Case Note & Summary
The case involves Electrosteel Steels Limited, which owns a 1.5 MTPA integrated steel plant in Bokaro, Jharkhand, employing 3,000 regular and 7,000 contractual workers, with about 30,000 dependents. The plant was taken over by Vedanta Ltd. in June 2018 under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. The appellant had obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) in 2008 and Consent to Establish (CTE) from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) in 2008, but commenced operations without obtaining Consent to Operate (CTO). The High Court initially allowed the plant to operate under the supervisory regulatory control of JSPCB via interim orders. However, on September 16, 2020, the High Court discontinued these interim orders, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, including Section 3 (powers of Central Government) and Section 5 (power to issue directions), and the delegation of powers to State Pollution Control Boards. The Court noted that the plant had been operating under JSPCB supervision for over two years without major environmental violations. The Court held that the High Court's decision to discontinue the interim arrangement was not justified, as it would lead to severe economic consequences and loss of livelihood. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and directed the appellant to comply with all environmental norms and obtain CTO within six months, while continuing operations under JSPCB supervision. The Court also directed JSPCB to consider the application for CTO expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Environmental Law - Environmental Clearance - Consent to Operate - The appellant, a steel plant, was granted Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Establish (CTE) but operated without obtaining Consent to Operate (CTO) from the State Pollution Control Board. The High Court had allowed interim operation under Board supervision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's order discontinuing such interim arrangement was not justified as the plant had been operating under supervision for over two years and closure would cause severe economic and livelihood loss. (Paras 2, 25-30) B) Environmental Law - Delegation of Powers under Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - The Central Government delegated its powers under Section 5 to Chairpersons of State Pollution Control Boards to issue directions for violations of environmental standards. The Supreme Court noted that the Board could have exercised these powers to regulate the plant's operations instead of seeking closure. (Paras 20, 30) C) Environmental Law - Balance between Environment Protection and Livelihood - The Supreme Court emphasized that while environmental protection is paramount, the livelihood of thousands of employees and dependents must also be considered. The Court directed the appellant to comply with all environmental norms and obtain CTO within a specified period, while allowing continued operation under Board supervision. (Paras 3-4, 30-31)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in discontinuing the interim orders allowing the appellant to operate its steel plant under the supervisory regulatory control of the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, pending compliance with environmental clearance conditions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order dated 16th September 2020, and directed that the appellant be allowed to continue operations under the supervisory regulatory control of JSPCB. The appellant was directed to comply with all environmental norms and obtain Consent to Operate within six months. JSPCB was directed to consider the application for CTO expeditiously.
Law Points
- Environmental Clearance
- Consent to Establish
- Consent to Operate
- Pollution Control Board
- Section 5 of Environment (Protection) Act
- 1986
- Delegation of Powers
- Interim Orders
- Balance of Environment and Livelihood
