Ranjeet Yadu vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, a resident of Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the alleged gross violation of environmental laws by Respondent No. 9, a project proponent. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 9 established and expanded industrial units without obtaining mandatory Environmental Clearance (EC). Specific allegations included hazardous waste generation, tree cutting, illegal encroachment, and depletion of groundwater. The petitioner claimed that Respondent No. 9 fraudulently obtained a Consent to Operate by suppressing material facts. The petitioner had previously filed a PIL concerning similar issues, which was dismissed. The petitioner argued that Respondent No. 9 had undertaken to obtain EC for expansion but failed to do so, violating EIA Notification 2006 and a previous court order. Respondent No. 9 countered that its products did not fall under the strict requirement of EC as per the EIA Notification 2006 and subsequent amendments, and that periods for obtaining EC had been extended. They also claimed to have implemented pollution control measures.

Held

The Court held that no strong case for issuance of a writ had been made out, and consequently, the Public Interest Litigation was dismissed. The Court noted that Respondent No. 9 had applied in the wrong category and that the issues raised in the present petition were similar to those considered in an earlier petition, which was dismissed. The Court found that the project proponent had consistently prioritized the well-being of villagers and taken extensive steps to control pollution, including establishing an effluent treatment plant. Furthermore, the Court observed that there had already been an adjudication by this Court in the earlier PIL, concluding that no EC was required for the products being manufactured by Respondent No. 9. The Court also considered the argument that the period for making applications for EC for existing units had been extended by subsequent notifications, suggesting no violation had occurred that would give rise to the petitioner's cause of action. Therefore, the PIL was deemed devoid of merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether Respondent No. 9's second industrial unit, involved in manufacturing hot rolled pickled oiled coil/sheet and cold rolled coil/sheet, requires prior Environmental Clearance (EC) under the EIA Notification 2006 and subsequent amendments, specifically considering the nature of its products and the timing of its applications for Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO)? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the second unit's operations fall under Clause 3(a) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification 2006, mandating prior EC before any construction or land preparation. They argued that Respondent No. 9 had previously undertaken to obtain EC for expansion and had failed to do so, violating EIA Notification 2006 and previous court observations. The petitioner also argued that the CTE and CTO were obtained fraudulently and in violation of environmental laws. Respondent No. 9's arguments: Respondent No. 9 argued that its products (hot rolled pickled oiled coil/sheet and cold rolled coil/sheet) do not fall under the purview of secondary metallurgical processing requiring prior EC as per the EIA Notification 2006, especially before the notification dated July 20, 2022. They asserted that the CTE was granted on June 20, 2022, and CTO on May 31, 2023, both prior to the EIA Notification July 2022, and that subsequent EIA notifications extended the period for making applications for EC. They also claimed that the unit does not produce stainless steel cold rolled/hot rolled products and that they have implemented robust pollution control measures.