Summary
The Court upheld rejection of enhanced raw pet-coke allocation based on Sanvira’s claimed additional production capacity. Allocation within the court-fixed import ceiling depended on capacity permitted by the consent to operate as at 9 October 2018. A later certificate stating greater installed capacity did not retrospectively enlarge that permission or change the governing criteria.
Issues
- Whether a later Pollution Control Board certificate of installed capacity justified enhanced allocation despite the lower permitted capacity on the governing date.
- Whether the 17 April 2020 public notice changed the basis of allocation established under the Supreme Court’s earlier orders.
Provisions considered
- Imported pet-coke regulation and monitoring, conditions (1)–(5), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change guidelines, 10 September 2018Allocation operated through valid pollution-control consent specifying permitted quantities and restricted use; the contemporaneous consent was the relevant measure of permissible capacity. (¶¶ 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29)
- Eligibility and capacity documentation requirements, Directorate General of Foreign Trade Public Notice, 17 April 2020The notice’s references to capacity certification and valid consent did not alter the existing basis of capacity as on 9 October 2018 or allow a later clarification to replace the operative consent. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Held
- The annual 1.4-million-tonne raw pet-coke import ceiling was based on environmental assessment and the calciners’ permissible capacities reflected in their pollution-control consents. It was not an unconstrained pool to be redistributed whenever greater installed capacity was later asserted. (¶¶ 3, 4, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28)
- As on the governing date, Sanvira’s consent to operate authorised 2,00,000 tonnes annually and prohibited increases beyond the permitted capacity. Its repeated requests to recognise additional capacity had been rejected, including through applications to the Supreme Court. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 24, 25)
- The 17 April 2020 public notice did not introduce a new allocation criterion. The later Board letter certifying 3,30,000 tonnes of installed capacity did not amend the earlier consent retrospectively or establish a material change in the circumstances supporting the earlier refusals. (¶¶ 25, 26, 27, 28, 29)
- The Division Bench correctly rejected reliance on the later clarification to enlarge Sanvira’s share. Both sets of appeals failed, leaving its judgment undisturbed. (¶¶ 28, 29, 30)
Result
Appeals dismissed; Division Bench judgment upheld. No order as to costs.