to coal washery, backfilling of fly ash in the mine voids or alternatively issue a separate EC for the 4.75 MTPA washery, as the control of the same was permitted to be retained with JPL by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's order dated 16.04.2015. It may be noted that control of coal washery, CHP, and CCPC was permitted to be retained implying that operations of washery were to be continued by JPL being in absolute control of the same.
12. MoEF did not specifically respond to the request of JPL for a separate EC for its washery operations, however, it raised no objection to JPL continuing its washery operations basis the valid and subsisting EC dated 12.06.2012. JPL was regularly submitting its compliance reports pertaining to the washery to the Regional MoEF, and was continually being granted CTOs by the CECB, a government functionary. In view thereof, the letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by MoEF exempting SECL from certain conditions of EC dated 12.06.2012 including coal washery was only an interim arrangement till further order of the Court, therefore, EC dated 12.06.2012 to the extent of coal washery operations continued to be with JPL.
6 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
13. On 01.06.2016, JPL submitted the first half-yearly environmental clearance compliance report w.r.t coal washery in view of the Hon'ble High Court order dated 16.04.2015 and the MoEF letter dated 16.04.2015, JPL being in absolute control of the plant facilities, only complied with the conditions related to the coal washery, CHP, and CCPC. It may be noted that JPL has duly submitted half-yearly environmental clearance compliance reports to the Regional Office of MoEF from 2016 till date. CECB on 16.06.2016 renewed CTOs granted to JPL for Coal Washery of 4.75 MTPA, from 12.02.2016 to 11.02.2017.
14. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by its judgement dated 09.03.2017 in WP(C) No. 3001 of 2015 partly allowed the writ petition by holding that the allotment of the subject coal mine made on 23.03.2015 in favour of CIL was only an interim measure and CIL will continue to function as the designated custodian under Section 18 of the CMSP Act, until the Government takes a decision to either put up the subject coal mine to re- auction or to allot it to CIL or any other public sector corporation. However, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi did not interfere in the decision taken by the Government not to declare JPL as the Successful Bidder. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi continued the interim order dated 16.04.2015 permitting control of washery to JPL.
15. It is further submitted that CECB has renewed the CTO for the Coal washery till 31.01.2025 by different orders and when the applicant applied for renewal of CTO for Coal washery which was turned down by the CECB Chhattisgarh on 21.01.2025 without any substance and without ground and without giving any opportunity of hearing which is not tenable on the following grounds :-
7
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. i. JPL has been issued CTOs for coal washery consistently from time to time by the CECB with the most recent CTO granted on 31.03.2022 which is valid till 31.01.2025. The CTOs which were issued from time to time were based on the EC dated 12.06.2012.
ii. The EC for the coal washery as per the EC dated 12.06.2012 remained with JPL throughout, as evidenced by the regular issuance of CTOs by the CECB and filing of the compliance reports and compliance with environmental norms and statutory obligations in relation to the washery. iii. CMSP Act particularly Section 8(4) unequivocally mandates transfer of all rights, titles, interests and statutory clearances which includes ECs as they existed with the prior allottee. iv. MoEF's omission to include EC condition and further declaration of coal washery as a violation case in the letter dated 14.11.2023 is a clear violation of the statutory obligation rendering the action illegal and arbitrary. v. CECB's letter dated 21.01.2025 rejecting JPL's application for renewal of CTOs, JPL is now facing risk of closure of the coal washery which is also detrimental to environmental sustainability. The coal washery plays a critical role in reducing environmental pollution by ensuring proper segregation of impurities and promoting responsible mining practices.
vi. Letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by MoEF, exempting SECL, as designated custodian, from certain conditions of EC dated 12.06.2012 including coal washery, was only an interim 8 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
arrangement till further order of the Court. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi extended the said arrangement by its order dated 09.03.2017 till fresh auctions were conducted by the government.
vii. In case MoEF was making any modifications in the EC dated 12.06.2012 while transferring the EC to the successful bidder, it could not have done so without the approval of EAC as per EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. It is clear that what could be lawfully transferred to JPL under the CMSP Act was the EC dated 12.06.2012 of the prior allottee. The MoEF's decision to transfer, the EC from SECL (custodian) to JPL (successful bidder) as mentioned in the letter dated 14.11.2023, contravenes the intent and purpose of the CMSP Act which mandates the transfer of all statutory permissions as they existed with the prior allottee and not that of designated custodian.
viii. JPL had been regularly submitting the half-yearly EC compliance reports to the Regional Office of MoEF for its coal washery operations from 2013 till date. During this period, MoEF neither raised objections nor communicated to JPL regarding any purported violations of the EC for washery. Clearly, the objection/ condition to restrict/ prohibit JPL's coal washery operations is an afterthought and without merit.
ix. Without prejudice it is submitted that as per 8(vi) of EIA, EC can only be revoked or cancelled by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to JPL. However, in the facts 9 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
of the present case, MoEF by its letter dated 14.11.2023 and CECB by its letter dated 23.11.2023 arbitrarily and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, directed JPL to obtain EC for coal washery as per SoP for handling violation cases.
16. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the EC dated 12.06.2012, which was issued in favour of the applicant by the MoEF&CC in para 2 it has been mentioned that in accordance with the EIA notification the MoEF&CC accords the environmental clearance for the above project "for a combined production of Coal of 6.25 MPTA and a washery" and the EC dated 14.11.2023 has been issued on the same terms and conditions as contained in para 9 for which the project proponent has submitted the undertaking as contained in para 8 of the notification dated 14.11.2023. It is further submitted that the CECB vide order dated 12.02.2020 has issued CTO with coal washery and further issued CTO and renewed it vide order dated 31.03.2022 with coal washery and renewed time to time which is upto 31.01.2025. Annexure A/23 the vesting order issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Coal contains that all the right title and interest are transferred to the Project Proponent/present allottee with entitlement of statutory licensee, permit, permission, approval or consent required to undertake coal mining operations in the mine and that the project proponent runs a 3400 MW power plant and use of washed coal ensures energy efficiency in the power plant enabling JPL to produce more energy with lesser input of raw coal which is beneficial for the environment.
17. In view of the above provisions, the contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that the CECB cannot frustrate the quoted above 10 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. provisions and cannot frustrate the notification dated 14.11.2023 read with date 12.06.2012 and vesting order.
18. Govt. of India, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) IA Division vide letter reference dated 14.11.2023 granted/transferred environmental clearance in the favour of the applicant as follows:
i. "The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) granted Environment Clearance to Gare IV/2 and IV/3 Opencast and Underground Coal Mining Project of a combined production of 6.25 MTPA (OCP from 5.25 MTPA to 6.25 MTPA and 0.75 MTPA production in UGP) in an ML area of 964.65 ha and for establishment of a pit-head coal washery of 4.75 MTPA (800 TPH) within the Gare IV/2 and IV/3 ML of M/s Jindal Power Ltd. at Gharghoda Tehsil, Raigarh district, Chhattisgarh subject to compliance of terms and conditions stipulated in the EC letter no. J-
11015/288/2007-IA.II(M) dated 12th June, 2012. ii. Now, Ministry of Coal based on Vesting order (under clause
(b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 7 and sub-rule (1) of rule 13 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules 2014 read with clause
(b) of sub-section (3) of Section 6 and sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015) by Office of Nominated Authority, Constituted under section 6 of The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015. It has been submitted that Ministry of Coal vide Order No. NA- 104/1/2023-NA dated 2nd May, 2023, has allocated the mine (Gare Palma IV/2 and Gare Palma IV/3) in favour of 11 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
Jindal Power Limited, incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 with corporate identity number U04010CT1995PLC008985, whose registered office is at Jindal Power Limited, Tamnar, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh- 496107 (the "successful bidder").
iii. PP has submitted an Undertaking on India Non Judicial Stamp Paper vide Certificate No. INCG41167561056770V dated 04.05.2023 has stated the following: "The company undertakes to accept the terms and conditions of the above mentioned environment clearance granted to M/s Jindal Power Limited (JPL)"
iv. In view of Ministry of Coal Allotment/vesting Order no.
Order No. NA-104/1/2023-NA dated 2nd May, 2023 and MoEFCC Gazette Notification dated 23rd March, 2015, the modified EC granted vide its letter No. J-11015/288/2007- IA.II(M) dated 16th April, 2015 to Gare IV/2 and IV/3 Opencast and Underground Coal Mining Project of a combined production of 6.25 MTPA (OCP from 5.25 MTPA to 6.25 MTPA and 0.75 MTPA production in UGP) (without coal washery) in an ML area of 964.65 ha at Gharghoda Tehsil, Raigarh district, Chhattisgarh, under the provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and amendments thereto and Circulars issued thereon, subject to the compliance of the terms and conditions mentioned therein is hereby transferred from M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited (custodian) to M/s Jindal Power Limited, subject to the following Specific and General conditions as 12 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
mentioned in the EC letter dated 12.06.2012 and subsequently modified EC letter dated 16.04.2015 applicable to SECL:-
A. Specific Conditions for Coal Mine as laid down in EC letter dated 12.06.2012:
i. Maximum production by opencast mining shall not exceed 6.25 MTPA and that by underground mining shall not exceed 0.75 MTPA. The maximum combined production at any given time shall not exceed 6.25 MTPA from both opencast and underground mining. ii. The mining operations shall be opencast during the first 34 years and underground mining shall begin from the 3rd year and continue until the end of mine life.
iii. Before starting underground mining, the void shall be properly backfilled, stabilised and reclamation undertaken. Sufficient parting shall be maintained between the bottom most OC seam and top most UG seam.
iv. Diversion of Bendra Nala flowing through the ML area for a total length of 1230m shall be undertaken under the supervision of Hasdeo Kacher Water Resource Department (WRD), Bilaspur. The diversion channel of Bendra nala shall follow the natural gradient and join at the point of original exit at the ML boundary in its original course, so that the downstream users of 13 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
Bendra Nala are not affected due to the proposed diversion. Monitoring of water quality of River Kelo and Bendra Nala upstream and downstream of the mine shall be monitored as per General Standards prescribed under EPA Rules, 1986 and data thereon uploaded regularly on the company website and also furnished as part of the Compliance Report to MOEF RO, Bhopal.
v. Mining shall be carried out as per statute at a safe distance from River Kelo. The embankment of 5 km length being constructed between River Kelo and the ML boundary shall be at least 6m higher than the HFL of River Kelo.
vi. The proponent shall strengthen the embankment along the diverted stretch of the Bendra Nala and along River Kelo adjoining the boundary of the mine using large boulders in wire mesh along diverted Bendra nala and then along the eastern bank of Kelo river and grouting of weak portions of the embankment to protect the mine from flooding. The slope of the embankment towards the river shall at least 1:3 for stability and shall be stabilised with plantation using native species selected from the study area.
vii. The proponent shall strengthen the embankment along the diverted stretch of the Bendra Nala and along River Kelo adjoining the boundary of the mine using large boulders in wire mesh along diverted Bendra nala and 14 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
then along the eastern bank of Kelo river and grouting of weak portions of the embankment to protect the mine from flooding. The slope of the embankment towards the river shall at least 1:3 for stability and shall be stabilised with plantation using native species selected from the study area.
viii. Top soil shall be stored in the earmarked area and used for green belt development and for plantation/reclamation within a year of its generation. Green belt development shall be completed within the first 3 years of mining operation.
ix. OB shall be stacked at earmarked external OB dumpsites of 48.40 ha within ML area. The maximum height of the external OB dump shall not exceed 60m. The ultimate slope of the dump shall not exceed 28 Monitoring and management of existing reclaimed dumpsites shall continue until the vegetation becomes self-sustaining. Compliance status shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests and its Regional office located at Bhopal on yearly basis. x. Catch drains and siltation ponds of appropriate size shall be constructed to arrest silt and sediment flows from soil, OB and mineral dumps. The water so collected shall be utilised for watering the mine area, roads, green belt development, etc. The drains shall be regularly desilted and maintained properly. 15 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
xi. Garland drains (size, gradient and length) and sump capacity shall be designed keeping 50% safety margin over and above the peak sudden rainfall and maximum discharge in the area adjoining the mine site. Sump capacity shall also provide adequate retention period to allow proper settling of silt material. xii. Dimension of the retaining wall at the toe of the dumps and OB benches within the mine to check run-off and siltation shall be based on the rainfall data. xiii. During underground mining, while extracting panels in the lower seam, all water bodies in the subsidence area shall be drained. Dewatering of the old goaves of the upper seam shall be continued as long as the lower seam is worked to prevent accumulation of large water bodies over working area. At the time of depillaring, protective bunds and garland drains shall be provided so that no water from the surface enters the subsidence area and the shaft.
xiv. Sufficient coal pillars shall be left unextracted around the airshaft (within the subsidence influence area) to protect from any damage from subsidence, if any. xv. Solid barriers shall be left below habitation, agricultural land, roads falling within the blocks to avoid subsidence. No depillaring operation shall be carried out below the roads and habitation area found within the lease. In case of subsidence, the land shall 16 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
be acquired and compensation provided as per Policy/rules.
xvi. Regular monitoring of subsidence movement on the surface over and around the working area and impact on natural drainage pattern, water bodies, vegetation, structure, roads, and surroundings shall be continued till movement ceases completely. In case of observation of any high rate of subsidence movement, appropriate effective corrective measures shall be taken to avoid loss of life and material. Cracks shall be effectively plugged with ballast and clayey soil/suitable material. xvii. Crushers at the CHP shall be operated with high efficiency bag filters/water sprinkling system shall be provided to check fugitive emissions from crushing. operations, conveyor system which shall be closed, haulage roads, transfer points, etc. xviii. Drills shall be wet operated only.
xix. Controlled blasting shall be practiced with use of delay detonators and only during daytime. The mitigative measures for control of ground vibrations and to arrest the fly rocks and boulders shall be implemented. xx. Coal (18,000 TPD) shall be transported from the mine by 7-km long piped conveyors only to the linked power plant located at the distance of 9 km.
17 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
xxi. The proponent shall maintain proper records of the ash content of raw (ROM) coal, clean coal, middling and coal rejects along with quantum of raw coal obtained and washed and dispatched every month and the same shall be uploaded on the company website every month.
xxii. The entire quantity of clean coal shall be transported by conveyor only to the linked TPP located at a distance of 9km from the mine.
xxiii. All internal roads shall be concreted or black topped and the approach roads used for the project shall be blacked topped. Facilities for parking of trucks carrying raw coal from the linked coalmines shall be created within the Unit.
xxiv. The roads (internal/approach/and roads used for the project) shall be regularly cleaned with mechanical sweepers and with water sprinklers. A 3-tier avenue plantation shall be developed along the major approach roads, Internal roads and nearby roads used by the company.
xxv. Green belt shall be developed along the areas such as the washery unit, crushing unit, and stockyards and at transfer points.
xxvi. Hoppers of the coal crushing unit at the crushing shed and washery unit shall be fitted with high efficiency 18 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
bag filters/Dust extractors and mist spray water sprinkling system shall be installed and operated effectively at all times of operation to check fugitive emissions from crushing operations, transfer points of belt conveyor systems which shall be closed and from transportation roads.
xxvii. The proponent shall ensure that coal rejects of 1.76 MTPA such as stones, shale and other wastes of an ash content of 77% or more only shall be dumped into the mine voids. Coal rejects with an ash content of 76% or less shall be fully utilised in TPP for power generation.
xxviii. An estimated 3.905 Mm3 (5.07 MTPA) of flyash from the power plant to be accommodated in the mine, shall be dumped in the mine void in alternate layers of flyash and OB in the ratio of 25%:75% as per DGMS approval, after the initial row of OB of not less than 15m thickness to prevent dump failures.
xxix. Continuous monitoring of long-term impacts of dumping of fly ash (for life of the mine) and leaching of heavy metals on soil and water quality of the study area shall be undertaken and the details of which shall be submitted to the Central Ground Water Board, SPCB and to the Regional Office of this Ministry at Bhopal as part of the compliance report. Permanent monitoring arrangements such as peizometers shall be 19 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
established in and around the mine area covering the potential impact zone for contamination of heavy metals due to leachates from the fly ash and in case of increasing levels of heavy metals detected in the groundwater, further dumping of fly ash shall be stopped immediately. Independent Third Part monitoring of the impacts of dumping of fly ash shall also be undertaken and reported to the regulatory authorities and uploaded on the company website. In case disposal of fly ash into the decoaled voids is not found to be an environmentally suitable option, the balance void shall be backfilled with only OB or converted into a water reservoir of a max. depth of 35m and shall be gently sloped and the upper benches of the reservoir shall be stabilized with plantation and the periphery of the reservoir fenced.
xxx. Regular monitoring of groundwater level and quality shall be carried out by establishing a network of existing wells and construction of new peizometers. The monitoring for quantity shall be done four times a year in pre-monsoon (May), monsoon (August), post- monsoon (November) and winter (January) seasons and for quality in May. Data thus collected shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests and to the Central Pollution Control Board quarterly within one month of monitoring.
xxxi. As the entire mine water is proposed to be used for the mine-cum-washery operations, measures shall be 20 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
taken for recharging ground water in and around the mine in the study area and for agricultural use. A Plan for water conservation and recharge measures of ground water along with budgetary provisions be prepared and Implemented in consultation with the Central/State Ground Water Board to mitigate the adverse impact of mining which may lead to depletion of ground water in the area. The Company shall put up artificial groundwater recharge measures for augmentation of groundwater resource in case monitoring of groundwater levels indicate decline of water table. Any additional water requirement for mining operation shall be met from rainwater use only. The project authorities shall meet water requirement of nearby village(s) in case the village wells go dry due to dewatering of mine. It shall be ensured that if the river/nala discharge of mine water takes place, it shall be treated to conform to prescribed standards before discharge.
xxxii. ETP shall also be provided for treatment of effluents from workshop, CHP and an STP shall be provided in the colony and the treated effluents shall be used for green belt development. Outflow of rainfall, if any, from the mine shall meet prescribed norms and the water quality of such discharge shall be monitored at the exit points and records maintained thereof and also uploaded on the company website.
21 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
xxxiii. An afforestation plan covering an area not less than 938 ha shall be implemented, which Includes backfilled area (833 ha) and are originally covered by ext. OB dump (48.20 ha), along ML boundary, green belt, embankment (30 ha), along roads and infrastructure, undisturbed/vacant land by planting native species such as Sal, Tendu, Mahua, etc in consultation with the local DFO/Agriculture Department/institution with the relevant discipline.
The density of the trees shall be around 2500 plants per ha.
xxxiv. Backfilling shall start by the 3rd year of operations and completed by 34th year with cessation of opencast operations. Of the total excavated area of 866.25 ha, about 833 ha shall be backfilled and reclaimed with 6 plantation/afforestation by planting native plant species in consultation with the local DFO/Agriculture Department. The density of the trees shall be around 2500 plants per ha. The balance 30m of void shall be left as a water body and the upper benches of the water body shall be gently sloped and stablised and reclaimed with plantation.
xxxv. A Programme for conservation of the wildlife particularly for the Indian Elephant reported in the study area and for other rare and endangered species/Schedule-1 fauna and endangered flora and species of medicinal importance found in the study area shall be formulated and implemented in 22 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
consultation with the Forest and Wildlife Departments in the State Government. Separate funds shall be earmarked for Implementation of the various activities there under and the status thereof shall be regularly reported to this Ministry and the MOEF Regional Office, Bhopal and also uploaded on the company website. The project authorities shall participate in a Regional Action Plan o the State Government for conservation of flora and fauna found within the study area.
xxxvi. Besides carrying out regular periodic health check-up of their workers, 10% of the workers Identified from workforce engaged in active mining operations shall be subjected to health check-up for occupational diseases and hearing impairment, if any, through a recognised agency found in the district, and the results reported to this Ministry and to DGMS.
xxxvii. For monitoring land use pattern and for post mining land use, a time series of landuse maps, based on satellite imagery (on a scale of 1: 5000) of the core zone and buffer zone, from the start of the project until end of mine life shall be prepared once in 3 years (for any one particular season which is consistent in the time series), and the report submitted to MOEF and its Regional office at Bhopal.
xxxviii. Cost for environmental protection measures shall be not less than Rs 1451,97 lakhs (capital) Including Rs 837.81 lakhs for the washery and the annual recurring costs shall be not less than Rs. 442.09 lakhs.
23 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
xxxix. The activities under CSR shall continue for life of the mine (41 years) and a provision of Rs 5/T of coal or Rs 2.6 crores (whichever is higher) adjusted according to value of the rupee, shall be undertaken for the villages in the study area until end of mine life. Details of village-wise activities under CSR along with the activities and budgetary provision shall be uploaded on the company website and the status of its implementation along with expenditure thereon and also desired that a Third party audit of implementation of CSR shall be done periodically.
xl. A Final Mine Closure Plan along with details of Corpus Fund shall be submitted to the Ministry of Environment & Forests five year before mine closure for approval. Habitat Restoration Plan of the mine area shall be carried out using a mix of native species found in the original ecosystem, which were conserved in-situ and ex-situ in an identified area within the lease for reintroduction in the mine during mine reclamation and at the post mining stage for habitat restoration. xli. Corporate Environment Responsibility:
a) The Company shall have a well laid down Environment Policy approved by the Board of Directors.
b) The Environment Policy shall prescribe for standard operating process/procedures to bring into focus any 24 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
infringements/deviation/violation of the environmental or forest norms/conditions.
c) The hierarchical system or Administrative Order of the company to deal with environmental issues and for ensuring compliance with the environmental clearance conditions shall be furnished.
d) To have proper checks and balances, the company shall have a well laid down system of reporting of non-
compliances/violations of environmental norms to the Board of Directors of the company and/or shareholders or B. Conditions of modified EC dated 16.04.2015 i. The OB is to be managed in the same way as stipulated in the EC albeit without fly ash and Washery rejects.
ii. In the original proposal, the entire mine water generated was not envisaged to be used in the Washery and therefore the management plan prescribed for treatment of mine water not utilized in the Washery would be applicable.
iii. On the issue of the coal transportation by road the Committee noted that there would be a major change in air environment due to road transportation of about 6 MTPA/18000 TPD of coal. As an interim measure, the road transport of coal can be permitted, and the PP has to come back with the Rapid study on the impact of road 25 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
transport on the air quality including route and traffic survey within one month.
B. Additional EC Conditions:
i. As per NGT order dated 15.02. 2022 in Original Application No. 104/2018 in the matter of Shivpal Bhagat & Ors vs UIO, PP shall have to comply that when coal is sold to TPP, there is the agreement to sell that at least 25% Fly Ash of the coal sold, should be accepted by the coal company (seller) from TPP (Purchaser) failing which coal company shall be liable for civil action and other legal measures. ii. As per NGT order dated 15.02. 2022 in Original Application No. 104/2018 in the matter of Shivpal Bhagat & Ors vs UOI, PP to comply with all the recommendation of Carrying Capacity Study being conducted by reputed institute by CPCB & SPCB. iii. As per NGT order dated 15.02. 2022 in Original Application No. 104/2018 in the matter of Shivpal Bhagat & Ors vs UIO, proper and free health care facilities with multispecialty treatment system shall be provided in coal mine buffer area.
iv. Any change in scope of work will attract the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 in conjunction with the subsequent amendments/circulars. 26 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
v. The successful bidder shall be liable to comply, if any, for any act of violation of the E(P) Act 1986/EIA Notification 2006/subsequent amendments and circulars which it is inherited from the previous Project Proponent.
vi. Successful bidder shall be liable to for compliance of all court directions pending in various courts i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2524/2019 tagged with Civil Appeal No. 2845 of 2020, Original Application No. 200/2018 in MA No. 615/2018 (Earlier OA No. 319/2014 (CZ), Writ Petition (Civil) No 7864/2011, Writ Petition (Civil) No 491/2012, Writ Petition (Civil) No520/2013, Writ Petition (Civil) No2213/2015 and Civil Appeal No. 8708/2022 and OA No. 104 of 2018.
vii. PP shall obtain Environment Clearance as per SoP for handling violation cases issued by Ministry on 7th July, 2021 (read with OM dated 28th January, 2022) for coal washery within four months from the date of issue of this letter.
viii. State Pollution Control Board shall grant Consent to Operate for operating coal mine only.
ix. Hon'ble Supreme Court in an Writ Petition(s) Civil No. 114/2014, Common Cause vs Union of India & Ors vide its judgement dated 8th January, 2020 has directed the Union of India to impose a condition in the mining lease and a similar condition in the environmental clearance 27 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
and the mining plan to the effect that the mining lease holders shall, after ceasing mining operations, undertake re-grassing the mining area and any other area which may have been disturbed due to their mining activities and restore the land to a condition which is fit for growth of fodder, flora, fauna etc. Compliance of this condition after the mining activity is over at the cost of the mining lease holders/ Project Proponent.
D. General Conditions for Coal Mine as laid down in EC letter dated 12.06.2012:
i. No change in mining technology and scope of working shall be made without prior approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests.
ii. No change in the calendar plan including excavation, quantum of mineral coal and waste shall be made iii. Four ambient air quality monitoring stations shall be established in the core zone as well as in the buffer zone for monitoring PM10, PM2.5, SO2 and NOx,. Location of the stations shall be decided based on the meteorological data, topographical features and environmentally and ecologically sensitive targets in consultation with the State Pollution Control Board. Monitoring of heavy metals such as Hg, As, Ni, Cd, Cr, 28 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
in PM10 and PM2.5 etc. shall be carried out at least once in a year.
iv. Data on ambient air quality (PM10, PM2.5, SO: and NO, and heavy metals such as Hg, As, Ni, Cr, etc) and other monitoring data shall be regularly submitted to the Ministry including its Regional Office at Bhopal and to the State Pollution Control Board and the Central Pollution Control Board once in six months, Random verification of samples through analysis from independent.
v. Fugitive dust emissions (PM), PM,s and heavy metals such as Hg, Pb, Cr, As, etc) from all the sources shall be controlled regularly monitored and data recorded properly. Water spraying arrangement on haul roads, wagon loading, dump trucks (loading and unloading) points shall be provided and properly maintained. vi. Adequate measures shall be taken for control of noise levels below 85 dBA in the work environment. Workers engaged in blasting and drilling operations, operation of HEMM, etc shall be provided with ear plugs/muffs. vii. Industrial wastewater (workshop and wastewater from the mine) shall be properly collected, treated so as to conform to the standards prescribed under GSR 422 (E) dated 19 May 1993 and 31 December 1993 or as amended from time to time before discharge. Oil and 29 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
grease trap shall be installed before discharge of workshop effluents.
viii. Vehicular emissions shall be kept under control and regularly monitored.
ix. Environmental laboratory shall be established with adequate number and type of pollution monitoring and analysis equipment in consultation with the State Pollution Control Board.
x. Personnel working in dusty areas shall wear protective respiratory devices and they shall also be provided with adequate training and information on safety and health aspects.
xi. Occupational health surveillance programme of the workers shall be undertaken periodically to observe any contractions due to exposure to dust and to take corrective measures, if needed.
xii. A separate environmental management cell with suitable qualified personnel shall be set up under the control of a Senior Executive, who will report directly to the Head of the company.
xiii. The funds earmarked for environmental protection measures shall e kept in separate account and shall not be diverted for other purpose. Year-wise expenditure shall be reported to this Ministry and its Regional Office at Bhopal.
30 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
xiv. The Regional Office of this Ministry located at Bhopal shall monitor compliance of the stipulated conditions. The Project authorities shall extend full cooperation to the office(s) of the Regional Office by furnishing the requisite data/information/monitoring reports.
xv. A copy of the will be marked to concerned
Panchayat/local NGO, if any, from whom any
suggestion/representation has been received while processing the proposal.
xvi. State Pollution Control Board shall display a copy of the clearance letter at the Regional Office, District Industry Centre and Collector's Office/Tehsildar's Office for 30 days.
xvii. The Project authorities shall advertise at least in two local newspapers widely circulated around the project, one of which shall be in the vernacular language of the locality concerned within seven days of the clearance letter informing that the project has been accorded environmental clearance and a copy of the clearance letter is available with the State Pollution Control Board and may also be seen at the website of the ministry of Environment & Forests at http://envfor.nic.in. The compliance status shall also be uploaded by the project authorities in their website and regularly updated at least once in six months so as to bring the same in the public domain. The data 31 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
shall also be displayed at the entrance of the project premises and mines office and in corporate office."
19. Notices were issued to the respondents and MoEF&CC has filed the reply. Learned counsel for the MoEF&CC has argued that the Answering Respondent accorded integrated EC on 12.06.2012 in the name of M/s. Jindal Power Limited (JPL) to Gare IV/2 and IV/3 Opencast and Underground Coal Mining project for a production of 6.25 MTPA in a mine lease area of 964.65 ha and for establishment of a pit-head coal washery of 4.75 MTPA (800 TPH) within the Gare IV/2 and IV/3 ML. located at Gharghoda Tehsil, Raigarh district, Chhattisgarh. The said project has been implemented, and the unit was under operation.
20. That, M/s Coal India Limited (CIL) was assigned as a custodian for operation of mine in accordance with section 18 of the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Ordinance, 2014 as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 3001 of 2015 vide Order dated 27.03.2015. In pursuance to the said Order. Ministry of Coal vide its letter dated 30.03.2015 appointed Coal India Limited as a Custodian for Gare Palma IV/2 and IV/3 Coal Mines. Chhattisgarh. Thereafter, M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited (A subsidiary of Coal India Limited) vide letter dated 31.03.2015 requested the Answering Respondent for modification/exemption in certain conditions prescribed in the EC dated 12.06.2012 as the coal washery and conveyor belt did not fall within the custodianship of SECL.
21. In order to retain washery structure, M/s JPL filed an application before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with prayers, inter-alia, not to permit the respondents/CIL. to take over the plant facilities and other issues related to re-auctioning of Gare DMV/2 and IV/3 block by Ministry of Coal. The 32 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 3001/2015 vide its interim Order dated 16.04.2015 directed that "....In the meanwhile, the petitioner shall retain the control over the coal washery, coal handling unit and the cross country pipe conveyor..... "
22. Respondent granted modification/exemption of EC conditions to M/s. SECL on 16.04.2015 only for the purposes of operating Coal Block Gare IV/2 and IV/3 since the facilities such as washery, and the conveyor belt did not fall within the custodianship of SECL.
23. It is further submitted that another W.P.(C) No. 3001/2015 was filed before Hon'ble the High Court of Delhi and the Court pronounced the judgment on 09.03.2017 where it was held that the Gare Palma Coal Mine, the decision not to declare JPL as the successful bidder cannot be interfered with and agreed by the order it was challenged before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India where the Court directed to maintain status quo.
24. The Ministry of Coal vide Order dated 02.05.2023 has allocated the mine (Gare Palma IV/2 and Gare Palma 1V/3) in favor of M/s Jindal Power Limited (JPL) as a successful bidder. Based оп this. M/s JPL vide proposal number IA/CG/CMIN/430130/2023dated 09/06/2023 requested for transfer of EC dated 12.06.2012. Subsequently, M/s JPL withdrew the said proposal. Thereafter, M/s JPL. vide proposal number IA/CG/CMIN/450382/2023 dated 27.10.2023 followed by their letter dated 31.10.2023, specifically requested the Answering Respondent to transfer the modified/split EC letter dated 16.04.2015 from M/s SECL to M/s. JPL under the provisions of Paragraph 11 of the EIA Notification, 2006.
25. MoEF&CC vide letter dated 14.11.2023 transferred the EC dated 16.04.2015 accorded for the project titled Gare IV/2 and IV/3 for 33 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Opencast and Underground Coal Mining Project with a production capacity of 6.25 MTPA(without coal washery) in a mine lease area of 964.65 ha located at Gharghoda Tehsil, Raigarh district, Chhattisgarh from M/s South Eastern Coalfields Limited (custodian) to M/s Jindal Power Limited (JPL) subject to stipulation of additional EC conditions inter-alia the following:
"vii. Successful bidder shall be liable to for compliance of all court directions pending in various courts i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2524/2019 tagged with Civil Appeal No. 2845 of 2020, Original Application No. 200/2018 in MA No. 615/2018 [Earlier OA No. 319/2014 (CZ)].
viii. PP shall obtain Environment Clearance as per SoP for handling violation cases issued by Ministry on 7th July, 2021 (read with OM dated 28th January, 2022) for coal washery within four months from the date of issue of this letter."
26. Under the EIA Notification, 2006, prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is mandatory for coal washeries. As stated above, the MoEF&CC granted an integrated Environmental Clearance on 12.06.2012 in the name of M/s. Jindal Power Limited (JPL) for the Gare IV/2 and IV/3 Opencast and Underground Coal Mining Project, with a production capacity of 6.25 MTPA over a mine lease area of 964.65 hectares. The EC also included approval for the establishment of a pit-head coal washery with a capacity of 4.75 MTPA (800 TPH) within the Gare IV/2 and IV/3 mining lease, located in Gharghoda Tehsil, Raigarh District, Chhattisgarh. Subsequently, the coal block was deallocated pursuant to the Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and South Eastern Coalfields Limited (SECL) was appointed as the custodian of the mine. However, the applicant (JPL) 34 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. obtained interim relief from the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi to retain control over the coal washery, coal handling unit, and the cross-country pipe conveyor situated in an area of 30,156 hectares of mine lease land of the Gare Palma Coal mine. Thereafter, based on the request of SECL, the Ministry accorded modification/exemption of EC conditions for operating only the Gare Palma IV/2 and IV/3 coal block by M/s. SECL on 16.04.2015. Following the disposal of the petition by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, JPL was granted only four weeks to continue the operation of the 4.75 MTPA coal washery. Meanwhile, by an Order dated 07.04.2017 in SLP(C) No. 10240-41/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the maintenance of the status quo, which remained in effect until the disposal of the matter on 21.03.2022 based on JPL's withdrawal request.
27. The copy of the EC dated 12.06.2012 which was issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest has been filed by the MoEF&CC which says that Ministry of Environment examined the application in accordance with the EIA Notification,2006 and granted the EC for a combined production of Coal and a Coal Washery. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant are that actually by vesting order the statutory right has been vested and transferred to the applicant which includes Coal Washery and the Ministry of Coal has issued this with annexure and any change in the vesting order contravenes the rule and against the provisions of law.
28. Submission of the learned counsel for the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board are that on 12.06.2012, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change ("MoEF&CC/RespondentNo.1") granted combined Environmental Clearance dated 12.06.2012 ("EC") to the Applicantfor expansion of opencast coal mining from 5.25 MTPA to 6.25 MTPA and underground mining of 0.75 MTPA (having total combined 35 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. production of 6.25 MTPA("subject coal mine"). The EC further granted permission to Applicant for establishment of a pit-head coal washery of 4.75 MTPA, wherein the specific conditions (xx), (xxi), (xxii), (xxiii), 17 (xxvi), (xxvii), (xxviii), (xxxii) were included in the EC dated 12.06.2012 with respect to coal washery.
29. The allocation of coal blocks between 1993 and 2010 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Writ Petition being W.P(Crl) No. 120 of 2012 titled as Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary & Ors, on the ground that the Central Government's allocation of coal blocks during this period was illegal and unconstitutional.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.09.2014 in the matter of W.P. (Crl.) 120 of 2012titled as Manohar Lal Sharma vs The Principal Secretary & Ors., cancelled allocation of 204 coal blocks including the subject coal mine. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the prior allottees of 42 producing mines to continue their mining operations till 31.03.2015 (subject coal mine was included),subsequent to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment wherein allocation of 204 coal blocks was cancelled, the Coal Mine (Special Provisions) Ordinance, and Coal Mines (Special Provision) Second Ordinance, 2014 were promulgated and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules, 2014 were framed for auction and allotment of cancelled coal blocks. Further the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 ("CMSP Act, 2015") was enacted which replaced Ordinance.
31. The Central Government thereafter conducted an auction in the year 2015 for the subject coal mine, subsequent to an auction, an order was passed by the Ministry of Coal ("MoC")/Respondent No. 3 on 20.03.2015 to the effect that the Applicant was not declared as the successful bidder on the 36 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. ground that the highest bid of the Applicant did not reflect the fair value. Further, by way of an Office Memorandum dated 23.03.2015, Respondent No. 3 directed the subject coal mine to be allotted to Coal India Limited ("CIL") till further auction. That the Applicant challenged the Office Memorandum dated 23.03.2015 of the Respondent No. 3 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by way of filing WP(C) No. 3001 of 2015. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 27.03.2015 appointed CIL as designated custodian for the subject coal mine under Section 18 of the CMSP Act, 2015. Accordingly, CIL appointed its fully owned subsidiary, South Eastern Coalfields Limited ("SECL"), to act as the designated custodian of the subject coal mine.
32. On 31.03.2015, SECL applied to Respondent No. 1 requesting exemption from certain conditions of the EC dated 12.06.2012 based on the fact that the coal washery and other plant facilities (Coal Handling Plant ("CHP"), Cross Country Pipe Conveyor ("CCPC"), etc.) do not fall within the custodianship of SECL. The exemption sought were such as a) transportation of coal by road instead of CCPC, b) backfilling of ash in coal mine, and c) mine water management as the washery was not under the custodianship of SECL.
33. The Respondent No. 1 by its letter dated 16.04.2015 stated that based on the submissions made by SECL, the EAC was of the view that the conditions related to coal washery and fly ash dumping in the mine area are not applicable in the instant case. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 1 allowed exemption to certain conditions of the EC dated 12.06.2012 of Applicant herein (prior allottee) by permitting SECL to operate the subject coal mine in public interest to ensure continuous coal production at the mine.
37 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
34. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by its Judgment dated 09.03.2017 in WP(C) No. 3001 of 2015 partly allowed the Writ Petition inter-alia holding that the allotment of the subject coal mine made on 23.03.2015 in favour of CIL was an interim measure and CIL will continue to function as the designated custodian under Section 18 of the CMSP Act, until the Government takes a decision to either put up the subject coal mine to reauction or to allot it to CIL or any other public sector corporation.
35. The Respondent No.3 published a notice inviting tender for fresh auction of the subject coal mine on 03.11.2022. The e-auction was conducted on 27.02.2023, whereby the Applicant was declared as the successful bidder on 28.03.2023. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 issued a vesting order dated 02.05.2023 in favour of Applicant as the successful allottee. It may be noted that the vesting order inter-alia clearly records that all the rights, title, interest and liabilities to be absolutely transferred which were available to prior allottee.
36. Through a letter dated 14.11.2023, the Respondent No. 1 transferred the EC from SECL, the former custodian, to the Applicant with regard to the subject coal mine. The said EC covered only the coal mine operations and did not extend to the coal washery. Additionally, the Respondent No. 1, in the said letter, imposed an additional condition requiring the Applicant to obtain EC for the coal washery in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure for handling violation cases, as prescribed in the Respondent No.2 notification dated 07.07.2021 ("SoP") (read with OM dated 28.01.2022). The Respondent No. 1, further stated that EC for the coal washery was to be obtained within four months from the date of issuance of the aforementioned letter. Furthermore, the Respondent No. 1explicitly directed the Respondent No. 2 to grant Consent to Operate (CTO) only for 38 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. the coal mine operations. It is further argued that the CTO was granted in favour of the project proponent without prejudice to any pending illegal proceedings against the industry and the CECB acted strictly in compliance with the direction issued by the respondent no. 1 and that the CTO cannot be granted without any valid EC.
37. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are that MoEF&CC vide its later dated 14.11.2023 acted in contravention to Section 8 (4) of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 by transferring to the successful allottee of the mine, the interim EC exemption granted to SECL which is only custodian of the mine instead of the EC dated 12.06.2012 of the prior allottee.
38. It is further argued that while performing its administrative function of transferring the prior allottees EC for the mine to the successful allottee in accordance with the statutory vesting order issued by the Ministry of Coal, the MoEF&CC was not justified in imposing additional conditions related to JPL Coal washery operations which are independent of the auctioned coal mine.
39. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the original environmental clearance dated 12.06.2012, was a composite EC granted to Jindal Power Limited for both Coal Mine and Coal Washery before deallocation of the subject Coal Mine by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and thereafter, SECL was only custodian and the Coal washery was not part of the mine infrastructure which was continued to be operated by JPL under the same EC granted on 12.06.2012 and letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by the MoEF&CC, granting exemption on the application of SECL from Coal washery conditions was merely an interim arrangement during the custodian of the SECL and it was never intended 39 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. to alter or to revoke the original EC dated 12-06-2012. Presently, original EC 12-06-2012 has been transferred in favour of the applicant and the present right of the project proponent is continuing on the basis of the original EC. The project proponent continuously submitted the half-yearly compliance report to the MoEF&CC and the continued renewal of CTO for Coal washery granted by the CECB and the CTO was renewed from time to time solely on the basis of the EC granted on 12-06-2012, reinforcing the lawful operation of the Coal washery in favour of the project proponent/applicant and it was never objected by the MoEF&CC or the CECB and the CTO was continuously renewed.
40. The quarterly submissions and inspections report and compliance report was sent to the MoEF&CC which was examined and it was never objected, which indirectly and directly means that the EC in favour of the project proponent was valid in accordance with the EC granted in 2012.
41. It is further argued that the EC dated 12.06.2012 was a composite EC granted to JPL as prior allottee of the subject mine and also to JPL as owner of the coal washery which was located in adjoining area. Pertinently, the said composite EC dated 12.06.2012 was granted by MoEF for ease as the applicant was the same, but the two projects are distinct projects as the applications for environment clearance for the mine and washery were separate and TORs issued by MoEF in said regard were also separate. Even the CTOs issued to JPL by CECB were distinct for its mine operations (on 01.01.2014) and coal washery operations (on 12.02.2013), basis the composite EC dated 12.06.2012.
42. Upon deallocation of the subject coal mine in 2014, the coal washery was not deallocated as the same was privately owned and belonged to JPL. Further, the coal washery is not covered under the definition of "mine 40 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. infrastructure" under Section 3(1)(j) of the CMSP Act. Furthermore, the plant facilities of JPL (as prior allottee) did not constitute mine infrastructure and hence could not be de-allocated along with the mine in 2014. The said plant facilities were excluded from the auction document of the subject coal mine as issued by the MoC. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by its order dated 27.03.2015 appointed CIL as the designated custodian of the subject coal mine. Accordingly, SECL (subsidiary of CIL) as an interim arrangement, during its custodianship, sought for modification and certain exemptions from the EC dated 12.06.2012, to carry out mining operations at the subject coal mine. These exemptions were granted by MoEF in letter dated 16.04.2015 on the recommendation of EAC, which categorically records that the same is "only an interim arrangement till further orders of the Court". The Hon'ble High Court by its judgement dated 09.03.2017 affirmed its order dated 27.03.2015, holding CIL/ SECL as the Designated custodian till fresh auctions are conducted by the government. Thus, the exemptions granted by MoEF in its letter dated 16.04.2015 was excluded only for SECL as an interim arrangement till the subject coal mine was auctioned
43. JPL being the owner of the coal washery, continued operating the washery under the valid and subsisting EC dated 12.06.2012, even though the subject coal mine was under the custodianship of SECL. The CECB continued to issue CTOs to JPL for its washery operations alone, on 09.10.2014, 16.06.2016, 15.03.2017, 16.04.2018, 12.02.2020 and 31.03.2022. It is a settled principle of law that CECBs can grant or renew CTOs only to such project proponents who possess a valid EC. Moreover, the validity of EC as per EIA Notification 2006, once operationalised within 10 years of grant, becomes perpetual and cannot seize to exist subject to start of production operations on or before the EC validity 41 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. expiry. In the instant case, the production operations of the coal washery commenced in February, 2013 i.e. within the validity period of the EC dated 12.06.2012. This clearly shows that the validity of EC dated 12.06.2012 for the coal washery cannot be disputed and continued to remain valid.
44. After MoEF's letter dated 16.04.2015 exempting SECL from certain conditions of EC dated 12.06.2012 including coal washery, based on the recommendation of the EAC, JPL by its letters dated 13.05.2015 and 07.09.2015 had intimated MoEF about continuing its coal washery operations as per the EC dated 12.06.2012 or in the alternative requested for issuance of a separate EC for 4.75 MTPA coal washery. MoEF has failed to take any action in this regard and has not issued a separate EC, which implies the acceptance of MoEF on the validity of EC dated 12.06.2012 to the extent of running the coal washery. Therefore, it is clear that MoEF in its letter dated 14.11.2023, has committed a material lapse in stating the coal washery operations of JPL to be treated as a violations case. JPL has a CTO for washery and has been submitting compliance reports from time to time demonstrating that the MoEF has implicitly accepted that JPL was operating the coal washery under the statutory framework.
45. That as per 8(vi)of EIA, EC can only be revoked or cancelled by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to JPL. However, in the facts of the present case, MoEF by its letter dated 14.11.2023 and CECB by its letter dated 23.11.2023 arbitrarily and in violation of Principles of Natural Justice, directed JPL to obtain EC for coal washery as per SoP for handling violation cases. Clause 8(vi) of EIA is reproduced below:
42
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
"(vi) Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice."
46. It is further argued that action of transferring the EC from SECL to JPL without the coal washery, by its letter dated 14.11.2023 is a clear violation of the statutory obligation rendering the action illegal and arbitrary. The EC dated 12.06.2012 granted to prior allottee included coal mining and coal washery operations. The inclusion of exemptions granted to SECL and omissions of the coal washery from the EC and further declaring the washery to be a violation case, affects the continuity of operations and frustrates the intent of the legislation to ensure seamless transfer of operations and EC permission to successful bidder.
47. MoEF letter 14.11.2023, in transferring EC from SECL to JPL, fundamentally alters the operational framework established under the CMSP Act and the vesting order dated 02.05.2023. As per the CMSP Act, all the rights, title, interests, and statutory clearances including the EC dated 12.06.2012 should have been transferred to JPL without any omission of coal washery and/or declaration on the operations of the coal washery of JPL.
48. Vesting Order dated 02.05.2023 issued by MOC to JPL also states that all the statutory clearances including EC dated 12.06.2012 of the prior 43 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. allottee will be transferred to JPL (as the successful allottee). Thus, MoEF was bound to transfer the EC dated 12.06.2012 of the prior allottee to JPL.
49. CMSP Act defines "prior allottee" under Section 3(1)(n) as "allottee of Schedule I coal mines as listed therein who had been allotted coal mines between 1993 and 31st day of March, 2011, whose allotments have been cancelled pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated the 25th August, 2014 and its order dated 24th September, 2014 including those allotments which may have been de-allocated prior to and during the pendency of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.120 of 2012". JPL being allotted the subject coal mine on 01.07.1998 which was subsequently deallocated on 24.09.2014, is the prior allottee in the present case.
50. Under Section 18 of the CMSP Act, a designated custodian is appointed for a Schedule II mine (such as the subject coal mine) for a coal mine under production, to manage and operate the mine till the completion of the auction of such coal mines. Pertinently, the appointment of a designated custodian is only an interim measure to ensure continuity of mining operations at such coal mines that were under production prior to deallocation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Designated Custodian as appointed for the subject coal mine was SECL.
51. The relevant portion of Section 18 of the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Act, 2015 is quoted below:-
"Section - 18 Central Government to appoint designated custodian.--(1) On and from the appointed date, if the auction or 1 [allotment of Schedule II coal mines is not complete, or vesting order or allotment order issued under this Act has been terminated in case of a coal mine under production], the Central 44 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
Government shall appoint any person as a designated custodian to manage and operate such coal mines as may be notified by the Central Government.
(2) The designated custodian shall act for and on behalf of the Central Government in respect of the notified coal mines under sub-section (1) to operate and manage such Schedule I coal mines in such manner as may be notified, till the completion of the auction of such coal mines or allotment under section 4 and section 5 read with section 8, as the case may be."
52. It is further argued that the designated custodian and the prior allottee have been separately defined under law and cannot be considered as one. The MoEF's action in transferring the conditions as mentioned in the 16.04.2015 letter issued to SECL (as designated custodian) to JPL (as successful allottee) is in egregious contravention of the applicable laws. The MoEF could only have transferred the EC dated 12.06.2012 of the prior allottee to JPL (as successful allottee). Thus, MoEF's letter dated 14.11.2023 is unlawful and deserves to be set aside.
53. MoEF has also been taking contrary stands in transferring the statutory clearances of the prior allottee to the successful allottee. On one hand MoEF by its letter dated 19.07.2023 has transferred the FC of JPL as prior allottee to JPL as successful allottee. On the other hand, MoEF by its letter dated 14.11.2023 has transferred the conditions mentioned in the 16.04.2015 of SECL to JPL. The said action of MoEF is completely baseless and without any rhyme or reason whatsoever. Thus, MoEF's letter dated 14.11.2023 is against MoEF's own understanding and actions, and liable to withdrawn. MoEF should have acted in accordance with the terms of the Vesting Order and CMSP Act.
45 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
54. In case MoEF was making any modifications in EC dated 12.06.2012 while transferring the EC to the successful bidder, it could not have done so without the approval of EAC as per EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. It is clear that what could be lawfully transferred to JPL under the CMSP Act was the EC dated 12.06.2012 from the prior allottee. The subsequent letter issued by MoEF dated 16.04.2015, only exempting SECL from certain conditions relating to coal washery, was merely an interim arrangement and did not alter the substantive rights of JPL or the scope of the EC dated 12.06.2012. The MoEF decision to transfer the EC from SECL to JPL contravenes the intent and purpose of the CMSP Act which mandates the transfer of all statutory permissions as they existed with the prior allottee.
55. The letter dated 16.04.2015 issued to SECL by MoEF in the interim as a custodian does not negate the legal requirement to transfer the EC of prior allottee to JPL upon auctions. By failing to consider, the various reminder letters sent by JPL, MoEF has acted beyond its statutory authority and has created a legal anomaly that undermines JPL's entitlement to operate the washery. Therefore, MoEF and CECB letters issued are legally invalid and must be rectified to ensure compliance with the law and operational continuity of JPL. Therefore, the letters dated 14.11.2023 and 23.11.2023 are non-est in law.
56. The coal washery was being operated after obtaining necessary approvals as per law and JPL has not violated any of the applicable laws including EIA Notification, 2006. MoEF on 14.11.2023, while wrongly transferring the EC from SECL to JPL, has also added an additional condition [C(viii)] stating that JPL shall obtain EC for coal washery as per SOP for handling violation cases, in blatant disregard of the fact that JPL had been operating the coal washery validly under the EC dated 12.06.2012. Such 46 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. inclusion of additional condition in the transfer of EC for subject coal mine is absolutely arbitrary and baseless.
57. MoC has issued the vesting order dated 02.05.2023 to JPL as the successful allottee of the subject coal mine, which mandates that EC dated 12.06.2012 issued to the prior allottee be transferred to the successful bidder. However, MoEF on 14.11.2023 transferred the EC from SECL (without coal washery) to JPL and relying on the same, CECB added an additional condition while transferring the CTO of the subject coal mine such that JPL cannot operate the coal washery without obtaining a separate EC. Thus, CECB's letter dated 23.11.2023 transferring CTO of the subject coal mine to JPL, is invalid to the extent it imposes a restriction on obtaining further CTOs for the coal washery which was lawfully operating since inception under the valid EC dated 12.06.2012 and regularly issued CTOs for washery. The two arms of the same government cannot act contrary to each other.
58. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the present OA is not maintainable and in response to the above contention, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the application is maintainable because the order passed by the CECB is in contravention of the vesting order and the order issued by the Ministry of Coal Mines, Government of India.
59. The said erroneous transfer will have substantial repercussions on environment sustainability as coal washery plays an important role in reducing environment impact by ensuring cleaner coal is used in power generation. Raw and unwashed coal increases pollution levels affecting air and water quality. Coal washery plays a critical role in reducing environmental pollution by ensuring proper segregation of impurities and promoting responsible mining practices. Therefore, the present OA raises 47 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. substantial questions relating to environment and hence is amenable to this Hon'ble Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 14.
60. Section 14 deals with this Hon'ble Tribunal's power to settle disputes as follows: -
"14. Tribunal to settle disputes.--(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I."
61. Section 2(m) defines substantial question relating environment as follows:-
"2(m) 'substantial question relating to environment' shall include an instance where, -- (i) There is a direct violation of a specific statutory environmental obligation by a person by which-- (A) the community at large other than an individual or group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or (B) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial; or (C) the damage to public health is broadly measurable; (ii) the environmental consequences relate to a specific activity or a point source of pollution."
62. It is further argued that the technical irregularities which has been committed by the MoEF&CC and the CECB are causing environmental pollution and directly affecting the employment in the state.
63. The establishment and operation of coal washeries are integral to reducing the environmental impact of coal usage, as washing coal significantly 48 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. lowers its ash content, improves its calorific value, and reduces harmful emissions such as particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, and carbon dioxide. This aligns with the statutory objectives under the Environmental Protection Act, 1986, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, aimed at reducing industrial pollution and promoting clean energy practices.
64. The process of coal washing reduces the generation of fly ash at thermal power plants, thus minimizing particulate emissions and addressing a significant source of air pollution. Additionally, modern coal washeries utilize efficient water treatment and recirculation systems, ensuring that their operations have minimal impact on water resources, in compliance with the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974. Coal washeries help in reducing toxic emissions that impact public health, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases caused by exposure to coal combustion pollutants. The washing of coal at source decreases the weight of impurities being transported, leading to lower fuel consumption and vehicular emissions associated with coal transportation. This contributes to the reduction of the carbon footprint of coal supply chains, further substantiating the environmental advantages of coal washeries.
65. JPL runs a 3400 MW power plant and the use of washed coal ensures energy efficiency in the power plants, enabling JPL to produce more energy with lesser input of raw coal, which is beneficial for the environment. Without washed coal, the power plant's efficiency will drop, leading to increased coal consumption, higher emissions, and potential environmental non-compliance. This disruption in the fuel supply chain poses significant risks to energy production and environmental sustainability. Therefore, CTO for continued operations of the washery 49 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. ought to be granted to continue smooth and efficient operations of the power plant in an unhindered manner in public interest. Any interruption in the operation of JPL's power plant, due to an inadequate supply of washed coal, could have cascading effects on regional and national energy demands. This is particularly critical given JPL's significant contribution to the grid.
66. JPL provides employment to approximately 1020 direct and indirect employees in the subject coal mine and JPL's power plant contributes to the economy of the state of Chhattisgarh, therefore the coal washery ought not to be closed merely on the ground of the technical irregularities by MoEF and CECB, such as (a) MoEF's refusal to transfer the EC dated 12.06.2012 of the prior allottee as per Section 8(4) of the CMSP Act and
(b) CECB's refusal to extend/renew CTOs for 4.75 MTPA coal washery after 31.01.2025 in view of condition no. (ix) of letter dated 23.11.2023 wherein JPL was directed not to operate the coal washery without obtaining EC as per MoEF's letter dated 14.11.2023. Therefore, the said letters are harsh, disproportionate, unfair and arbitrary. Further, the closure of coal washery based on technical irregularities will directly affect the unemployment in the state.
67. Ensuring access to reliable and clean energy is a matter of public good. The coal washery's role in providing washed coal ensures the optimal functioning of the power plant, leading to uninterrupted energy supply. This supports critical public services, such as hospitals, schools, and infrastructure, underscoring the broader societal benefits of its operations. The washery will lead to economic setbacks for local communities. The washery and associated operations provide direct and indirect employment to many individuals in the region. A shutdown would 50 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. lead to loss of livelihoods, adversely impacting local economies and social stability, which are critical components of public interest.
68. MoEF transfer letter dated 14.11.2023, CECB's transfer letter dated 23.11.2023 and CECB's letter dated 21.01.2025 rejecting the application of JPL for renewal of CTOs hamper industrial efficiency and erode public trust in regulatory frameworks. Resolving the matter in favour of the washery's continued operation serves the public interest by maintaining regulatory consistency and promoting industrial confidence.
69. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the Electro Steel Ltd vs. UOI & Ors 2021 SCC Online SC 1247, the relevant paras are quoted below :-
"82. The question is whether an establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood to hundreds of people should be closed down for the technical irregularity of shifting its site without prior environmental clearance, without opportunity to the establishment to regularize its operation by obtaining the requisite clearances and permissions, even though the establishment may not otherwise be violating pollution laws, or the pollution, if any, can conveniently and effectively be checked. The answer has to be in the negative.
83. The Central Government is well within the scope of its powers under Section 3 of the 1986 Act to issue directions to control and/or prevent pollution including directions for prior Environmental Clearance before a project is commenced. Such prior Environmental Clearance is necessarily granted upon examining the impact of the project on the environment. Ex- 51 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Post facto Environmental Clearance should not ordinarily be granted, and certainly not for the asking. At the same time ex post facto clearances and/or approvals and/or removal of technical irregularities in terms of Notifications under the 1986 Act cannot be declined with pedantic rigidity, oblivious of the consequences of stopping the operation of a running steel plant.
84. The 1986 Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance. Some relaxations and even grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations Notifications and/or applicable orders, in appropriate cases, where the projects are in compliance with, or can be made to comply with environment norms, is in over view not impermissible. The Court cannot be oblivious to the economy or the need to protect the livelihood of hundreds of employees and others employed in the project and others dependent on the project, if such projects comply with environmental norms."
85. As held by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India 3 ("Lafarge") reported in (2011) 7 SCC 338:
"119. The time has come for us to apply the constitutional "doctrine of proportionality" to the matters concerning environment as a part of the process of judicial review in contradistinction to merit review. It cannot be gain said that utilization of the environment and its natural resources has to be in a 52 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
way that is consistent with principles of sustainable development and intergenerational equity, but balancing of these equities may entail policy choices. In the circumstances, barring exceptions, decisions relating to utilization of natural resources have to be tested on the anvil of the well- recognized principles of judicial review. Have all the relevant factors been taken into account? Have any extraneous factors influenced the decision? Is the decision strictly in accordance with the legislative policy underlying the law (if any) that governs the field? Is the decision consistent with the principles of sustainable development in the sense that has the decision-maker taken into account the said principle and, on the basis of relevant considerations, arrived at a balanced decision? Thus, the Court should review the decisionmaking process to ensure that the decision of MoEF is fair and fully informed, based on the correct principles, and free from any bias or restraint. Once this is ensured, then the doctrine of "margin of appreciation" in favour of the decision-maker would come into play."
86. In Alembic Pharmaceuticals (supra) this Court observed:-
"27. The concept of an ex post facto EC is in derogation of the fundamental principles of environmental jurisprudence and is an anathema to the EIA notification dated 27 53 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
January 1994. It is, as the judgment in Common Cause holds, detrimental to the environment and could lead to irreparable degradation. The reason why a retrospective EC or an ex post facto clearance is alien to environmental jurisprudence is that before the issuance of an EC, the statutory notification warrants a careful application of mind, besides a study into the likely consequences of a proposed activity on the environment. An EC can be issued only after various stages of the decision-making process have been completed. Requirements such as conducting a public hearing, screening, scoping and appraisal are components of the decisionmaking process which ensure that the likely impacts of the industrial activity or the expansion of an existing industrial activity are considered in the decision-making calculus. Allowing for an ex post facto clearance would essentially condone the operation of industrial activities without the grant of an EC. In the absence of an EC, there would be no conditions that would safeguard the environment. Moreover, if the EC was to be ultimately refused, irreparable harm would have been caused to the environment. In either view of the matter, environment law cannot countenance the notion of an ex post facto 54 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
clearance. This would be contrary to both the precautionary principle as well as the need for sustainable development.
87. In Alembic Pharmaceuticals (supra), this Court deprecated expost facto clearances, but this Court did not pass orders for closure of the three industries concerned, on consideration of the consequences of their closure. This court proceeded to observe and held:-
44. The issue which must now concern the Court is the consequence which will emanate from the failure of the three industries to obtain their ECs until 14 May 2003 in the case of Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, 17 July 2003 in the case of United Phosphorous Limited, and 23 December 2002 in the case of Unique Chemicals Limited. The functioning of the factories of all three industries without a valid EC would have had an adverse impact on the environment, ecology and biodiversity in the area where they are located. The Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index 4 report issued by the Central Pollution Control Board for 2009-2010 describes the environmental quality at 88 locations across the country. Ankleshwar in the 55 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
State of Gujarat, where the three industries are located showed critical levels of pollution 5. In the Interim Assessment of CEPI for 2011, the report indicates similar critical figures 6 of pollution in the Ankleshwar area. The CEPI scores for 2013 7 and 2018 8 were also significantly high. This is an indication that industrial units have been operating in an unregulated manner and in defiance of the law. Some of the environmental damage caused by the operation of the industrial units would be irreversible.
However, to the extent possible some of the damage can be corrected by undertaking measures to protect and conserve the environment.
45. Even though it is not possible to individually determine the exact extent of the damage caused to the environment by the three industries, several circumstances must weigh with the Court in determining the appropriate measure of restitution.
First, it is not in dispute that all the three industries did obtain ECs, though this was several years after the EIA notification of 1994 and the commencement of production. Second, subsequent to the 56 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
grant of the ECs, the manufacturing units of all the three industries have also obtained ECs for an expansion of capacity from time to time. Third, the MoEF had issued a circular on 5 November 1998 permitting applications for ECs to be filed by 31 March 1999, which was extended subsequently to 30 June 2001. On 14 May 2002, the deadline was extended until 31 March 2003 subject to a deposit commensurate to the investment made.
The circulars issued by the MoEF extending time for obtaining ECs came to the notice of this Court in Goa Foundation (I) v. Union of India 9 . Fourth, though in the context of the facts of the case, this Court in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited v. Union of India 10 ("Lafarge") has upheld the decision to grant ex post facto clearances with respect to limestone mining projects in the State of Meghalaya.
In Lafarge, the Court dealt with the question of whether ex post facto clearances stood vitiated by alleged suppression of the nature of the land by the project proponent and whether there was non-application of mind by the MoEF while granting the clearances. While 57 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
upholding the ex post facto clearances, the Court held that the native tribals were involved in the decision-making process and that the MoEF had adopted a due diligence approach in reassuring itself through reports regarding the environmental impact of the project."
46. After adverting to the decision in Lafarge, another Bench of three learned judges of this Court in Electrotherm (India) Limited v. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai 11 , dealt with the issue of whether an EC granted for expansion to the appellant without holding a public hearing was valid in law. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit speaking for the Bench held thus:
"19... the decision-making process in doing away with or in granting exemption from public consultation/public hearing, was not based on correct principles and as such the decision was invalid and improper."
47. The Court while deciding the consequence of granting an EC without public hearing did not direct closure of the appellant's unit and instead held thus:
58 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
"20. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that in pursuance of environmental clearance dated 27-1- 2010, the expansion of the project has been undertaken and as reported by CPCB in its affidavit filed on 7-7- 2014, most of the recommendations made by CPCB are complied with. In our considered view, the interest of justice would be subserved if that part of the decision exempting public consultation/public hearing is set aside and the matter is relegated back to the authorities concerned to effectuate public consultation/public hearing. However, since the expansion has been undertaken and the industry has been functioning, we do not deem it appropriate to order closure of the entire plant as directed by the High Court. If the public consultation/public hearing results in a negative mandate against the expansion of the project, the authorities would do well to direct and ensure scaling down of the activities to the level that was permitted by environmental clearance 59 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
dated 20-2-2008. If public consultation/public hearing reflects in favour of the expansion of the project, environmental clearance dated 27-1- 2010 would hold good and be fully operative. In other words, at this length of time when the expansion has already been undertaken, in the peculiar facts of this case and in order to meet ends of justice, we deem it appropriate to change the nature of requirement of public consultation/public hearing from pre-
decisional to post-decisional. The public consultation/public hearing shall be organised by the authorities concerned in three months from today."
48. Guided by the precepts that emerge from the above decisions, this Court has taken note of the fact that though the three industries operated without an EC for several years after the EIA notification of 1994, each of them had subsequently received ECs including amended ECs for expansion of existing capacities. These ECs have been operational since 14 May 2003 60 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
(in the case of Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited), 17 July 2003 (in the case of United Phosphorous Limited), and 23 December 2002 (in the case of Unique Chemicals Limited). In addition, all the three units have made infrastructural investments and employed significant numbers of workers in their industrial units.
49. In this backdrop, this Court must take a balanced approach which holds the industries to account for having operated without environmental clearances in the past without ordering a closure of operations. The directions of the NGT for the revocation of the ECs and for closure of the units do not accord with the principle of proportionality. At the same time, the Court cannot be oblivious to the environmental degradation caused by all three industries units that operated without valid ECs. The three industries have evaded the legally binding regime of obtaining ECs. They cannot escape the liability incurred on account of 61 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
such noncompliance. Penalties must be imposed for the disobedience with a binding legal regime. The breach by the industries cannot be left unattended by legal consequences.
The amount should be used for the purpose of restitution and restoration of the environment. Instead and in place of the directions issued by the NGT, we are of the view that it would be in the interests of justice to direct the three industries to deposit compensation quantified at Rs. 10 crores each. The amount shall be deposited with GPCB and it shall be duly utilised for restoration and remedial measures to improve the quality of the environment in the industrial area in which the industries operate. Though we have come to the conclusion, for the reasons indicated, that the direction for the revocation of the ECs and the closure of the industries was not warranted, we have issued the order for payment of compensation as a facet of preserving the environment in accordance with the precautionary 62 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
principle. These directions are issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.
Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, United Phosphorous Limited and Unique Chemicals Limited shall deposit the amount of compensation with GPCB within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. This deposit shall be in addition to the amount directed by the NGT. Subject to the deposit of the aforesaid amount and for the reasons indicated, we allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment of the NGT dated 8 January 2016 in so far as it directed the revocation of the ECs and closure of the industries as well as the order in review dated 17 May 2016."
70. The Notification being SO 804(E) dated 14th March, 2017 was not an issue in Alembic Pharmaceuticals (supra). This Court was examining the propriety and/or legality of a 2002 circular which was inconsistent with the EIA Notification dated 27th January, 1994, which was statutory. Ex post facto environmental clearance should not however be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into account all 63 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
relevant environmental factors. Where the adverse consequences of ex post facto approval outweigh the consequences of regularization of operation of an industry by grant of ex post facto approval and the industry or establishment concerned otherwise conforms to the requisite pollution norms, ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in strict conformity with the applicable Rules, Regulations and/or Notifications. Ex post facto approval should not be withheld only as a penal measure. The deviant industry may be penalised by an imposition of heavy penalty on the principle of 'polluter pays' and the cost of restoration of environment may be recovered from it.
71. We are of the view that the High Court erred in passing the impugned order, vacating interim orders which had been in force for two years. The impugned order is not in conformity with the principle of proportionality. This is not a case where the steel plant was started without environmental clearance or consent of JSPCB. The Appellant had applied for and obtained environmental clearance to set up an integrated steel plant (3MTPA) on 1350 acres of land at Mauza South Parbatpur, as observed above. Environmental Clearance had been granted on 21st February 2008 and Consent to Operate had been granted by JSPCB on 5th May 2008.
64 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
90. The Appellant established its steel plant in Mauza Bhagaband, 5.3 kms away from the site for which EC and CTE had been granted. It is the contention of the Appellant that the shift is minor and makes no change in the EIA/EMP on the basis of which EC has been granted. The shift did not require fresh public hearing in terms of the Circular dated 22nd January 2010 of the MoEF.
91. As aforesaid, by a letter dated 2.12.2011 addressed to the Appellant, the MoEF confirmed that the steel plant of the Appellant was within the Environment Impact Area and the affected people had the opportunity to air their views in a public hearing. The question is whether the Petitioner was required to obtain fresh prior clearance for shifting or was covered by the exemption under the said Notification dated 22nd January 2010.
92. The Appellant has all along asserted that no part of the premises of the integrated steel plant is in any forest. As such there was no violation of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The MoEF had also confirmed that the steel plant in question was well within the Environment Impact Area and the affected people had the opportunity in a public hearing. Be that as it may, whether the shifting of the site has really made any difference from the environmental impact angle 65 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
requires consideration by the appropriate
authority/forum.
93. In any case, the Appellant has duly applied for ex post facto forest clearance approval without prejudice to its rights and contentions that its steel plant is not on forest land and also applied for revised EC. On 17th December 2019, MoEF&CC accorded ex post facto in principle approval to the forest clearance proposal on the recommendations of the Forest Advisory Committee. The application for revised clearance is pending consideration. No final decision has however been taken, ostensibly in view of the interim order passed by the Madras High Court staying the operation of the Standard Operation Procedures issued vide Memorandum dated 7th July 2021.
94. The interim order passed by the Madras High Court appears to be misconceived. However, this Court is not hearing an appeal from that interim order. The interim stay passed by the Madras High Court can have no application to operation of the Standard Operating Procedure to projects in territories beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Madras High Court. Moreover, final decision may have been taken in accordance with the Orders/Rules prevailing prior to 7th July, 2021. 66 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
95. In passing the impugned order the High Court overlooked the consequences of closure of an integrated steel plant with a work force of 300 regular and 700 contractual workers. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the judgment of this Court in Alembic Pharmaceuticals (supra) was distinguishable on facts. Furthermore, continuance of the interim orders allowing operation of an industrial establishment or even the grant of revised EC to the industrial establishment cannot stand in the way of action against that establishment for contraventions, including the imposition of penalty, on the principle 'polluter pays'. The scope and effect of Section 32A of the IBC is a different issue. This Court need not examine into the question of whether penal action can be initiated against the Appellant or, whether compensation can be recovered from the Appellant, at this stage. The issue may be decided by the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage when it adjudicates an action for penalization of the Appellant or recovery of compensation from the Appellant. The application of the Appellant for revised EC, CTO etc. shall be considered strictly in accordance with environmental norms."
23. The above philosophy was followed in Pahwa Plastics v. Dastak NGO, Civil Appeal no.2791/21 dated 25.03.2022 that orders passed by the Respondent would have to be tested on the doctrine of proportionality. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases where operations were conducted without even an EC has reiterated that on-going operations ought not to be 67 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
stopped when either ex post facto approval could be given or penalty imposed for the alleged noncompliance. In view of the settled position in law, the impugned order revoking the EC and thereby stopping the Appellant's operations at the Badari Mine is liable to quashed and set aside. The relevant paragraphs of Pahawa Plastic (Supra) are quoted below:
"It was argued that the appeal under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010, is against an order dated 3rd June 2021 passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in O.A No.287/2020 at New Delhi, inter alia, holding that establishments such as the manufacturing units of the Appellants, which did not have prior Environmental Clearance (EC) could not be allowed to operate.
The question of law involved in this appeal is, whether an establishment employing about 8000 workers, which has been set up pursuant to Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) from the concerned statutory authority and has applied for ex post facto EC can be closed down pending issuance of EC, even though it may not cause pollution and/or may be found to comply with the required pollution norms.
The manufacturing units of the Appellants appoint about 8,000 employees and have a huge annual turnover. An establishment contributing to the economy of the country and providing livelihood ought 68 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
not to be closed down only on the ground of the technical irregularity not submitting the half yearly report irrespective of whether or not the unit actually causes pollution."
91. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the matter of cancellation of EC was not taken of at any point of time by the MoEF&CC or the CECB at no opportunity of hearing was given to the applicant for consideration of the fact or for due consideration according to rule. Simply putting a condition is in contravention of vesting order and original EC granted in 2012 which frustrate the provisions of law and its own order issued by the MoEF&CC. Applicant has also relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India order dated 16.11.2021 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6497-6498/2021 relevant paras are quoted below :-
i. "While the remedy of filing an appeal to the appellant has become available as a result of the supervening developments which have taken place during the pendency of the present proceedings, namely the order dated 27 August 2021 being placed on the record of this Court, we must express our view in regard to the reasons which weighed with the Tribunal in rejecting the original application. The Tribunal was moved by the appellant by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 14, under which it has jurisdiction to entertain civil cases where a substantial question relating to the environment, including enforcement of any legal right relating to the environment, is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of 69 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
the enactments specified in Schedule I. The enactments which are specified in Schedule I include the FC Act. Thus, where a substantial question relating to the environment is raised involving the implementation of the FC Act, even the original jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 14 could have been invoked.
ii. The Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 14 by observing that the appellant was attempting to circumvent the remedy of an appeal under Section 16. The Tribunal's decision in the case of Vimal Bhai vs Union of India8 has placed the matter beyond doubt, by noting that "[t]he cause of action for filing an Appeal would commence only from the date when such publication is made in the newspapers, as well as from the date when the forest clearance and permission to use the Forest land for non- forest purpose is displayed in the website of the concerned State Government or the MoEF, as the case may be". However, for the sake of clarity, we have set the legal position at rest in the discussion in the earlier part of this judgment."
92. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the application is barred by time for the reasons that the enforcement of EC granted in 2012 and now the filing the application is time barred.
93. The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant are that the EC conditions issued in 2012 were never violated by the MoEF&CC or CECB and it was on 21.01.2025 when the CECB communicated the applicant and informed about the refusal of CTO for coal washery and rejected the 70 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
renewal application, which was valid up to 31.01.2025 on the same terms and conditions.
94. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) 3001/2015, Jindal Power Ltd. & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors., vide order dated 16-04-2015 directed that the petitioner/project proponent shall retain the control over the Coal Washery Coal Handling Unit and the Cross-Country Pipe Conveyor, and these items were excluded from the auction, as is evident from page 392 of the paper book. In light of the above order, the matter was considered and a communication was issued vide later dated 16-04- 2015 to the General Manager, M/s Southeastern Coalfield Ltd. in which following paragraphs have been communicated -
i. MoEF&CC vide letter No J-11015/288/2007-LAJI (M) dated 12 June, 2012 had accorded EC to M's Jindal Steel & Power Lud. for operating Coal Block Gare IV/2 and Gare IV/3 and Washery subject to certain specific conditions which inter- alia include (1) eoul produced shall be routed through washery, (ii) fly ash generated at their power plant situated at pit head shall be mixed with OB and other washed coal rejects and dumped at designated place, (ii) mine water shall be used for the mine-cum-washery operation and (iv) Coal will he transported by conveyor belt.
ii. Pursuant to the interim Court Order dated 27.01.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the Ministry of Coal vide its letter no. 11016/2/2015-CA-III dated 10.01. 2015 appointed Coal India Limited as a Custodian in respect of Gare Palma IV/2 and Care IV coal mines (Chhattisgar Accordingly M/s SECL 71 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
has been directed for operating mines in the Mock Gare TV/T (Chhattisgarh) till the final outcome of the WI No. 3001/2015 or till further onders and they are entitled to dispose the same in any manner they deem fit.
iii. SECL further submitted that facilities such as washery, conveyor belt and the power plant does not fall within the custodianship of SECL and therefore some of the conditions stipulated in the UC in this regard cannot be implemented.
iv. In view of above, SECL has requested for exemption/modification to the EC conditions for smooth functioning of the mine and to avoid any violation of the conditions stipulated therein.
v. The Committee deliberated at length the following issues
a) Management of OB in the absence of Dy ash und washery rejects.
b) Management of mine water in the absence of washery.
c) Transportation of coal in the absence of conveyor belt. vi. Based on the submissions made by SECL and deliberations, the Committee was of the view that conditions related to coal washery and fly ash dumping in the mine are not applicable in the instant case. Accordingly in order to ensure continuous coal production at the mine as directed by the High Court of Delhi, the Committee agreed to the following interim arrangement till further order from the Court :
72
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
i. The OB is to be managed in the same way as stipulated in the EC albeit without fly ash and washery rejects ii. In the original proposal, the entire mine water generated was not envisaged to be used in the washery and therefore the management plan prescribed for treatment of mine water not utilized in the Washery would be applicable.
iii. On the issue of the coal transportation by road the Committee noted that there would be a major change in air environment due to road transportation of about 6 MTPΑ/18000 ΤΡΙ of coal. As an interim measure, the road transport of coal can be permitted, and the PP bas 10 come hack with the Rapid study on the impact of road transport on the air quality including route and traffic survey within one month.
95. The above letter discloses that Coal Washery was part of the EC dated 12-
06-2012, and since the SECL has submitted that facilities such as washery, conveyor belt and the power plant does not fall within the custodianship of the SECL, thus these conditions should not be implemented and it was revoked for exemption and the committee deliberated on the point of fly ash, washery and absence of conveyor belt and passed reasonable order in view of the management of the coal mine, not the transfer of the EC and it was considered on the application of SECL. Any application by the custodian will not defeat the legal right of the original EC holder. The SECL was only custodian on behalf of Coal India and not having independent power to waive any right or to act in contravention of original EC 2012 or in contravention of any order passed 73 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. by the Coal India Limited. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that the project proponent being owner of the Coal Washery continued operating the Washery under valid and subsisting EC dated 12.06.2012, even though the subject coal mine was under the custodianship of SECL. It was being operated as per EC which remained with JPL and half yearly compliance report till 24.05.2023 has been sent to the regional office MoEF&CC in compliance of the conditions relating to Coal Washery as mentioned in EC of 12.06.2012 and MoEF&CC neither raised any objection nor communicated to JPL any purported violations of the EC conditions for washery. It was never indicated by the and MoEF&CC that the project proponent was conducting Washery operations without statutory clearances nor did it highlight any breach of the terms of conditions of EC granted. The conduct of the and MoEF&CC over an extended period of 6 years implied acquiescence leading JPL to reasonably believe that its operations were legally compliant to the EC conditions.
96. Grant of EC or rejection of prior environmental clearance is governed by Clause 8 of the EIA notification which is enumerated as follows :-
"Section 8 -Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):
i. The regulatory authority shall consider the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the applicant within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final 74 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
Environment Impact Assessment Report, and where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided below.
ii. The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In cases where it disagrees with the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, the regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned while stating the reasons for the disagreement. An intimation of this decision shall be simultaneously conveyed to the applicant. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, in turn, shall consider the observations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same within a further period of sixty days. The decision of the regulatory authority after considering the views of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be final and conveyed to the applicant by the regulatory authority concerned within the next thirty days.
75 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
iii. In the event that the decision of the regulatory authority is not communicated to the applicant within the period specified in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) above, as applicable, the applicant may proceed as if the environment clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. iv. On expiry of the period specified for decision by the regulatory authority under paragraph (i) and (ii) above, as applicable, the decision of the regulatory authority, and the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be public documents.
v. Clearances from other regulatory bodies or authorities shall not be required prior to receipt of applications for prior environmental clearance of projects or activities, or screening, or scoping, or appraisal, or decision by the regulatory authority concerned, unless any of these is sequentially dependent on such clearance either due to a requirement of law, or for necessary technical reasons. vi. Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on 76 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice."
97. Clause 6 provides that EC can only be revoked or cancelled by the regulatory authority after giving a personal hearing to the project proponent, however, in the present case, the order passed by the respondents are arbitrary in nature without giving an opportunity of hearing and in violation of principle of natural justice and while transferring the EC to the successful allottee of the subject mind, directing the project proponent to obtain EC for its private coal washery as per SoP for handling violation cases is in violation of clause 8 (6) of EIA Act.
98. Section 8 (4) the Coal Mines (Special Provision) Act, 2015 mandates transfer of all right, titles, interests and statutory clearances which includes EC as they existed with the prior allottee. The action of the respondent or in contravention of the statutory obligation rendering the action illegal and arbitrary. Our attention has been drawn towards the vesting order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Coal which is quoted below :-
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COAL OFFICE OF THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi Constituted under Section 6 of The Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015) VESTING ORDER (under clanse (b) of sub-rule (2) of rule 7 and sub- rule (1) of rule 13 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules 2014 read with clause (b) of sub- section (3) of Section 6 and sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015) 77 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
In re : Gare Palma IV/2 and Gare Palma IV/3(the
"mine") particulars of which is specilled in
Annexure 1
Order No. : ΝΑ-104/1/2023-NA
Date : May 02, 2023
In favour of: Jindal Power Limited, incorporated in India under the Companies Act, 1956 with corporate identity number U04010CT1995PLC008985, whose registered office and principal place of business is at Jindal Power Limited, Tamnar, Raigarh, Chattisgarh-496107 (the "Successful Bidder") For the Sale of coal, including sale to Affiliates and purpose of: related parties, utilisation of coil for any purpose including but not limited to captive consumption, Coal Gasification, Cool Liquefaction and export of coal.
WHEREAS, the nominated authority has, in accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines (Special Provisiom) Act, 2015 (the "Act") and the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Rules 2014 (the "Rules") conducted the auction of the mine.
AND WHEREAS the successful bidder is eligible to receive this vesting order with respect to the mine including, inter-alia-
(a) the coal bearing land acquired by the prior alloties and the lands, in or adjacent to the coal mines used for coal mining operations acquired by the prior allotter, and
(b) any existing mine infrastructure as defined in clause
(j) of sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Act; 78
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
AND WHEREAS the successful bidder was also the prior allottee of such Schedule II coal mine;
AND WHEREAS, the successful bidder has deposited the additional levy payable under section. 4(4) of the Act on or prior to the due date specified under rule 18 of the rules;
AND WHEREAS the successful bidder has furnished a performance bank guarantee dated April 05, 2023, for an amount equal to INR 4,52,73,39,515.00 issued by ICICI Bank in accordance with the tender document and in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (6) of section 8 of the Act and sub-rule (4) of rule 13 of the rules, AND WHEREAS the successful bidder has entered into a Coal Mines Development and Production Agreement dated March 29, 2023 (the "CMDPA") (as amended) with the nominated authority in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (5) of rule 13;
NOW, THE NOMINATED AUTHORITY DOES ORDER:
1. On and from May 02, 2023 ("Vesting date") and in accordance with sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Act, with respect to the mine, the following shall stand fully and absolutely transferred and vested in the successful bidder, namely: -
(a) all the rights, title, interest and liabilities as were available to the prior allottee;
(b) entitlement to a prospecting license, mining lease or prospecting license-cum-mining lease to 79 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
be granted by the State Government with the terms and conditions of CMDPA forming a part of it on making an application;
(c) all statutory licences, permits, permissions, approvals or consents as per rules, required to undertake coal mining operations in the mine, if already issued by the Central Government, to the prior allottee on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the prior allottee, as listed in the Annexure 2
(d) entitlement to any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent required to undertake coal mining operations in the mine, if already issued by the Central Government, to the prior allottee on making an application on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the prior allottee, as listed in the Annexure 3;
(e) entitlement to any statutory licence, permit, permission, approval or consent required to undertake coal mining operations in the mine, if already issued by the State Government, to the prior allottee on making an application on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to the prior allottee, as listed in the Annexure 4;
(f) rights appurtenant to the approved mining plan of the prior allottee;
(g) in the event the secured creditor elects to continue the facility arrangements and security interest, the successful bidder shall continue the credit or banking facilities or other lending arrangements to which the prior allottee was a 80 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
party in terms of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 12 of the Act;
2. The successful bidder may seek any change in the terms and conditions attached to such licence, permit, permission, approval or consent by making an application in accordance with applicable laws
3. This vesting order is liable to be cancelled in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (6) of rule 13."
99. Accordingly, the right, title and interest of the project proponent/applicant will be governed by the vesting order issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India and MoEF&CC was bound to transfer the EC dated 12.06.2012 of JPL as the prior allottee to JPL as the successful bidder. Section E of the Vesting order specifically says that statutory licenses permit permission and approval for consent required to undertake coal mining operation in the mine if already issued by the State Government to the prior allottee or making an application on the same terms and conditions as they are applicable to the prior allottee as listed in the annexure 03 & 04 will be applicable and the allottee will be entitled for all these conditions.
100. Similarly, the similar right has been given in Clause D. To make it more clear, the vesting order includes annexure-03 which is at serial no. 01 environmental clearance with a coal washery and the EC dated 12.06.2012. It means that in accordance with the vesting order Clause C, D and E, the annexure-03 and the list enumerated are transferred in favour of the allottee-the project proponent which includes the EC dated 12.06.2012 including combined production and the coal washery. Annexure-03 is extracted below :-
81
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 82 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 83 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 84 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 85 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
101. MoEF in transferring the EC of the prior allottee of the subject mine to the successful bidder merely acts in an administrative role in compliance of the provisions of the CMSP Act and Vesting Order issued by the MoC.
Such transfer of statutory clearance does not give power to MoEF for a fresh determination of the terms of the EC or adjudication on the grant of a valid and subsisting EC. In case MoEF was making any modifications in the EC dated 12.06.2012 while transferring it to the successful bidder, MoEF could not have done so without EAC approval as per Clause 11 of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006.
102. Therefore, by including additional conditions C(viii) and C(ix) to obtain EC for coal washery as per SOP for handling violation cases and directing SPCB to grant CTOs only for coal mine, MoEF has acted in blatant disregard of the fact that JPL has been operating the coal washery validly under the EC dated 12.06.2012 and is beyond its statutory mandate. Thus, MoEF's letter dated 14.11.2023 by which MoEF has transferred the conditions as mentioned in the 16.04.2015 letter issued to SECL, as designated custodian, to JPL, as successful bidder, is arbitrary, baseless, unreasonable, and in egregious contravention of the applicable laws. The said transfer fundamentally alters the operational framework established under the CMSP Act and the vesting order dated 02.05.2023.
103. Further, MoEF in its counter affidavit has stated that MoEF complied with Section 8(4) mandate and all rights held by the prior allottee, SECL, were duly transferred to JPL. It is submitted that MoEF has made a glaring 86 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. error. In the present case, the prior allottee is JPL and not SECL since SECL was appointed as custodian akin to designated custodian under Section 18 of the CMSP Act by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court by its orders dated 27.03.2015 as an interim measure, till the subject coal mine was re- auctioned.
104. A bare reading of Section 3(1)(n) of the CMSP Act, 2015, it is clear that JPL was prior allottee of the subject coal mine. Further, as per Section 18 of CMSP Act, SECL was to act as designated custodian of the subject coal mine till the completion of auction. The auction of the subject coal mine was completed on 28.02.2023 when JPL was declared as the successful bidder. In view thereof, MoEF's contention that SECL is the prior allottee is misplaced and without any merit. Section 3(1)(n) and Schedule I of the CMSP Act are reproduced hereinunder:
"(n) "prior allottee" means prior allottee of Schedule I coal mines as listed therein who had been allotted coal mines between 1993 and 31st day of March, 2011, whose allotments have been cancelled pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated the 25th August, 2014 and its order dated 24th September, 2014 including those allotments which may have been deallocated prior to and during the pendency of the Writ Petition (Criminal) No.120 of 2012.
87
OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
Schedule I
[See section 3(1)(p)]
Sl. Name of Coal Name of Prior State where Coal
No. Mine/Block Allottee Mine/Block
Located
28 Gare-Palma-IV/2 Jindal Power Ltd Chhattisgarh
29 Gare-Palma-IV/3 Jindal Power Ltd Chhattisgarh
105. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the respondent are that, the EC which was in favour of SECL was transferred to the project opponent while in reply the contention of the Learned Counsel for the applicant are that the order dated 14-11-2023 issued by the MoEF&CC, contains everything and that after the intervention of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for auction of the Coal Blocks the original EC which includes the coal washery dated 12-06-2012 was transferred from Jindal Power Limited to the SECL and later on on the request of the SECL some modification has been issued as an interim arrangement to manage the coal mines and later on the same EC in accordance with the vesting order was transferred in favor of the new allottee i.e. the Jindal Power Limited which owns the original EC in its own name thus, all right, title and interest as contained in the EC dated 12-06-2012 with the list of the vesting order attached with the vesting order shall be transferred and will be deemed to be transferred in favor of the new allottee successful bidder in accordance with the order of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, quoted above and in compliance of the auction proceedings and thus, any modification in the mid of it, is in contravention of the rules and vesting order and order issued by the MoEF&CC and Ministry of Coal Mines and thus having no foresight at all being in contravention of law and further defeating the provisions of law. Inclusion of a specific condition for coal 88 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. washery intended to defeat the order passed by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India, and further vesting order which is issued in accordance with the provisions of Coal Mines (Special Provision) Act, 2015 which cannot be done by means of communicating in a letter and putting a special condition. MoEF&CC had to take independent decision and pass a specific order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected person and then to have a decision in the interest of environment and in the interest of the public and also in the interest of the need of the electricity and power generation.
106. In view of above discussions, submissions, deliberations, documents on the record and the order of Government of India, Ministry of Coal and different orders issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and Hon'ble High Court, our conclusions and directions are as follows:-
i. Respondents are directed to comply the order of Government of India, Ministry of Coal issued by the nominated authority constituted under Section 6 of the Coal Mines (Special Provisions) Act, 2015 with all annexures and annexure-A/23 which includes environmental clearance for combined production of 6.25 MTPA and Coal Washery in letter and spirit.
ii. All statutory licenses, permits, permissions, approvals or consent as per rules required to undertake coal mining operations in the mine with particulars of statutory licenses mentioned in annexure--A/23 including Coal Washery has been transferred to prior allottee and the present proponent i.e. Jindal Power Limited and the respondents are directed 89 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
that the above conditions of EC with specific provisions contained in the EC dated 12-06-2012 must be strictly complied with in letter and spirit.
iii. Additional conditions no. vii, viii, ix as included in the letter communicated dated 14-11-2023 issued by the MoEF&CC to that extent contravenes the EC conditions dated 12.06.2012 and the vesting orders and against the provisions of law which defeats the provisions of law and thus, void ab initio, illegal having no force at all and will not be given effect to and the MoEF&CC is directed to reconsider it and to rectify in consonance with the EC dated 12.06.2012 read with vesting order issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India dated 02.05.2023 with annexure-A/23 with all statutory licenses and permissions.
iv. Orders issued by the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board dated 21.01.2025 refusing to grant for renewal of CTO was not in accordance with the EC dated 12.06.2012 and contravenes the conditions and stipulations of the EC dated 12-06-2012 and orders of Govt. of India Ministry of Coal, quoted above and not in consonance with the vesting order thus void ab initio having no force and should not be acted upon and CECB is directed to reconsider the renewal of the CTO in accordance with the EC dated 12-06-2012 read with vesting order as contained in annexure-A/23 attached with the vesting order. 90 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.
Annexed -A/23 vesting order is enclosed and 1, 2, 3, 4 are made part of the order.
v. Order of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned above directing the JPL to retain the control over the Coal Washery, CHP and CCPC which were not part of the mining infrastructure and that the order to continue to operate shall be acted upon and since these subjects are not included in the auction proceedings and remained with the applicant, the prior allottee, thus the activities which were in accordance with EC dated 12-06-2012 read with the vesting order issued by the Ministry of Coal, Government of India should not be interfered with and orders of Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, Ministry of Coal must be strictly enforced in letter and spirit.
107. With these observations and directions, the Original Application No. 11/2025 along with all I.As. stand disposed of.
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM 08th April, 2025 O.A No. 11/2025(CZ) PN 91 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 92 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 93 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 94 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 95 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 96 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 97 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 98 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 99 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 100 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 101 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 102 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors. 103 OA No. 11/2025(CZ) Jindal Power Limited Vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors.