# STER LITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [2013] 6 S.C.R. 573
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2013-04-02
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 2776-2783 of 2013
- **Bench:** A.K. Patnaik, H. L. Gokhale
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ster-lite-industries-india-ltd-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-ors-etc-etc-29303
- **Pages:** 50

## Headnote

A
B
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 -
s. 3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper C
smelter plant- Interference with, by the High Court on ground
of procedural impropriety.,.. Justification - Held: On facts, not
justified -There was no breach of any mandatory requirement
in the procedure ·..: Environmental clearance was granted in
accordance with the procedure laid down in the Environment D
Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 27.01.1994 well
before issuance of the notification dated 10.04.1997 providing
for mandatory public hearing - Consequently, the High Court
could not have allowed the writ petitions challenging the
environmental clearances on the ground that no public E
hearing was conducted before grant of the environmental
clearances - So long as the statutory process is followed and
the EIA made by the authorities concerned is not found to be
irrational so as to frustrate the very purpose of EIA, the Court
will not interfere with the decision of the authorities in exercise
F
of its powers of judicial review.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s. 3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper
smelter plant - Consent order granted by the State Pollution G
Control Board (TNPCB) under the Water Act - High Court
directed closure of the plant of appellants on the ground that
it was located within 25 kms. of an ecologically sensitive area
573
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
and thus the appellants violated the consent order -
Justification - Held: Not justified - While appellant-company
was given consent to establish its plant in the SIPCOT
Industrial Complex in Tuticorin, a condition was stipulated that
the appellants have to ensure that the location of the unit is
B 25 kms. away from ecological sensitive area - However, while
granting consent, the TNPCB apparently failed to note that
the said complex was within 25 kms. offour islands in the Gulf
of Munnar Marine National Park (an ecologically sensitive
area) - Since, the consent order was granted to appellantC company to establish its plant in the SIPCOT Industrial
Complex and the plant was in fact established therein, the
High Court could not have come to the conclusion that the
appellant-company had violated the Consent Order -
However, the plant of appellants can be directed to be shifted
0
in future, in case it becomes necessary for preseNation of
ecology of the said four islands which form part of the Gulf of
Munnar - As and when the Central Government issues order
u/r.5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, prohibiting or
restricting the location of industries within and around the Gulf
E of Munnar, then appropriate steps may have to be taken by
all concerned for shifting the industry of the appellants from
the SIPCOT Industrial Complex depending upon the content
of the order or notification issued by the Central Government
under r.5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, subject to
legal challenge by the industries - Water (Prevention and
F
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s.25.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s.3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper
G smelter plant - Consent order granted by the State Pollution
Control Board (TNPCB) under the Air Act -
Condition
imposed by TNPCB in regard to development of green belt
around the battery limit of industry - High Court directed
closure of the plant of appellant-company on the ground that
H though originally the TNPCB stipulated a condition in the 'No
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 575
OF INDIA & ORS.
Objection Certificate' that the appellant-company has to
A
develop a green belt of 250 meters width around the battery
limit of the plant, later the TN PCB reduced the minimum width
of the green belt required to be d

## Text

_Characters 0–39,851 of 100,602. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39851 for what follows._

[2013] 6 S.C.R. 573
STER LITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2776-2783 of 2013)
APRIL 2, 2013
[A.K. PATNAIK AND H. L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
A
B
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 -
s. 3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper C
smelter plant- Interference with, by the High Court on ground
of procedural impropriety.,.. Justification - Held: On facts, not
justified -There was no breach of any mandatory requirement
in the procedure ·..: Environmental clearance was granted in
accordance with the procedure laid down in the Environment D
Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 27.01.1994 well
before issuance of the notification dated 10.04.1997 providing
for mandatory public hearing - Consequently, the High Court
could not have allowed the writ petitions challenging the
environmental clearances on the ground that no public E
hearing was conducted before grant of the environmental
clearances - So long as the statutory process is followed and
the EIA made by the authorities concerned is not found to be
irrational so as to frustrate the very purpose of EIA, the Court
will not interfere with the decision of the authorities in exercise
F
of its powers of judicial review.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s. 3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper
smelter plant - Consent order granted by the State Pollution G
Control Board (TNPCB) under the Water Act - High Court
directed closure of the plant of appellants on the ground that
it was located within 25 kms. of an ecologically sensitive area
573
H
574
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
and thus the appellants violated the consent order -
Justification - Held: Not justified - While appellant-company
was given consent to establish its plant in the SIPCOT
Industrial Complex in Tuticorin, a condition was stipulated that
the appellants have to ensure that the location of the unit is
B 25 kms. away from ecological sensitive area - However, while
granting consent, the TNPCB apparently failed to note that
the said complex was within 25 kms. offour islands in the Gulf
of Munnar Marine National Park (an ecologically sensitive
area) - Since, the consent order was granted to appellantC company to establish its plant in the SIPCOT Industrial
Complex and the plant was in fact established therein, the
High Court could not have come to the conclusion that the
appellant-company had violated the Consent Order -
However, the plant of appellants can be directed to be shifted
0
in future, in case it becomes necessary for preseNation of
ecology of the said four islands which form part of the Gulf of
Munnar - As and when the Central Government issues order
u/r.5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, prohibiting or
restricting the location of industries within and around the Gulf
E of Munnar, then appropriate steps may have to be taken by
all concerned for shifting the industry of the appellants from
the SIPCOT Industrial Complex depending upon the content
of the order or notification issued by the Central Government
under r.5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, subject to
legal challenge by the industries - Water (Prevention and
F
Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - s.25.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - s.3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Environmental
clearance granted to appellant-company for setting up copper
G smelter plant - Consent order granted by the State Pollution
Control Board (TNPCB) under the Air Act -
Condition
imposed by TNPCB in regard to development of green belt
around the battery limit of industry - High Court directed
closure of the plant of appellant-company on the ground that
H though originally the TNPCB stipulated a condition in the 'No
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 575
OF INDIA & ORS.
Objection Certificate' that the appellant-company has to
A
develop a green belt of 250 meters width around the battery
limit of the plant, later the TN PCB reduced the minimum width
of the green belt required to be developed by the appellants
to 25 meters - Held: If TNPCB after considering the
representation of the appellants reduced the width of the
B
green belt from a minimum of 250 meters to a minimum of
25 meters around the battery limit of the industry of the
appellants and it is not shown that exercise of this power was
vitiated by procedural breach or irrationality, the High Court
in exercise of its powers of judicial review could not have c
interfered with the exercise of such power by the State
Pollution Control Board - It was for the TNPCB to take the
decision in that behalf and considering that the appellant's
plant was within a pre-existing industrial estate, the appellant
could not have been singled out to require a huge green belt 0
- Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - s.21.
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 -
s.3(2)(v) -
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - r.5 - Setting up of
industrial plant - Liability to pay compensation for damage
caused by the plant to the environment - Held: It is for the
E
administrative and statutory authorities to consider and grant
environmental clearance and the conse11ts for setting up the
plant- Such decisions cannot be interfered with, by the Court
on ground that had the authorities made a proper
environmental assessment of the plant, the adverse
F
environmental effects of the industry could have been
prevented - If, however, the industry continues to pollute the
environment so as to effect the fundamental right to life under
Article 21 of the Constitution, direction can be given for
closure of the industry if there are no other remedial measures G
to ensure that the industry maintains the standards of
emission and effluent - In the instant case, the plant of
appellant-company did not maintain the standards of
emission and effluent as laid down by the TNPCB - But
H
576
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
deficiencies in the plant of the appellants which affected the
environment now removed - Thus, impugned order of the
High Court directing closure of the plant of the appellants
liable to be set aside, particularly on considerations of public
interest, inasmuch as the plant of appellants contributes
B
substantially to the copper production in India and provides
employment to large number of people - However, appellantcompany liable to pay compensation for causing damages
to environment from 1997 to 2012 and for operating its plant
without valid renewal for fairly long period - Considering the
c magnitude, capacity and prosperity of appellant-company, it
is held liable to pay compensation of Rs. 100 crores - Any
less amount, would not have. the desired deterrent effect on
appellant-company - Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
Act, 1981 - s.21 - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution)
0
Act, 1974 - s.25 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 21.
The appellant-company applied and obtained 'No
Objection Certificate' on 01.08.1994 from the State
Pollution Control Board ('TNPCB') for setting up a copper
smelter plant in Tuticorin. On 16.01.1995, the Ministry of
E
Environment and Forests, Government of India, granted
environmental clearance to the setting up of the plant and
on 17.05.1995, the Government of Tamil Nadu too granted
clearance. On 22.05.1995, the TNPCB granted its consent
under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
F
Pollution) Act, 1981 and under Section 25 of the Water
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 to the
appellants to establish the plant.
Writ petitions challenging a) the environmental
G clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and
Forests, Government of India, and the Government of
Tamil Nadu, Department of Environment; and b) the
consent orders granted under the Air Act and the Water
Act by the TNPCB were filed before the High Court. While
H the writ petitions were pending, the appellants set up the
STERLITi INDUSTRIES (!NOIA) l TD. ETC. v. UNION 577
OF INDIA & ORS.
plant and commenced production on 01.01.1997. Two A
other writ petitions were then filed - one praying for inter
alia a direction to the appellants to stop forthwith the
operation of the plant; and the other for directions to the
State of Tamil Nadu,_TNPCB and the Union of India to take
action against the appellant-company for its failure to take
B
safety measures due to which there were pollution and
industrial accidents in the plant.
Allowing the writ petitions, the High Court directed
closure of the plant of the appellants on grounds:- 1) that C
prior to grant of environmental clearance, no public
hearing, as mandatorily required was conducted; 2) that
contrary to the stipulation made by TNPCB in its Consent
Order, the plant of appellant-company was located within
25 kms. of an ecologically sensitive area; 3) that the
TN PCB stipulated a condition in the Noc- that the D·
· appellants will develop a green belt of 250 meters width
around the battery limit of the industry as contemplated
under the Environmental Management Plan but
subsequently the TNPCB relaxed this condition and
stipulated that appellant-company will develop a green
E
belt of minimum width of 25 meters; and 4) that the plant
of the appellants had caused severe pollution in the area.
Hence the present appeals.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The environmental clearance for setting
F
up the plant was granted to the appellants under the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. In exercise of powers
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 and Rule 5(3) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, G
1986, the Central Government issued notification dated
27.01.1994. Para 2 of the notification dated 27.01.1994 lays
down the requirements and procedure for seeking
environmental clearance of projects, and clause (c) of
Para 2 provides that the Impact Assessment Agency H
578
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
could solicit comments of the public within thirty days of
receipt of proposal, in public hearings. The language of
this notification did not lay down that the public hearing
was a must. The notification dated 27.01.1994, however,
was amended by notification dated 10.04.1997 and it was
B
provided in clause (c) of Para 2 of the notification that the
Impact Assessment Agency shall conduct a public
hearing and the procedure for public hearing was
detailed in Schedule IV to the notification by the
amendment notification dated 10.04.1997. Admittedly, in
c this case, the environmental clearance was granted by
the Ministry of Environment, Government of India, on
16.01.1995 in accordance with the procedure laid down
by notification dated 27.01.1994 well before the
notification dated 10.04.1997 providing for mandatory
0
public hearing in accordance with the procedure lald
down in Schedule IV to the notification. Consequently,
the High Court could not have allowed the writ petitions
challenging the environmental clearances on the ground
that no public hearing was conducted before grant of the
E environmental clearances. [Paras 23, 24] [601-D, H; 602B-H; 603-A]
1.2. The High Court further erred in allowing the writ
petitions on the ground that environmental clearance
was issued to the appellant-company on the basis of
F
inadequate Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA), particularly when the Union of India in its affidavit
had clearly averred that the environmental clearance was
granted after detailed examination of Rapid EIA/EMP,
filled in Questionnaire for industrial projects, NOC from
G State Pollution Control Board and Risk Analysis in
accordance with the procedure laid down in EIA
notification dated 27.01.1994 (as amended on 04.05.1994).
[Para 25] [603-F-G; 604-A]
H
1.3. The High Court failed to appreciate that the
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 579
OF INDIA & ORS.
decision of the Central Government to grant A
environmental clearance to the plant of the appellants
could only be tested on the anvil of well recognized
principles of judicial review. Where the challenge to the
environmental clearance is on the ground of procedural
impropriety, the High Court could quash the B
environmental clearance only if it is satisfied that the
breach was of a mandatory requirement in the procedure.
In absence of a mandatory requirement in the procedure
laid down under the scheme under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986 at the relevant time requiring a c
mandatory
public
hearing
and
a
mandatory
comprehensive EIA report, the High Court could not have
· interfered with the decision of the Central Government
granting environmental clearance on the ground of
procedural impropriety. Further, no material was placed D
to show that the decision of the Ministry of Environment
and Forests to accord environmental clearance to the
plant of the appellants at Tuticorin was wholly irrational
and frustrated the very purpose of EIA. [Paras 26, 27 &
28] [604-8-C, H; 603-A, E-H; 604-C]
E
1.4. It is for the authorities under the Environment
(Protection) Act, 1986, the Environment (Protection)
Rules, 1986 and the notifications issued thereunder to
determine the scope of the project, the extent of the
screening and the assessment of the cumulative effects
F
and so long as the statutory process is followed and the
EIA made by the authorities is not found to be irrational
so as to frustrate the very purpose of EIA, the Court will
not interfere with the decision of the authorities in exercise
of its powers of judicial review. [Para 29] [606-G-H; 607G
A-8]
Lafarge Umiam Mining (P) Ltd. v. Union of India & Others
(2011) 7 SCC 338: 2011 (7) SCR 954 - referred to.
Hari Narain v. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558: 1964 SCR H
580
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A 203; G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by LRs. & Anr. v.
Government of Karnataka & Anr. (1991) 3 SCC 261: 1991
(2) SCR 563; Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(2010) 2 SCC 114: 2009 (16) SCR 111; Abhyudya Sanstha
v. Union of India (2011) 6 SCC 145: 2011 (7) SCR 611;
B
Ve/lore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors.
(1996) 5 SCC 647: 1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241; Tirupur
Dyeing Factory Owners' Association v. Noyyal River
Ayacutdars Protection Association (2009) 9 SCC 737: 2009
(14) SCR 1051; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India Ors. (2009) 6
c SCC 142 and East Coast Railway & Anr. v. Mahadev Appa
Rao & Ors. (2010) 7 SCC 678: 2010 (7) SCR 908 - cited.
Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-governmental
Organizations v. The Department of the Environment and
Belize Electric Company Limited (2004) 64 WIR 68 and Bow
D Valley Naturalists Society v. Minister of Canadian Heritage
(2001) 2 FC 461 - referred to.
·
The Northern Jamaica Conservation Association v. The
Natural Resources Conservation Authority [Claim No. HCV
E 3022 of 2005 decided by Supreme Court of Judicature of
Jamaica] - cited.
F
Environmental Law edited by David Woolley QC, John
Pugh-Smith, Richard Langham and William Upton, Oxford
University Press - referred to.
2.1. The Consent Order dated 22.05.1995 issued by
the TNPCB under Section 25 of the Water Act makes it
clear that while on the one hand, the appellant-company
was given consent to establish its plant in the SIPCOT
G Industrial Complex in Tuticorin, which as per the NEERI
report is within 25 kms. of four of the twenty one islands
in the Gulf of Munnar (an ecologically sensitive area), on
the other hand, a condition was stipulated in the consent
order that the appellants have to ensure that the location
H of the unit is 25 kms. away from ecological sensitive area.
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 581 .
OF INDIA & ORS.
It thus appears that the TNPCB while granting the A
consent under the Water Act for establishment of the
plant of the appellants in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex
added the above requirement without noting that the
SIPCOT Industrial Complex was within 25 kms. from
ecological sensitive area. Since, however, the Consent s
Order was granted to the appellant-company to establish
its plant in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex and the plant
has in fact been established in the SIPCOT Industrial
Complex, the High Court could not have come to the
conclusion that the appellant-company had violated the c
Consent Order and directed closure of the plant on this
ground. [Para 31 and 32] [607-F; 608-F-H; 609-A-B]
2.2. This is not to say that in case it becomes
necessary for preservation of ecology of the aforesaid
four islands which form part of the Gulf of Munnar, the D
plant of the appellants cannot be directed to be shifted
in future. The Gulf of Munnar is an ecological sensitive
area and the Central Government may in exercise of its
powers under clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Rule 5 of
the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 prohibit or E
restrict the location of industries and carrying on
processes and operations to preserve the biological
diversity of the Gulf of Munnar. As and when the Central
Government issues an order under Rule 5 of the
Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 prohibiting or F
restricting the location of industries within and around
the Gulf of Munnar Marine National Park, then appropriate
steps may have to be taken by all concerned for shifting
the industry of the appellants from the SIPCOT Industrial
Complex depending upon the content of the order or G
notification issued by the Central Government under the
aforesaid Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules,
1986, subject to the legal challenge by the industries.
[Para 33] [609-C-E, F-H]
3. From a reading of the No Objection Certificate H
582
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
issued by the TNPCB, it is clear that various conditions
have been imposed on the industry of the appellants to
ensure that air pollution control measures are installed
for the control of emission generated from the plant and
that the emission from the plant satisfies the ambient
B area quality standards prescribed by the TNPCB.
Development of green belt contemplated under the
environmental management plan around the battery limit
of the industry of the appellants was an additional
condition that was imposed by the TNPCB in the No
c Objection Certificate. If the TNPCB after considering the
representation of the appellants has reduced the width
of the green belt from a minimum of 250 meters to a
minimum of 25 meters around the battery limit of the
industry of the appellants and it is not shown that this
0
power which has been exercised was vitiated by
procedural breach or irrationality, the High Court in
exercise of its powers of judicial review could not have
interfered with the exercise of such power by the State
Pollution Control Board. The High Court in the impugned
E judgment has not recorded any finding that there has
been any breach of the mandatory provisions of the Air
Act or the Rules thereunder by the TNPCB by reducing
the green belt to 25 meters. Nor has the High Court
recorded any finding that by reducing the width of the
green belt around the battery limit of the industry of the
F
appellants from 250 meters to 25 meters, it will not be
possible to mitigate the effects of fugitive emissions from
the plant. It was for the TN PCB to take the decision in that
behalf and considering that the appellant's plant was
within a pre-existing industrial estate, the appellant could
G not have been singled out to require such a huge green
belt. [Para 34] [610-C-H; 611-B]
4.1. It is for the administrative and statutory
authorities empowered under the law to consider and
H grant environmental clearance and the consents to the
-
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 583
OF INDIA & ORS.
appellants for setting up the plant and where no ground
A
for interference with the decisions of the authorities on
well recognized principles of judicial review is made out,
the High Court could not interfere with the decisions of
the authorities to grant the environmental clearance or the
consents on the ground that had the authorities made a
B
proper environmental assessment of the plant, the
adverse environmental effects of the industry could have
been prevented. If, however, after the environmental
clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986,
and the Rules and the notifications issued thereunder c
and after the consents granted under the Air Act and the
Water Act, the industry continues to pollute the
environment so as to effect the fundamental right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution, the High Court could
still direct the closure of the industry by virtue of its D
powers under Article 21 of the Constitution if it came to
the conclusion that there were no other remedial
measures to ensure that the industry maintains the
standards of emission and effluent. [Para 35] [611-D-H;
612-A]
4.2. In the instant case, the National Engineering and
Research Institute (NEERI) report of 2005 did show that
the emission and effluent discharge affected the
environment but the report read as whole does not
warrant a conclusion that the plant of the appellants
could not possibly take remedial steps to improve the
environment and that the only remedy to protect the
environment was to direct closure of the plant of the
appellants. [Para 36] [616-E-F]
E
F
4.3. From the joint inspection carried out by Central
G
Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and TNPCB pursuant to
orders passed by this Court, it is clear that out of the 30
directions issued by the TNPCB, the appellant-company
has complied with 29 directions and only one more
direction under the Air Act was to be complied with. As
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A the deficiencies in the plant of the appellants which
affected the environment as pointed out by NEERI have
now been removed, the impugned order of the High Court
directing closure of the plant of the appellants is liable to
be set aside. [Para 37] [616-G; 617-G-H; 618-A]
B
4.4. Further, the plant of the appellants contributes
substantially to the copper production in India and
copper is used in defence, electricity, automobile,
construction and infrastructure etc. The plant of the
C appellants has about 1300 employees and it also
provides employment to large number of people through
contractors. A number of ancillary industries are also
dependent on the plant. Through its various transactions,
the plant generates a huge revenue to Central and State
Governments in terms of excise, custom duties, income
D tax and VAT. It also contributes to 10% of the total cargo
volume of Tuticorin port. For these considerations of
public interest, it will not be a proper exercise of
discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution to refuse
relief to the appellants. [Para 40] [621-B-D]
E
4.5 .. However, the NEERI reports of 1998, 1999, 2003
and 2005 show that the plant of the appellant did pollute
the environment through emissions which did not
conform to the standards laid down by the TNPCB under
F the Air Act and through discharge of effluent which did
not conform to the standards laid down by the TNPCB
under the Water Act. On account of some of these
deficiencies, TNPCB also did not renew the consent to
operate for some periods and yet the appellants
G continued to operate its plant without such renewal. This
is evident from the extracts from the NEERI report of 2011.
For such damages caused to the environment from 1997
to 2012 and for operating the plant without a valid
renewal for a fairly long period, the appellant-company is
H liable to compensate by paying damages. Considering
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 585
OF INDIA & ORS.
the magnitude, capacity and prosperity of the appellantA
company, it should be held liable for a compensation of
Rs. 100 crores for having polluted the environment in the
vicinity of its plant and for having operated the plant
without a renewal of the consents by the TNPCB for a
fairly long period. Any less amount, would not have the
B
desired deterrent effect on the appellant-company. [Para
39] [618-B-D; 619-E; 620-D-E]
M. C. Mehta v. Union of India and others (1987) 4 SCC
463: 1988 (1) SCR 279; M.C. Mehta and Another vs. Union c
of India and Others (1987) 1 SCC 395: 1987 (1) SCR 819
and Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action and Others v.
Union of India and Others (1996) 3 SCC 211 - referred to.
5. However, it is made clear that by this judgment,
this Court has only set aside the directions of the High
Court in the impugned common judgment, and this
judgment will not stand in the way of the TNPCB issuing
directions to the appellant-company, including a direction
for closure of the plant, for the protection of environment
in accordance with law. It is also made clear. that the
award of damages of Rs.100 Crores by this judgment
against the appellant-Company for the period from 1997
to 2012 will not stand in the way of any claim for
damages for the aforesaid period or any other period in
a civil court or any other forum in accordance with law.
[Paras 42, 43] [622-D-F]
Case Law Reference:
1964 SCR 203
cited
Para 13
1991 (2) SCR 563
cited
Para 13
2009 (16) SCR 111
cited
Para 13
2011 (7) SCR 611
cited
Para 13
1996 (5) Suppl. SCR 241
cited
Para 14
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A
2009 (14) SCR 1051
cited
Para 14
(2009) 6 sec 142
cited
Para 14
2010 (7) SCR 908
cited
Para 17
B
(2004) 64 WIR 68
referred to
Para 17, 29
2011 (7) SCR 954
referred to
Para 26
(2001) 2 FC 461
referred to
Para 29
c
1988 (1) SCR 279
referred to
Para 35
1987 (1) SCR 819
referred to
Para 40
(1996) a sec 211
referred to
Para 41
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
D 2776-2783 of 2013.
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.09.201 O of the High
Court of Judicature at Madras in WP No. 15501/1996, WP No.
15502/1996, WP No. 5769/1997, WP No. 16861/1998, WMP
E No. 8044/1999, WMP No. 8045/1999, WMP No. 8046/1999,
WP No. 15503/2006.
P.P. Malhotra, ASG., C.A. Sundaram, C.U. Singh, Raj
Panjwani, V. Prakash, S. Guru Krishna Kumar, MG., Rohini
Musa, Zafar lnayat, Yogsh V. Kotemath, S. Raghunathan,
F Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agarwal, E.C. Agrawala, Radhika
Gautam, Abhinav Agrawal, Rashmi Nandakumar, Rahul
Chowdhury, Anitha Shenoy, Vimla Sinha, Yasser Rauf, B.
Krishna Prasad, Subramonium Prasad, Manju Jana, Shivaji M.
Jahdhav, Vijay Panjwani G. Devadoss, M.S.M. Asaithambi, G.
G Ananthaselvam, M. Yogesh Kanna, R. Veeramani, A. Prasanna
Venkat, S. Beno Bencigar, P. Somasundaram, Abhay Kumar,
V.N. Subramaniam, V. Senthila Kumar, K. Krishna Kumar, M.A.
Chinnasamy for the appearing parties, Vaiko @ V.
Gopalswamy respondent-in-person.
H
The Judgment of the Court was delivered t>y
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 587
OF INDIA & ORS.
A.K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.
FACTS:
A
2. The relevant facts very briefly are that the appellantcompany applied and obtained 'No Objection Certificate' on
01.08.1994 from the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (for 8
short 'the TNPCB') for setting up a copper smelter plant (for
short 'the plant') in Melavittan village, Tuticorin. On 16.01.1995,
the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India,
granted environmental clearance to the setting up of the plant
of the appellants at Tuticorin subject to certain conditions C
including those laid down by the TNPCB and the Government
of Tamil Nadu. On 17.05.1995, the Government of Tamil Nadu
grar.ted clearance subject to certain conditions and requested
the TNPCB to issue consent to the proposed plant of the
appellants. Accordingly, on 22.05.1995, the TN PCB granted its
D ·
consent under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 (for short 'the Air Act') and under Section
25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974
(for short 'the Water Act') to the appellants to establish the plant
in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Melavittan village, Tuticorin
E
Taluk.
3. The environmental clearance granted by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India, and the consent
orders under the Air Act and the Water Act granted by the
TN PCB were challenged before the Madras High Court in W.P.
F
Nos.15501, 15502 and 15503 of 1996 by the National Trust for
Clean Environment. While these writ petitions were pending, the
appellants set up the plant and commenced production on
01.01.1997. Writ Petition No.5769 of 1997 was then filed by
V. Gopalsamy, General Secretary, MDMK Political Party,
G
Thayagam, praying for inter alia a direction to the appellants
to stop forthwith the operation of the plant. Writ Petition No.
16861 of 1991 was also filed by Shri K. Kanagaraj, Secretary,
CITU District Committee, District Thoothukudi, for directions to
the State of Tamil Nadu, TN PCB and the Union of India to take
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
A
suitable action against the appellant-company for its failure to
take safety measures due to which there were pollution and
industrial accidents in the plant. A Division Bench of the High
Court heard Writ Petition Nos. 15501 to 15503 of 1996, Writ
Petition No.5769 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.16861 of 1998
B and by the common judgment dated 28.09.2010, allowed and
disposed of the writ petitions with the direction to the appellantcompany to close down its plant at Tuticorin. By the common
judgment, the High Court also declared that the employees of
the appellant-company would be entitled to compensation
c under Section 25FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and
directed the District Collector, Tuticorin, to take all necessary
and immediate steps for the re-employment of the workforce
of the appellant-company in some other companies/factories/
organizations so as to protect their livelihood and to the extent
D possible take into consideration their educational and technical
qualifications and also the experience in the field. Aggrieved,
the appellant has filed these appeals against the common
judgment dated 28.09.2010 of the Division Bench of Madras
High Court and on 01.10.2010, this Court passed an interim
order staying the impugned judgment of the High Court.
E
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS:
4. Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing
for the appellants, submitted that one of the grounds stated in
the impugned judgment of the High Court for directing closure
F
of the plant of the appellants was that the TN PCB had stipulated
in the Consent Order dated 22.05.1995 that the appellantcompany has to ensure that the location of the unit should be
25 kms. away from the ecologically sensitive area and as per
the report of NEERI (National Environmental Engineering and
G Research Institute) of 1998 submitted to the High Court, the
plant is situated within 25 kms. from four of the twenty one
islands in the Gulf of Munnar, namely, Vanthivu, Kasuwar,
Karaichalli and Villanguchalli, which are at distances of 6 k.m.,
7 k.m. and 15 k.m. respectively from Tuticorin where the plant
H is located. He submitted that there is no notificat!on issued by
-I
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 589
OF INDIA & ORS. [AK. PATNAIK, J.]
the Central Government under Rule 5(1) of the Environment
A
(Protection) Act, 1986 prohibiting or restricting the location of
an industry in Tuticorin area. He submitted that the Government
of Tamil Nadu, however, had issued a notification dated
10.09.1986 notifying its intention under Section 35(1) of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 to declare the twenty one islands
B
of the Gulf of Munnar as a Marine National Park, but no
notification has yet been issued by the Government of Tamil
Nadu under Section 35(4) of the aforesaid Act declaring the
twenty one islands of the Gulf of Munnar as a National Park.
He explained that prior to the Environment (Protection) Act, c
1986 and the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, some
environmental guidelines had been issued by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Department of Environment,
Government of India, in August, 1985 and one of the guidelines
therein was that industries must be located at least 25 kms.
D
away from the ecologically sensitive areas and it is on account
of these guidelines that the TN PCB in its Consent Order dated
22.05.1995 under the Water Act had stipulated that the plant
of the appellants should be situated 25 kms. away from
ecologically sensitive areas. He submitted that this stipulation
E
was made in the Consent Order under the Water Act because
the plant was likely to discharge effluent which could directly or
indirectly affect the ecological sensitive areas within 25 kms.
of the industry, but in the Consent Order issued on 14.10.1996
to operate the industry, this stipulation was removed and
instead it was stipulated in clause (20) that the unit shall re-use
F
the entire quantity of treated effluent in the process and ensure
that no treated effluent is discharged into inland surface water
or on land or sewer or sea as proposed by the unit. He
submitted that in any case the consent for establishment issued
under the Water Act by the TNPCB would show that the
G
appellant-company was given the consent to establish its
copper smelter project in SIPCOT Industrial Complex
irrespective of the distance at which the SIPCOT Industrial
Complex was located from any ecological sensitive area and
in the SIPCOT Industrial Complex, many other chemical
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 6 S.C.R.
A industries are located and the High Court appears to have lost
sight of this aspect of the consent given by the TNPCB to
establish the plant.
5. Mr. Sundaram submitted that the second ground given
8 by the High Court for directing closure of the plant of the
appellants was that this being a project exceeding Rs.50/-
crores, environmental clearance was required to be obtained
from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of
India, after a public hearing which was a mandatory
requirement but no materials were produced before the High
C Court to show that there was any such public hearing conducted
before the commencement of the plant of the appellantcompany. He submitted that when the environmental clearance
was granted to the appellant-company the Environmental Impact
Assessment {for short 'EIA') notification dated 27.01.1994 was
D in force and this notification did not make public hearing
mandatory and only stated that comments of the public may be
solicited if so recommended by the Impact Assessment
Agency within 30 days of the receipt of the proposal. He
submitted that the High Court, therefore, was not correct in
E taking a view that a public hearing was mandatory during EIA
before environmental clearance was given by the Ministry of
Environment and Forests, Government of India. He clarified that
by a subsequent notification dated 10.04.1997, a public hearing
was made compulsory but by the time this notification came
F into force environmental clearance had already been granted
to the plant of the appellants on 16.01.1995.
6. Mr. Sundaram submitted that the High Court also took
the view in the impugned judgment on the basis of the report
G of the NEER! of 1998 that there was undue haste on the part
of the governmental authorities in granting permissions and
consents to the appellant-company. He submitted that in an
Explanatory Note to the EIA notification dated 27.01.1994 the
Central Government has clarified that Rapid EIA could also be
conducted for obtaining environment clearance for any new
H
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 591
OF INDIA & ORS. (A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
project/activity and therefore the State Government while
A
granting No Objection Certificate by its letter dated 01.08.1994
asked the appellants to conduct Rapid EIA based on one
season data and the appellants carried out Rapid EIA study
based on the data collected by the Mis. Tata Consultancy
Service (TCS). He relied on the affidavit dated 01.12.1998 filed
B
on behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Forests,
Government of India to submit that Rapid EIA before granting
clearance to the plant of the appellant was conducted in
accordance with the guidelines.
7. Mr. Sundaram submitted that the third ground on which
C
the High Court directed closure of the plant of the appellants
was that the TNPCB stipulated a condition in clause No.20 of
the No Objection Certificate that the appellants will develop a
green belt of 250 meters width around the battery limit of the
industry as contemplated under the Environmental Management
D
Plan but subsequently the appellant-compa'ny submitted a
representation to TNPCB requesting TNPCB to reduce the
requirement of green belt from 250 meters to the width of 1015 meters as development of the green belt of 250 meters
width requires a land of around 150 acres and TNPCB in its
E
meeting held on 18.08.1994 relaxed this condition and
stipulated that the appellant-company Will develop a green belt
of minimum width of 25 meters. He sut-mitted that the land
allocated by SIPCOT to the appellants was not sufficient to
provide a green belt of 250 meters width around the plant and
F
hence this was an impossible condition laid down in the No
Objection Certificate and for this reason the appellants
approached the TNPCB to modify this condition and the
TNPCB reduced the width of the green belt to 25 meters. He
further submitted that generally, the TNPCB and the Ministry of G
Environment and Forests, Government of India, have been
insisting on a green belt of 25% of the plant area and the
appellants could not be asked to provide a green belt of more
than 25% of the plant area.
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013) 6 S.C.R.
A
8. Mr. Sundaram submitted that the last ground, on which
the High Court directed closure of the plant of the appellants is
that the plant of the appellants has caused severe pollution in
the area as has been recorded by NEERI in its report of 2005
submitted to the High Court and the groundwater samples
B taken from the area indicate that the copper, chrome, lead
cadmium and arsenic and the chloride and fluoride content is
too high when compared to Indian drinking water standards. He
referred to the reports of NEERI of 1998, 1999, 2003 and 2005
submitted to the High Court and the report of NEERI of 2011
C and also the joint inspection report of TNPCB and CPCB of
September 2012 submitted to this Court, to show that the
finding of the High Court that the plant of the appellants had
caused severe pollution in the area was not correct. He
vehemently submitted that though there were no deficiencies in
the plant of the appellants, the TNPCB in its affidavit has
D referred to its recommendations as if there were deficiencies.
He submitted that the recommendations made by the TNPCB
were only to provide the best of checks in the plant against
environmental pollution with a view to ensure that the plant of
the appellants becomes a model plant from the point of view
E of the environment, but that does not mean that the plant of the
appellants had deficiencies which need to be corrected. He
submitted that the reports of NEERI of 2005 and 2011 referred
to accumulation of gypsum and phospho gypsum, which come
out from the plant of the appellants as part of the slag but the
F opinion of CPCB in its letter dated 17.11.2003 to the TNPCB
is that such slag is non-hazardous and can be used in cement
industries, for filling up lower level area and as building/road
construction material, etc. and has no adverse environmental
G
effects.
9. Mr. Sundaram finally submitted that since none of the
grounds given by the High Court in the impugned judgment for
directing closure of the plant of the appellants are well-founded,
it is a fit case in which this Court should set aside the impugned
H judgment of the High Court and allow the appeals. He submitted
STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. ETC. v. UNION 593
OF INDIA & ORS. [A.K.