Disposed

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Appeal No. 24/2022 of Satyanarayan Rao v. Union of India

NGT5 May 2025Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Appeal No. 24/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal corrected typographical errors regarding dates in paragraphs 54 and 56 of its previous order. It clarified that environmental clearance was granted after the relevant notification and distinguished the current facts from Hanuman Laxman Aroskar.

What did the court decide?

Confirmation of amended paragraphs 54 and 56 correcting dates and distinguishing precedent.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Appeal No. 24/2022 of Satyanarayan Rao vs Union of India — NGT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶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

Miscellaneous Application No.14/2025/EZ

Appeal No.24/2022/EZ

IN THE MATTER OF

Satyanarayan Rao
S/o Late Kurma Rao,
Aged 40 years,
R/o Milan Market OMP Line,
Jharsuguda District,
Orissa – 768204
……….Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change,
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan,
Jor Bagh Road,
Aligunj, New Delhi – 110003;
2. M/s Vedanta Limited
Through its Chief Executive Officer,
Village Bhurkamunda, PO Kalimandir,
District Jharsuguda,
Odisha – 768202;
3. State of Odisha
Through its Chief Secretary,
Kharavel Bhavan,
Bhubaneshwar,
Odisha – 751001; ,
4. Odisha State Pollution Control Board
Through its Member Secretary,
Paribesh Bhawan,
A/118, Nilakantha Nagar, Unit-VIII,
Bhubaneswar - 751012 ,
………..Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 05.05.2025
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Sr. Advocate a/w
Ms. Mansi Bachani, Advocate and
Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, Advocate (in Virtual Mode)

¶10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Heard Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Mansi Bachani and Ms. Gitanjali Sanyal, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) for the Applicant.

¶13

Miscellaneous Application No.14/2025/EZ has been filed by the Respondent No.2, M/s Vedanta Limited pointing out certain typographical errors in the mentioned dates and seeking corrections of the same in the order of the Tribunal dated 24.03.2025. Learned Counsel submits that in paragraph no.54 of the Tribunal’s order, in the line commencing “Revised EIA Report was submitted on 03.08.2021 whereas in between the time of the submission of the revised EIA Report and the recommendation by the EAC for grant of Environmental Clearance dated 11.04.2022…..”, error has occurred.

¶14

¶15

Accordingly, we order that paragraph no.54 be read as under:-

¶16

xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶17

“54. We have gone through the replies of the Project Proponent as well as its Status and Action Plan and do not find that any query or non-compliance of the re-constituted EAC has not been satisfactorily replied by the Project Proponent. The Appellant has not been able to show to the Court from the documents on record that the queries raised by the reconstituted EAC have not been satisfactorily replied by the Project Proponent, Respondent No.2. As already stated hereinabove the main thrust of the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant was that after submission of the Revised EIA Report, no fresh Public Hearing was held. The revised EIA Report was submitted on 03.08.2021 whereas in between the time of the submission of the revised EIA Report and the recommendations by the EAC and the grant of

¶18

¶19

Environmental Clearance to the Project Proponent on 05.05.2022, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, had already brought the Notification dated 11.04.2022.”

¶20

xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

¶21

Learned Senior Counsel has also referred to paragraph no.56 of our order and submitted that the EAC recommendation which is mentioned as 05.05.2022 was actually made in the second meeting on 22^nd -23^rd March, 2022 and not on 05.05.2022. We order accordingly that paragraph no.56 should be read as under:-

¶22

“56. We are, therefore, of the view that at the time that the EAC had made the recommendations and the grant of Environmental Clearance to the Project Proponent on 05.05.2022 it was bound by the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, Government of India, Notification dated 11.04.2022 which categorically mentioned that for expansion up to 50% within the existing premises/mining lease area, for granting Environmental Clearance fresh Public Consultation is not required. We are satisfied that on the facts of the present case the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. The learned Counsel for the Appellant referred to the Paragraph-118 of the judgment in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra) which states which the EAC is under a mandate to conduct the process of appraisal in “a transparent manner” and on the conclusion of the proceedings the EAC has to make “categorical recommendations” to the regulator authority either for:

¶23

¶24

(i) The grant of a prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions; or

¶25

(ii) The rejection of the application.”

¶26

xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
5. Miscellaneous Application No.14/2025/EZ is accordingly disposed
of.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
.....................................
B. Amit Sthalekar, JM
…..........................................
Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM
May 05, 2025,
Miscellaneous Application No.14/2025/EZ
In
Appeal No.24/2022/EZ
OM

¶27

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Appeal No. 24/2022 of Satyanarayan Rao v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2025 in Appeal No. 24/2022 of Satyanarayan Rao v. Union of India

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

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 52/2025 in Original Application No. 742/2024 of Madan Sen S/O Late Jagdish Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 19/2025 in Original Application No. 258/2024 of Banibrata Mukherjee vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in Original Application No. 702/2024 of Baljinder Singh vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 38/2024 in Original Application No. 257/2023 of Balbir Dass vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 48/2025 in Original Application No. 739/2022 of Nyay Prayaas Foundation vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 55/2025 in Original Application No. 89/2023 of G Arun vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 152/2024 in Original Application No. 292/2023 of Amandeep Singh Bains vs the Municipal Commissioner of Ludhiana

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 58/2025 in Original Application No. 1128/2024 of Shivkush Krishna Saxena vs 1 Satyam Vada 2 Sagar Singh Alis Shankar Mandal and Uttarakhand Government and Others

1. Srikanta Kumar Pakal S/O- Sindhubas Pakal vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

1. Srikanta Kumar Pakal S/O- Sindhubas Pakal vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

1. Srikanta Kumar Pakal S/O- Sindhubas Pakal vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Niraj Kumar vs Dhiraj Kumar

Rajesh Kumar Mohapatra vs Forests and Enovironment Department

Baisakhi Bhowmik and Anr. vs the Member Secretary of West Bengal Pollution Control Board