Disposed

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT10 Jul 2025IA No. 13/2025 in Original Application No. 2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal referred Respondent 1 to consider a representation from the Applicant regarding Environmental Clearance expansion. The Tribunal disposed of the application, explicitly stating it did not adjudicate the claims on merits.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of by directing the Ministry of Environment to consider the Applicant's representation in accordance with law.

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.02

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶4

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶5

Original Application No.02/2025/EZ (I.A. No.13/2025/EZ)

¶6

M/S MSP Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. Applicant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 10.07.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶12

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, AGA for R-3 (in Virtual Mode)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant.

¶15

Affidavit dated 11.04.2025 has been filed by the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC); the same is taken on record.

¶16

(Final order of the said case will be uploaded in NGT website

¶17

in separate sheets of paper).

¶18

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶19

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶20

July 10, 2025, Original Application No.02/2025/EZ (I.A. No.13/2025/EZ) OM

Court No.1

Item No.02

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA

¶25

(THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶26

Original Application No.02/2025/EZ (I.A. No.13/2025/EZ)

¶27

IN THE MATTER OF

¶28

M/s MSP Steel Sponge Iron Ltd.,

¶29

Through its Chief Corporate Officer, Akash Enclave, 22, B.N.C. Das Road, P.S. – Behala, Kolkata - 700034

¶30

……….Applicant(s)

¶31

Versus

¶32

1. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change Through its Secretary,

¶33

Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi - 110003

¶34

2. Odisha State Pollution Control Board, Through Member Secreatary, Paribesh Bhawan, A/118, Nilakantha Nagar, Unit-VIII, Bhubaneswar – 751012, Odisha

¶35

3. District Magistrate,

¶36

Keonjhar District, Odisha - 758001

¶37

………..Respondent(s)

¶38

Date of hearing: 10.07.2025

¶39

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶40

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Adv. (in Virtual Mode)

¶41

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty, AGA for R-3 (in Virtual Mode)

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel is present (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant.

¶44

The Original Application filed earlier contained the following prayers:-

¶45

¶46

a) Allow the present Application;

¶47

b) Direct the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to consider the Representation dated 12.09.2024 of the Applicant for grant of EC view of the Order dated 02.02.2024 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Van Shakti; and/or

¶48

c) Direct the Respondent No.1, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to process the application dated 22.01.2021 of the Applicant for amendment of EC dated 10.10.2012 in accordance with the law from an environmental impact standpoint; and/or

¶49

d) Pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances.

¶50

Subsequently, the Original Application was amended and the amended prayer now reads as under:-

¶51

a) Allow the present Application;

¶52

b) Set Aside the Letter dated 27.08.2024 of Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for being erroneous and on the ground of non-application of mind.

¶53

c) Direct the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to allow the process of Application for grant of Environment Clearance for the expansion of the project as per TOR dated 23.10.2021.

¶54

d) Pass any other order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances.

¶55

The Applicant had prayed for setting aside the letter of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) dated 27.08.2024.

¶56

¶57

However, during the pendency of the Original Application, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has passed judgment dated 16.05.2025 in Writ Petition (C) No.1394 of 2023 (Vanashakti Vs. Union of India) along with Writ Petition (C) No.118 of 2019, Writ Petition (C) No.115 of 2024 and Civil Appeal No.381-382 of 2025. Paragraph no.36 of the Judgment reads as under:-

¶58

“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

¶59

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.1394 OF 2023

¶60

VANASHAKTI …PETITIONER

¶61

VS.

¶62

UNION OF INDIA …RESPONDENT

¶63

WITH

¶64

WRIT PETITION (C) NO.118 OF 2019 WRIT PETITION (C) NO.115 OF 2024 AND

¶65

CIVIL APPEAL NO.381-382 OF 2025

¶66

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶67

“36. Hence, we pass the following order:

¶68

a) We hold that the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM as well circulars/orders/OMs/notifications as all issued for giving effect to these notifications are illegal and are hereby struck down;

¶69

b) We restrain the Central Government from issuing circulars/orders/OMs/notifications providing for grant of ex post facto EC in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification:

¶70

c) We clarify that the ECs already granted till date under the 2017 notification and the 2021 OM shall, however, remain unaffected.”

¶71

xxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶72

Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel submits that though

¶73

he had preferred a representation before the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 12.09.2024, i.e., prior to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

¶74

¶75

Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No.1394 of 2023 (Vanashakti Vs. Union of India), he would prefer fresh representation before the (MoEF&CC) in the light of the judgment of Writ Petition (C) No.1394 of 2023 (Vanashakti Vs. Union of India).

¶76

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Original Application may be disposed of permitting him to make a representation before the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) raising his grievances as they may be with a direction to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to decide his representation in accordance with law.

¶77

Needless to say that the Applicant is at liberty to make a representation before the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) raising all his grievances.

¶78

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) will be at liberty to consider the representation of the Applicant in accordance with law bearing in mind the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 16.05.2025 passed in Writ Petition (C) No.1394 of 2023 (Vanashakti Vs. Union of India) supra.

¶79

We accordingly dispose of the Original Application No.02/2025/EZ.

¶80

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not adjudicated the claim of the Applicant on merits.

¶81

I.As., if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶82

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶83

B. Amit Sthalekar, JM

¶84

….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM

¶85

July 10, 2025, Original Application No.02/2025/EZ (I.A. No.13/2025/EZ) OM

¶86

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

1. Fakir Mohan Patel S/O Jay Karan Patel Aged About 64YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha through Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Climate Change Department Government of Odisha

Ignatious K.J. vs K.J. Joseph

Ignatious K.J. vs K.J. Joseph

Paramparik Machimmar Bachav Samajik Kruti Samittee vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Babul Ali vs State of West Bengal

1. Fakir Mohan Patel S/O Jay Karan Patel Aged About 64YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha through Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Climate Change Department Government of Odisha

Hemant Kumar vs State of Bihar

P S Saboo vs Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sonjit Kumar Kayal vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board