# TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2016] 3 S.C.R. 856
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2016
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1247 of2012
- **Bench:** T.S. Thakur, Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, Uday Umesh Lalit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/talaulicar-sons-p-ltd-v-union-of-india-anr-31258
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Environment laws: Mining operation -· In 2005, environment
clearance granted to the appellant for expansion of Iron Ore Mine
for two years - Appellant filed the report of Hydrogeological study
on impact of mining on hydrogeologicaf of the mine lease area -
MoEF-First respondent found the relevant parameters within limit
and as a result deleted the prescription of two years period - PIL
by lo.cal resident-respondent seeking stopping of mining activities
and for compensation for causing environmental damages - High.
Court directed the appellant to seek extension of environmental
clearance for a ft1rther period and in event of non-grant of such
clearance to discontinue its mining operations till grant of clearance
- On appeal, held: The order deleting the prescription of two years.
was a cryptic one without giving due regard to the various salient
features concerning the environment protection and the interest of
the public at large while granting such clearance - MoEF directed
to take a fresh !Oak for the continuation or otherwise of the
environment clearance granted by ii.

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 856
TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1247 of2012)
JULY 12,2016
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM
KALIFULLA AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Environment laws: Mining operation -· In 2005, environment
clearance granted to the appellant for expansion of Iron Ore Mine
for two years - Appellant filed the report of Hydrogeological study
on impact of mining on hydrogeologicaf of the mine lease area -
MoEF-First respondent found the relevant parameters within limit
and as a result deleted the prescription of two years period - PIL
by lo.cal resident-respondent seeking stopping of mining activities
and for compensation for causing environmental damages - High.
Court directed the appellant to seek extension of environmental
clearance for a ft1rther period and in event of non-grant of such
clearance to discontinue its mining operations till grant of clearance
- On appeal, held: The order deleting the prescription of two years.
was a cryptic one without giving due regard to the various salient
features concerning the environment protection and the interest of
the public at large while granting such clearance - MoEF directed
to take a fresh !Oak for the continuation or otherwise of the
environment clearance granted by ii.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1247 of
2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2011 of the High Cou1t
of Bombay at Goa in PIL Writ Petition No. 6of2011
WITH
G
C.A.No.6174of2016.
H
T.P.(C)No.1843of2013.
Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Yashraj Singh Deora, Ms. ShreyaAgrawal,
Ms. Priyadarshinee Singh, L. Rodrigues, Ms. Swati Singh, B. Krishna
856
TALAULICAR & SONS. P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
857
Prasad, Shreekant N. Terdal, Advs. for the Appellant.
A
A. N. S. Nadkarni, AG, Ms. Pinky Anand, ASG, Colin Gonsalves,
Sr. Adv., Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Niharika, Santosh Rebello, Ms. Purna
Bhandari, Anshuman Shrivastav, Ms. Taniya Agarwal, Ms. Jyoti
Mendiratta, N. K. Karhail, Rishabh Jain, Ms. Snidha Mehra, S. N. Terdal,
Advs. for the Respondents.
B
The .Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by
l<'AKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted in SLP(C) ....... ./2016@CC No.20925 of2012.
I. These appeals are directed against a Division Bench judgment
dated 12.08.2011 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Public Int.erest
Litigation Writ Petition No.6 of201 l. The said writ petition was moved
at the instance of the second respondent herein with a prayer that the
appellant was originally granted environmental clearance for the expansion ofSaniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine on 25.11.2005 for two years, that
by a subsequent letter dated 18.10.2007 of the first respondent, the two
years period to conduct a higher geological study was deleted, that by
virtue of the conditions stipulated in the Notification dated 27.01.1994
read along with the Notification dated 04.05.1994 such environmental
clearance granted in favour of the appellant expired on 25.11.2010 and
that in spite of such expiry, the appellant continued to indulge in mining
operations. The second respondent therefore contended that such illegal mining activity of the appellant was n'ot controlled by the first respondent even after the second respondent's communication dated
30.11.2010. It was on the above said basis, the second respondent prayed
for the issuance of the mandamus directing the first respondent to stop
the operation of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine of the appellant ancj
also direct for payment of compensation for having caused environmental damage.
2. The Division Bench of the High Court having made a detailed
analysis of the grievance of the second respondent as a local resident,
the relevant provisions of the Statute as well as the Environment Impact
Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 27.01.1994, took the view that the
clearance granted in favourofthe appellant in the order dated 25.11.2005
for the expansion of Sanie1i1 Sacorda Iron Ore Mine was initially for a
c
D
E
F
G
H
858
A
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 3 S.C.R.
period of two years as per the EIA Notification of 1994 and that such
clearance can be valid only for a period of five years as is stipulated in
the EIA Notifications and the relevant Rules. The Division Bench ultimately held that the appellant was carrying on the mining operations
without a valid subsisting environmental clearance and while granting
liberty to the appel !ant to seek an extension/renewal of the environmental clearance for a further period, in accordance with law, within aperiod of three months also directed that in the event of non-grant of any
such environmental clearance, the appellant should discontinue mining
operations of the concerned mine, till such time environmental clearance is granted. While holding so, the Division Bench made it clear that
the validity of the environmental clearance granted in favour of the appellant was only for a period of five years from the date of commencement of the operation of the mining projects I expansion of the project
carried out by the appellant. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench, the appellant is before us.
3. It will be worthwhile to note certain observations of the Divisi.on
Bench before passing final orders in these appeals. While considering.
the question whether the validity of the environmental clearance granted
in favour of the appellant would be limited for a period of five years or
more, the Division Bench made a reference to Para 2(1ll)(c) of the EIA
Notification of 1994 wherein it was stipulated that clearance granted
would be valid for a period of five years from the commencement of the
construction or operation of the projects, that such prescription of the
period has got a nexus to the environment protection. In that context,
the Division Bench further observed that the purpose and object of the
Environment Protection Act and the Rules framed there under must be
given its full effect, that ifthere is no check on the environment hazard
at the time of carrying out the mining activities, it could lead to degradation of the environment, that carrying out impact assessment within specific period would assist in ascertaining the adverse effect of the project
activity which is sought to be pursued by the project proponent, that any
activity carried out in respect of specific projects such as mining, requires environmental clearance in order to see that such activities would
not result in further degradation of the environment affecting the life of
the residents in the locality and therefore the prescription oflimited period had a nexus to the grant of environmental clearance. The Division
Bench also rejected the claim of the appellant that once the environmental clearance was granted, the same would be valid for thirty years
TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
859
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KAL1FULLA, J.]
based on the subsequent Notification of 2006 in supersession of the
A
Notification dated 27.01.1994.
.
.
4. Having thus noted the above-observations of the Division Bench,
we heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel for the appellant,
Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General for Goa, Mr. Colin
Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the second respondent and Ms. · B
Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the first respondent.
5. We find that the appellant applied for environmental clearance.
for expansion of Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine falling within Tehsil
Sariguem, District South Goa in the Union Territory of Goa, in its application dated 15.03.2005, followed by subsequent letters dated 28.04.2005
and 16.08.2005. The first respondent passed orders on.25.11.2005. In
paragraph 2.0 it was stipulated that the Ministry of Environment and.
Forest (MoEF in short) accord environmental clearance for a period of
two years only to Saniem Sacorda Iron Ore Mine of the appellant involving a lease area of 50.30 hectares for production of iron ore under
the provisions of Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 1994,
subject to specific conditions under caption' A'. In sub-para (ii) of Para
'A', it was specifically noted as under:
'
·
"A(ii). The proponent shall within 2 years conduct a detailed
hydrogeological study (quality and quantity) on impact of
mining on hydrogeo!ogy (pre-monsoon, 1nonsoon ~nd.post
monsoon) and furnish a detailed report on the same to the
Ministry. Based on the same, a decision regarding continuation oflhining beyond 2 years or otherwise will .be taken."
6. After the said order dated 25. l l .2005;the first respondent passed
its subsequent order dated 18. I0:2007, wherein, it was stated that in
. pursuance of its order dated 25.11.2005, the appellant had filed the report-0fhydrogeological study on impact of mining on hydrogeology of
the mine lease area, that on examination of the said report, it was found
that radius of influence due to mine pit dewaterlng would extend to about
23 5 ;neters around the mine pit, that the stage of g~ound water development is about 4.53% which according to the first respondent was well
within the safe limits as per Central Groundwater Board Norms. It was
also noted that the results of chemical qua! ity data of both surface water
and groundwater as well as mine pit water indicated no contamination·
c
D
E
G
due to mining operations. In paragraph 3 of the said order, the first re-. H
860
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
spondent ultimately deleted the prescription of two years period stipulated in the order dated 25.11.2005.
7. It was in the above stated background, that the second respondent moved the High Court as a local resident alleging that having regard to the EIA Notification dated 27.0L 1994 as amended by subsequent Notification dated 04.05.1994, the environmental clearance granted
in favour of the appellant was valid only for a period of five years from
the date of commencement and consequently the five years perrod having expired oi125.11.20I0, further mining operations of the appellant in
the above referred to mine by way of expansion was 'in violation of the
provisions of the Environment Protection Act, the EIA Notifications and
the relevant Rules.
8. In so far as the right of a local resident is concerned, when we
make a reference to the initial Notification dated 27.01.1994, in paragraph 2(III)(c) it is specifically provided as under:
"2. (Ill}(c). The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a
set of recommendations based on technical assessment of
documents and data, furnished. by the project authorities,
supplemented by data collected during visits to sites or factories. if undertaken. and int~raction with affected population and environmental groups, if necessmy. Su111111ary of
the reports, the rec.ommendation and the conditions; sub-
;ect to which· environmental cleara11ce is given, shall be
· made available subject to the public interest to the concerned parties ot environmental groups on request. C Ommen ts of the public may be solicited, if so decided by Im~
pact Assessment Agency. wiihin thirty davs of receipt of
proposal. in public hearings arranged for the purpose after giving thirty days notice of such hearings in at least
rn•o newspapers. Public shall be provided access, subject
to the public interest, to the summary of the reports/Enviromnental Management Plans at the Headquarters of the
Impact Assessment Agency.
The assessment shall be completed within a periiJd of ninety
days froin receipt of ihe requisite documents and data from
the project authoritie.s and completion .of public h.earing,
·where required, and decision conveyed within thirty days
TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
861
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
thereafter.
A
The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five
years for commencement of the construction or operation.
No construction work, preliminary or otherwise, relating
· to the setting up of the project may be undertaken till the
· environmental and/or site clearance is obtained. "
(Emphasis added)
9. Again when we make reference to the subsequent Notification
dated 14.09.2006, there is a specific provision therein also in paragraph
III Stage III clause (i) & (ii) which contains as many sub-paragraph (a)
to (t) in clause (i), (a) and (b) in Clause (ii) apart from Clause (iii) to
(vii). The specifications contained in the Notification dated 14.09.2006,
states that the same came to be issued in supersession of the Notification dated 27.01.1994. It also stipulates the Constitution of State Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority, categorization of projects
and activities, screening, scoping and appraisal committees, different
Stages for prior environmental clearance (EC-process for new p1•ojects ),
process for expansion or modernization or change of product mix in
existing projects and at the end in paragraph 8, grant or rejection of prior
environmental dearance and in paragraph 9 validity of environmental
clearance and in paragraph 10 post environmental clearance monitoring,
in paragraph 11 transferability of environmental clearance is also provided.
· ·'
10. Keeping the above relevant factors in mind, we heard the learned
senior counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Solicitor General and
the learned Advocate General; the learned senior counsel for the second
respondent. In order to examine the scope, an:ibit and correctness of
the orders dated 25.11.2005 and 18.10.2007, the learned Additional Solicitor General was directed to call upon MoEF to produce the records
of the case. Thereafter, it was felt that after grant of the environmental
clearance for a period of two years in the order dated 25.11.2005, subject to submission of hydro geological study of the area, when the subsequent order dated 18. I 0.2007 was passed, we found that very many
~equirements of the Environment Protection Act, the relevant Rules
framed there under and. the various factors to be take1i into account and
a.detailed public hearing to'be effected as stipulated in the last of the
Notifications dated 14.09.2006, were not specifically add~essed by the
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
862
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016) 3 S.C.R.
A · first respondent while passing the order dated 18.10.2007. In other words,
the order dated 18.10.2007 was a cryptic one without giving due regard
to the various salient features concerning the environment protection
and the interest of the public at large, while granting such clearance and
allowing the clearance granted earlier to be valid beyond the initial peB
c
D
E
F
-0
H
riod of two years and also without specifying as to the other terms and
conditions to be complied with.
11. In such circumstances, while on the one hand, appreciating the
observations made by the Division Bench in the impugned order which
we have highlighted in the earlier part of this order, we· feel that the first
respondent should be directed to take a fresh look for the continuation or
otherwise of the environmental clearance granted by it i.n the order dated
25.11.2005, after scrupulously following the various relevant factors, such
as notifying the State level Authority and other Authorities concerned,
effective public hearing after due paper publication even while referring.
to the hydro geological repoti submitted by the appellant and then pass
final orders. In that perspective we are convinced that the order dated
18.10.2007 is liable to be set aside with necessary direction to the first
respondent to look into the application of the appellant afresh after the
submission of the hydro geological repo1i and after giving an opportunity
of hearing to the appellant as well as the second respondent or such
other bodies to whom such hearing is to be offered as per the subsequent Notification dated 14.09.2006, permit them to file the required
material documents in support of their respective stand and pass area- .
soned order in-accordance with the procedure prescribed under the said
Notification.
12. With that view, we set aside the order dated 18. I 0.2007, and
consequently the. impugned order cannot also stand. We therefore, di-
. rect the first respondent MoEF to proceed afresh, issue a notice of hearing
to the appellant, the second respondent, as well as, hold the consultative
process with the State Level Authorities and call forthe required reports
from the concerned experts of its choice and after due hearing, pass
appropriate orders, in accordance with law. Such exercise shall be carried out by the first respondei1t MoEF expeditiously, preferably, within a
period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this
order. It is needless to state that any order that may be passed.pursuant
to this judgment will always be subject to the decisions in Goa Foundation cases reported ilr (2014) 6 sec 590 and (2014) 6 sec 738
TALAULICAR & SONS P. LTD. v. UNION OF INDIA
863
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
respectively. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merits of
A
the respective contentions of the appellant or the respondents. The appeals stand disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
13. Transfer Petition(C) No.1843/2013 has been filed by Respondent-Shankar Raghunath Jog in the above appeals. He has approached
the National Green Tribunal in O.A. No.22/2012 as against the MoEF
B
State Pollution Control Board and the Department of Mines and Geology with the following prayer:
"l. Order or direction ordering the Respondent to close down the
mines in the State of Goa which do not have valid EC following
the Judgment in Shankar Jog versus Mis Talaulicar and Sons
C
Private Limited, with immediate effect.
2. Order or direction ordering the Respondent to pay compensation
under section 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act 2010 to the
Environmental ReliefFund for its failure to take timely action
closing the violating mines in the State of Goa which has lead to
D
environmental degradation.
3. Costs."
14. In the body of the application, the Respondent-Shankar
Raghunath Jog has made reference to the environmental clearance
relating to the mining project of the appellant dated 25.1 I .2005 and the
subsequent order dated 18.10.2007 by which the conditional grant of EC
for two years came to be deleted. He also made reference to the expiry
of the EC itselfand the grant which occurred on 25.11.2010 while praying
forthe above directions.
15. It is relevant to note that the appellant was not impleaded as a
party in the said 0.A. No.22/2012. In the grounds of the said application
there was a general allegation against the official respondents including
MoEF that inspite of the judgment impugned in the civil appeal (viz)
Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition No.6/2011 dated 12.08.2011 the
official respondents failed to take any steps for closing down the mines
which violated the statutory provisions. In the light of the present judgment
and the directions which we have issued, we are of the view that the
0.A. No.22/2012 pending on the file of the Green Tribunal will not survive
inasmuch as Respondent-Shankar Raghunath Jog mainly placed his prayer
based on the impugned judgment when he filed the O.A. before the
E
F
G
H
864
A
B
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2016] 3 S.C.R.
Green Tribunal. Since we have set aside the impugned judgment in
these Appeals, the whole basis ofRespondent-Shankar Raghunath Jog's
grievance in the O.A. filed before the Tribunal does not survive.
Therefore, while allowing the Transfer Petition and direct the O.A. No.22/
2012 to be transferred to this Court, the 0.A. shall stand dismissed as
having become infructuous.
Devika Gujral
Appeals disposed of and Transfer petition allowed.