Disposed

M/S Ashapura Perfoclay Limited v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT3 Dec 2024Original Application No. 110/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Original Application No.110 of 2024, the NGT Western Zone Bench addressed an application by M/s Ashapura Perfoclay Limited for a modification in its environmental clearance. The court directed the SEIAA to process the application within one month as a violation category case, dismissing the applicant's contention that it should be treated differently due to a lack of pollution increase.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (SEIAA) to consider the application dated 13.09.2023 and decide it within one month.

M/S Ashapura Perfoclay Limited vs Ministry of Environment… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.6

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.110 OF 2024 (WZ)

¶6

M/s Ashapura Perfoclay Limited … Applicant Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Date of Hearing : 03.12.2024

¶8

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶9

Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate

¶10

Respondents : Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1

¶11

Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-2

¶12

Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-5

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The learned counsel for the applicant has filed rejoinder dated

¶15

28.11.2024 to the affidavit dated 22.11.2024 filed by respondent No.1.

¶16

This matter is at the admission stage as of now.

¶17

The main relief which has been sought in the present case pertains to a direction to be issued to respondent No.2 – SEIAA and respondent No.3 – SEAC to consider the application of the applicant dated 13.09.2023 for grant of Environmental Clearance (EC), as a regular application, expeditiously and not to treat the same as per notification dated 07.07.2021 under `violation’ category. The learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to this Tribunal’s order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Original Application No.65 of 2019 (WZ) (Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale Vs. Union of India & Ors.), of which paragraph No.37 is relevant, which is quoted hereunder for the sake of convenience:

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

“It is also apparent from the perusal of record that Project Proponent had applied for ex-post-facto EC on 05.05.2022 i.e. prior to the date of Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court as well as prior to the date of order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court staying the operation of the OM dated 07.07.2021. Therefore, till these Judgments/Orders were pronounced, position of law would be taken to be that the SOP provided under OM dated 07.07.2021 was in force as per the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Electrosteel’s case (Supra). In the light of the interpretation made by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, which has quashed the OM dated 07.07.2021, the same has been directed to be effective prospectively i.e. after the date of delivery of the Judgment, making it clear whatever projects, which were already under consideration for grant of ex-post-facto EC under Violation Category, were to be processed by the SEIAA but any new matter post the stay of that Judgment, wherein violation was found to be there, could not have been entertained by the SEIAA. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in the case in hand, we can permit for following of SOP provided under the OM dated 07.07.2021, as the application was moved by the Project Proponent much prior to the above two dates of Judgments/Orders and that we can pass the final order in this matter subject to final Judgment to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti’s Case (supra).”

¶20

Having drawn our attention to the above paragraph, it is urged by the learned counsel that since the application of the applicant was pending consideration before SEIAA since 13.09.2023, same position would prevail in the present case as has been decided by this Tribunal in above quoted paragraph No.37 of its judgment and the applicant’s said application dated 13.09.2023 can be processed by SEIAA even treating it to be in `violation’ category as per the SOP issued by the MoEF&CC dated 07.07.2021.

¶21

At this stage, we enquired from the learned counsel for the applicant as to why SEIAA is insisting that this case is to be treated as `violation’ case, it is submitted by him that earlier EC, which was granted on 30.07.2016, was with respect to Bleachng Clay at the existing unit at Survey No.167

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Village Ler, Nr. Bhujodi, Anjar Bhuj Highway, Tq. Bhuj, District Kutch, in which modification is sought by the applicant through his application dated 13.09.2023, which is annexed as “X, wherein description of the Project is shown as “EC Violation of Mineral Beneficiation of Bleaching Clay Unit of M/s Ashapura Perfoclay Ltd., at Survey No.167, 166, 168 village Ler, Nr. Bhujodi, Anjar Bhuj Highway, Tq. Bhuj, District Kutch, Gujarat”. It is apparent from perusal of this application dated 13.09.2023 that two survey numbers i.e. Survey Nos.166 and 168, which are adjacent to Survey No.167, are prayed to be added by this application and it is further urged that it is admitted fact that there is no increase in pollution and the change in production capacity and yet, it is wrongly stated to be `violation’ category by the SEIAA.

¶24

At this stage, we are not inclined to deviate from the SEIAA as it has decided to treat the case in violation’ category because there is certainly addition of two survey numbers being sought in the EC by the application dated 13.09.2023 submitted by the applicant. Therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant also agrees that this case is treated in violation’ category. We direct respondent No.2 – SEIAA to consider the application of the applicant dated 13.09.2023 and decide the same within a period of one month, failing which if any grievance is left with the applicant, he may approach us again.

¶25

With the above directions, we dispose of this Original Application.

¶26

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶27

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶28

December 03, 2024 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.110/2024(WZ) npj

¶29

Page 3 of 3

M/S Ashapura Perfoclay Limited v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ashapura Perfoclay Limited v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harsh Chaudhary vs District Magistrate of Gautam Budh Nagar

S Venkateswarlu vs

Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale vs Union of India

Vijay Kumar Singh Urf Dablu Singh Bhiar Vihar Sabha vs

Prakash Agrawal vs Nahar Builders Limited through Sukhraj Babulal Nahar Director

News Item Titled Three Die of Asphyxiation at Illegal Coal Mine in Gujarat Appearing in the Hindu Dated 15.07.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Marirul Sekh and Ors. vs State of West Bengal

Hardeep Sharma vs Ramash Chand Aarya

Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale vs Union of India

Mr. Ajay Jayvantrao Bhosale vs Union of India

Lyndford D Souza vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2024 in Original Application No. 220/2024 of News Item Titled Wagholi Residents Hit the Roads Appearing in the Pune Mirror Dated 11.02.2024 vs Member Secretary Mpcb

Cavelossim Villagers Forum vs the State of Goa through Its Chief Secretary

Sagardeep Sirsaikar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority