| Headnote |
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s. 3(2)(v) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper smelter plant- Interference with, by the High Court on ground of procedural impropriety - Justification - Held: On facts, not justified -There was no breach of any mandatory requirement in the procedure ยท..: Environmental clearance was granted in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 27.01.1994 well before issuance of the notification dated 10.04.1997 providing for mandatory public hearing - Consequently, the High Court could not have allowed the writ petitions challenging the environmental clearances on the ground that no public hearing was conducted before grant of the environmental clearances - So long as the statutory process is followed and the EIA made by the authorities concerned is not found to be irrational so as to frustrate the very purpose of EIA, the Court will not interfere with the decision of the authorities in exercise of its powers of judicial review. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s. 3(2)(v) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper smelter plant - Consent order granted by the State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) under the Water Act - High Court directed closure of the plant of appellants on the ground that it was located within 25 kms. of an ecologically sensitive area and thus the appellants violated the consent order - Justification - Held: Not justified - While appellant-company was given consent to establish its plant in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex in Tuticorin, a condition was stipulated that the appellants have to ensure that the location of the unit is 25 kms. away from ecological sensitive area - However, while granting consent, the TNPCB apparently failed to note that the said complex was within 25 kms. of four islands in the Gulf of Munnar Marine National Park (an ecologically sensitive area) - Since, the consent order was granted to appellant- company to establish its plant in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex and the plant was in fact established therein, the High Court could not have come to the conclusion that the appellant-company had violated the Consent Order - However, the plant of appellants can be directed to be shifted in future, in case it becomes necessary for preservation of ecology of the said four islands which form part of the Gulf of Munnar - As and when the Central Government issues order u/r.5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, prohibiting or restricting the location of industries within and around the Gulf of Munnar, then appropriate steps may have to be taken by all concerned for shifting the industry of the appellants from the SIPCOT Industrial Complex depending upon the content of the order or notification issued by the Central Government under r.5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, subject to legal challenge by the industries - Water (Prevention and F Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s.25. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s.3(2)(v) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper smelter plant - Consent order granted by the State Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) under the Air Act - Condition imposed by TNPCB in regard to development of green belt around the battery limit of industry - High Court directed closure of the plant of appellant-company on the ground that H though originally the TNPCB stipulated a condition in the 'No Objection Certificate' that the appellant-company has to develop a green belt of 250 meters width around the battery limit of the plant, later the TNPCB reduced the minimum width of the green belt required to be developed by the appellants to 25 meters - Held: If TNPCB after considering the representation of the appellants reduced the width of the green belt from a minimum of 250 meters to a minimum of 25 meters around the battery limit of the industry of the appellants and it is not shown that exercise of this power was vitiated by procedural breach or irrationality, the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review could not have interfered with the exercise of such power by the State Pollution Control Board - It was for the TNPCB to take the decision in that behalf and considering that the appellant's plant was within a pre-existing industrial estate, the appellant could not have been singled out to require a huge green belt - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - s.21. Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s.3(2)(v) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Setting up of industrial plant - Liability to pay compensation for damage caused by the plant to the environment - Held: It is for the administrative and statutory authorities to consider and grant environmental clearance and the consents for setting up the plant- Such decisions cannot be interfered with, by the Court on ground that had the authorities made a proper environmental assessment of the plant, the adverse environmental effects of the industry could have been prevented - If, however, the industry continues to pollute the environment so as to effect the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, direction can be given for closure of the industry if there are no other remedial measures to ensure that the industry maintains the standards of emission and effluent - In the instant case, the plant of appellant-company did not maintain the standards of emission and effluent as laid down by the TNPCB - But deficiencies in the plant of the appellants which affected the environment now removed - Thus, impugned order of the High Court directing closure of the plant of the appellants liable to be set aside, particularly on considerations of public interest, inasmuch as the plant of appellants contributes substantially to the copper production in India and provides employment to large number of people - However, appellant- company liable to pay compensation for causing damages to environment from 1997 to 2012 and for operating its plant without valid renewal for fairly long period - Considering the magnitude, capacity and prosperity of appellant-company, it is held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 100 crores - Any less amount, would not have. the desired deterrent effect on appellant-company - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - s.21 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s.25 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21. |
