ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC

Citation: [2021] 14 S.C.R. 863 · Decided: 09-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
863
[2021] 14 S.C.R. 863
863
ELECTROSTEEL STEELS LIMITED
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7576-7577 of 2021)
DECEMBER 09, 2021
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Environment Protection Act, 1986 – Ex post facto
environmental clearance – In the instant case, Appellant applied to
Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government
of India for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC) to establish
steel plant at Bokara District – Appellant stated in its application
that no forest land was involved in the project – After obtaining
EC, the Appellant applied to the JSPCB, for grant of ‘Consent to
Establish’ (CTE) under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 - The JSPCB granted CTE to the Appellant to establish
steel plant – Even though CTE was granted to the Appellant to
establish a steel plant at Bokaro District, the Appellant established
it 5.3 Kms away from the permitted site - CTE was extended from
time to time – However, JSPCB issued an order revoking EC of the
appellant on the ground that appellant had encroached upon forest
land and shifted its location there by violating the conditions of EC
– Appellant filed writ petition before High Court in which High
Court passed an interim order staying the operation, implementation
and execution of the order of JSPCB which was extended time to
time – In the meanwhile, Appellant applied for ex post facto Forest
Clearance (FC) which was also claimed before the High Court -
However, after final hearing, High Court passed the order of
discontinuing the earlier interim orders – On Appeal, Held: The
1986 Act does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance
– Ex post facto environmental clearance should not however be
granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances taking into
account all relevant environmental factors – Ex post facto approval
should not be withheld only as a penal measure – In present facts,
steel plant was not started without EC or consent of JSPCB –
Appellant had asserted that no part of steel plant is in any forest
which MoEF had also confirmed - Appellant had duly applied for
ex post fact forest clearance approval without prejudice to its rights
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
864
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 14 S.C.R.
and contentions that its steel plant is not on forest land – An
establishment contributing to the economy and providing livelihood
to hundreds of people should not be closed down for technical
irregularity of shifting its site without prior EC – JSPCB was directed
to take action on the application of the appellant for revised EC in
accordance with law - High Court erred in vacating interim orders
which had been in force for two years.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. 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. [Para 82][885-D-E]
2. 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.
[Para 84][885-G-H; 886-A-B]
3. Ex post facto environmental clearance should not
however be granted routinely, but in exceptional circumstances
taking into account all 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,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
865
ex post facto approval should be given in accordance with law, in
strict confo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.