TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 12-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 856 
TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1247 of2012) 
JULY 12,2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM 
KALIFULLA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Environment laws: Mining operation -· In 2005, environment 
clearance granted to the appellant for expansion of Iron Ore Mine 
for two years - Appellant filed the report of Hydrogeological study 
on impact of mining on hydrogeologicaf of the mine lease area -
MoEF-First respondent found the relevant parameters within limit 
and as a result deleted the prescription of two years period - PIL 
by lo.cal resident-respondent seeking stopping of mining activities 
and for compensation for causing environmental damages - High. 
Court directed the appellant to seek extension of environmental 
clearance for a ft1rther period and in event of non-grant of such 
clearance to discontinue its mining operations till grant of clearance 
- On appeal, held: The order deleting the prescription of two years. 
was a cryptic one without giving due regard to the various salient 
features concerning the environment protection and the interest of 
the public at large while granting such clearance - MoEF directed 
to take a fresh !Oak for the continuation or otherwise of the 
environment clearance granted by ii. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1247 of 
2012. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2011 of the High Cou1t 
of Bombay at Goa in PIL Writ Petition No. 6of2011 
WITH 
G 
C.A.No.6174of2016. 
H 
T.P.(C)No.1843of2013. 
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. ShreyaAgrawal, 
Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, L. Rodrigues, Ms. Swati Singh, B. Krishna 
856 
TALAULICAR & SONS. P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA 
857 
Prasad, Shreekant N. Terdal, Advs. for the Appellant. 
A 
A. N. S. Nadkarni, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Colin Gonsalves, 
Sr. Adv., Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Niharika, Santosh Rebello, Ms. Purna 
Bhandari, Anshuman Shrivastav, Ms. Taniya Agarwal, Ms. Jyoti 
Mendiratta, N. K. Karhail, Rishabh Jain, Ms. Snidha Mehra, S. N. Terdal, 
Advs. for the Respondents. 
B 
The .Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by 
l<'AKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 
Delay condoned. 
Leave granted in SLP(C) ....... ./2016@CC No.20925 of2012. 
I. These appeals are directed against a Division Bench judgment 
dated 12.08.2011 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Public Int.erest 
Litigation Writ Petition No.6 of201 l. The said writ petition was moved 
at the instance of the second respondent herein with a prayer that the 
appellant was originally granted environmental clearance for the expan-
sion ofSaniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine on 25.11.2005 for two years, that 
by a subsequent letter dated 18.10.2007 of the first respondent, the two 
years period to conduct a higher geological study was deleted, that by 
virtue of the conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 27.01.1994 
read along with the Notification dated 04.05.1994 such environmental 
clearance granted in favour of the appellant expired on 25.11.2010 and 
that in spite of such expiry, the appellant continued to indulge in mining 
operations. The second respondent therefore contended that such ille-
gal mining activity of the appellant was n'ot controlled by the first re-
spondent even after the second respondent's communication dated 
30.11.2010. It was on the above said basis, the second respondent prayed 
for the issuance of the mandamus directing the first respondent to stop 
the operation of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine of the appellant ancj 
also direct for payment of compensation for having caused environmen-
tal damage. 
2. The Division Bench of the High Court having made a detailed 
analysis of the grievance of the second respondent as a local resident, 
the relevant provisions of the Statute as well as the Environment Impact 
Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 27.01.1994, took the view that the 
clearance granted in favourofthe appellant in the order dated 25.11.2005 
for the expansion of Sanie1i1 Sacorda Iron Ore Mine was initially for a 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
858 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 3 S.C.R. 
period of two years as per the EIA Notification of 1994 and that such 
clearance can be valid only for a period of five years as is stipulated in 
the EIA Notifications and the relevant Rules. The Division Bench ulti-
mately held that the appellant was carrying on the mining operations 
without a valid subsisting environmental clearance and w
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.