STER LITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 02-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 573 
STER LITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2776-2783 of 2013) 
APRIL 2, 2013 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 -
s. 3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental 
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper C 
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 ·..: Environmental clearance was granted in 
accordance with the procedure laid down in the Environment D 
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 E 
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 
F 
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 G 
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 
573 
H 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 6 S.C.R. 
A 
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 
B 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. offour islands in the Gulf 
of Munnar Marine National Park (an ecologically sensitive 
area) - Since, the consent order was granted to appellant-
C 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 
0 
in future, in case it becomes necessary for preseNation 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 
E 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 
G 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 
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 575 
OF INDIA & ORS. 
Objection Certificate' that the appellant-company has to 
A 
develop a green belt of 250 meters width around the battery 
limit of the plant, later the TN PCB 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 
B 
green belt from a minimum of 250 meters to a minimum of 
25 meters around the battery l

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