M/S Lichi Ceramic vs. State Of Gujarat

Held

The Court noted that the Special Civil Application No. 7142 of 2019, concerning the provision of gas connections by Gujarat Gas Limited (GGL), was disposed of based on a statement by GGL's counsel that modalities would be worked out within four months, and the applicants would be provided with gas connections. The Court appreciated the petitioners' move towards natural gas. For the other three petitions (SCA Nos. 6756/2019, 6757/2019, and 6774/2019), which dealt with the Type-D gasifier technology and closure orders, the Court ordered them to be rejected. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach either the National Green Tribunal or the Supreme Court of India. The reasoning for rejecting these petitions was based on the observation that applications preferred by them were not maintainable in law before the High Court, implying they should seek remedies before the specialized tribunals or higher appellate courts. The Court did not delve into the merits of the gasifier technology or the closure orders themselves.

Facts

The petitioners, including a company manufacturing coal gasifiers and manufacturers of ceramic products, approached the Gujarat High Court seeking various reliefs. The primary company sought directions for the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to decide their representation for final permission for utilizing their Type-D gasifier technology. The ceramic manufacturers sought to quash closure orders issued by the GPCB and directions for the GPCB to grant them consent to operate (CTO) and consent to establish (CTE) for using modified Type-D gasifiers. Another petition concerned the delay in providing gas connections by Gujarat Gas Limited (GGL) to ceramic manufacturers in Morbi. The GPCB had issued closure orders against some ceramic units, leading to the petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the GPCB and CPCB should be directed to examine and grant approval for the Type-D gasifier technology developed by the petitioner company, and whether the GPCB should be directed to decide the company's representation for final permission for its utilization (Section 18 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974)? 2. Whether the closure orders issued by the GPCB against ceramic manufacturers using Type-D gasifiers are liable to be quashed, and whether the GPCB should be directed to grant consent to operate and consent to establish for these units? 3. Whether Gujarat Gas Limited (GGL) should be directed to expedite the provision of gas connections to ceramic manufacturers in Morbi, considering their applications and the company's stated readiness to extend infrastructure? Petitioner's arguments (primarily for the company and ceramic manufacturers): The Type-D gasifier technology is modified and environmentally compliant, and the authorities are unduly delaying decisions. Closure orders are unjustified. GGL is delaying the provision of essential gas connections, hindering their operations. They relied on the principle of natural justice and the need for timely administrative decisions. Revenue/State's arguments (GPCB, CPCB, GGL): The GPCB argued that the Type-D gasifier technology requires proper evaluation and compliance with environmental norms. GGL stated they are willing to provide gas connections but require commercial arrangements and the petitioners to agree on terms and provide consumption estimates. The respondents argued that the petitioners' applications were not maintainable before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and thus they should approach the NGT or Supreme Court.