Document Actions
M/s. Vedanta Aluminum Limited vs. Union of India (UOI), And Ors.
NLS/ENVIS/19/7/2011/Environment Clearance/ High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
Environmental Clearance
M/s. Vedanta Aluminum Limited vs. Union of India (UOI), And Ors.
(Hon’ble Judges: V.Gopala Gowda, J and B.N. Mahapatra, J.)
NLS/ENVIS/19/7/2011/Environment Clearance/ High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
Vedanta, a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956, had moved an application for prior environmental clearance as they were planning for an expansion. On 17.08.2002 Sterlite Industries Ltd. the Petitioner’s predecessor submitted its application for the establishment of the Alumina Refinery and Captive Power Plant. It was necessary to obtain prior environmental clearance. On 22.09.2004, Union of India, the Respondent, granted its approval for setting up of the said project subject to the conditions stipulated. On 14.09.2006, Respondent issued the EIA Notification, 2006 which was in super cession of the earlier Notification of 1994. As per the provisions of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006 for expansion of the project prior environmental clearance was necessary.
On 03.10.2007 the Petitioner submitted its application to Respondent for expansion of the project. On 20.02.2008, the Petitioner gave a representation to the Members of the Expert Appraisal Committee (Industry) in respect of the Terms of Reference (TOR) for clearance.
On 31.08.2010, Respondent issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner placing reliance on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the EIA Notification, 2006 as to why the Term of Reference issued for the expansion should not be withdrawn. On 15.09.2010, the Petitioner replied to the above show cause notice. As the Petitioner's industry falls under Item 3(a) of the Schedule of the EIA Notification, 2006, the environmental clearance was essential at the stage of setting up and establishing the existing refinery, in respect of which, clearance have been obtained from the authorities concerned. The Petitioner did not indicate about the starting of construction work while it applied for TOR and also in the EIA/EMP reports prepared for the expansion project. In the case of the Petitioner, appraisal process was not completed. As the Petitioner violated the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and final directions were issued to it for withdrawal of Term of Reference issued in March, 2009 and cancellation of public hearing held on 25th April, 2009. The process for environmental clearance has to be started de novo. Therefore, the Petitioner vide letter dated 11.01.2011 was requested to submit fresh proposal to the Ministry for obtaining environmental clearance for the above project under the procedure laid down in EIA Notification, 2006.
For the reasons stated above, the court held that the construction work undertaken by the Petitioner for expansion of its project without obtaining environmental clearance violates the mandates of the EIA Notification, 2006 and therefore, the Respondent is justified in withdrawing the TOR and in canceling the public hearing proceeding held in respect of the proposed expansion. The opposite parties are also justified in holding that the process for environmental clearance has to be started de novo for which the Petitioner has to submit fresh proposal to the Ministry under the procedure laid down in the EIA Notification, 2006