Summary
The Court restored interim protection for an operating steel plant while directing a decision on revised environmental clearance within three months. The plant had obtained clearance for a nearby site; the environmental consequences of relocation and forest issues required competent assessment. Exceptional regularisation in strict accordance with environmental law was not categorically barred, but clearance was neither routine nor available on demand. Proportionate treatment of a running plant did not excuse pollution or foreclose lawful action for past breaches. Insolvency-related immunity issues were left open.
Issues
- Whether interim protection should have been withdrawn while revised clearance for the relocated steel plant remained under consideration.
- Whether post-facto consideration could occur consistently with environmental safeguards and liability for past contraventions.
Provisions considered
- Section 3, Environment (Protection) Act, 1986The environmental-protection powers and applicable notification framework informed consideration of lawful exceptional regularisation with safeguards. (¶¶ 11-14, 47-49, 81-87)
- Paragraphs 3-5, Environment Ministry Notification S.O. 804(E), 14 March 2017The violation-appraisal framework distinguished permissible sustainable projects subject to safeguards and remediation from projects requiring closure. (¶¶ 48-49, 87)
Held
- Environmental compliance was non-negotiable, and polluting industries could not operate unchecked. Post-facto clearance was not to be granted routinely or merely on request; appropriate cases required strict compliance with applicable environmental rules, notifications and safeguards. (¶ 81-87)
- Closure was not an automatic or proportionate response to the site-shifting issue while the running plant sought regularisation and could comply with pollution norms. The earlier clearance, Ministry correspondence, in-principle forest approval and consequences of closure required consideration. These factors did not themselves amount to final clearance. (¶¶ 82-84, 88-92, 94)
- Whether relocation materially changed the environmental impact was for the appropriate authority or forum. The Court did not finally decide the disputed forest status or that a fresh public hearing was unnecessary. (¶ 89-92)
- The Madras High Court’s interim stay of the 2021 procedure was not treated as preventing consideration of this Jharkhand project; a decision could also be taken under the pre-existing framework. The Court was not deciding an appeal against that stay. (¶ 92-93)
- Continued operation or eventual revised clearance did not by itself prevent action for contraventions. The effect of IBC Section 32A on penalties or compensation was expressly left to the appropriate authority at the appropriate stage. The applications still required strict assessment against environmental norms. (¶ 94)
- The impugned withdrawal of protection was set aside. The Ministry was directed to decide revised environmental clearance within three months; pending that decision, plant operation could not be obstructed for want of EC, FC, CTE or CTO. This was conditional interim protection, not a final grant of those approvals. (¶ 95)
Result
Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside. Revised environmental-clearance application to be decided within three months in accordance with law, with operation protected pending that decision against interference for want of EC, FC, CTE or CTO. Compliance and reserved liability issues remained for competent assessment.