6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Commission erred in ignoring the advice of CEA as well as its own view contained in previous order dated 20.05.2019 without any cogent reason or discussion. It is submitted that the advice of CEA, a technical body, could not have been substituted by the Commission on such a technical issue in the absence of any compelling reasons to do so. The learned counsel further argued that the Commission has failed to consider that the appellant has already incurred considerable expenses on upgrading of the LHS in pursuance to the in-principle approval granted to it by the Commission vide its order dated 30.05.2019 and it has been with full knowledge and participation of the respondents and therefore, the contrary opinion rendered by the Commission in the impugned order is totally unfair, unjust and legally untenable. It is, further, argued that the borehole data clearly suggests that the sulphur content in lignite from Kapurdi / Jalipa lignite mines will reach 2% or more during the course of mining over a period of 30 years but it is difficult to predict when exactly will it happen and therefore, this position coupled with the fact that breach in the SO2 levels is now a punishable offence attracting penalty under Sections 15 and 16 of Environment Protection Act, 1886, necessitates provisioning for redundancies as a matter of prudent utility practice. According to the learned counsel, the need to install 60TPH additional capacity LHS stands fully established.
