GEETARANI MOHANTY Vs. STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and, Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is directed against the communication dated 2.4.2012 issued by respondent No.2 -Senior Environmental Scientist (M) of the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, vide Annexure -13, requiring the appellant to furnish fresh Environmental Clearance (EC) for consideration of consent to operate its iron ore mines beyond 31.3.2012. The appellant has accordingly prayed for a direction to respondent No.1 -the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, ('the Board' hereinafter) to issue consent to operate the iron ore mines forthwith without insisting upon furnishing fresh E.C.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the appellant is as follows: The appellant -M/s. Geetarani Mohanty, which claims to be a registered partnership firm, has been granted lease for mining iron ore over an area of 67.586 Hectares in village Raikela under Bonai Sub -division of Sundergarh district for a period of 20 years expiring on 1.7.2011. On 14.3.2005 the appellant made an application to the Board for grant of consent to establish in respect of its Raikela Iron Ore Mines to enhance the production of iron ore, vide Annexure -1, considering which the Board by its Office Memorandum dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure -4) conveyed consent to establish under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Water Act') and Section 21 of the Air (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called 'the Air Act') for production enhancement of iron ore of the quantity of 7200 MT/month, 100 and 50 Tons per hour Crushing and Screening Plant, 200 and 100 TPH ROM Screening Plant of Raikela Iron Ore Mines in the M.L. Area over 64.068 Ha. Thereafter on 17.3.2006 the appellant made an application to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Govt. of India, for grant of E.C. in favour of its Raikela Iron Ore Mines, vide Annexure -5. The MoEF by the communication dated 2.7.2008 granted E.C., vide Annexure -8, in accordance with para 12 of the EIA Notification, 2006 read with Para 12 of the Circular dated 13.10.2006 issued by the MoEF. Before expiry of the lease period, on 20.5.2010 the appellant made an application to the State Govt. for renewal of its mining lease along with required documents and the same was acknowledged under Annexure -9. Till filing of this appeal, no order granting renewal of the lease was passed. The appellant then moved the Board for grant of consent to operate for a period of five years, i.e. from 2011 -12 to 2015 -16, vide its application dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure -10) but the Board by its order dated 19.7.2011 granted consent to operate under Section 25/26 of the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air Act for one year only, vide Annexure -11, which was valid upto 31.3.2012. The appellant again moved the Board for grant of consent to operate till 2015 -16 vide its application in Annexure -12. When the said application of the appellant for grant of consent to operate till 2015 -16 was pending with the Board, respondent No.2 -the Senior Environmental Scientist (M) by letter dated 2.4.2012 intimated the appellant to furnish fresh E.C. for consideration of grant of consent to operate beyond 31.3.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act for the relief indicated hereinabove.

(3.) SHRI B.P. Pattajoshi, Law Officer of the Board, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the grounds taken by the appellant that no fresh E.C. for grant of consent to operate beyond 31.3.2012 is necessary in view of the fact that it has already had a valid and subsisting E.C. vide Annexure -8, and that since the lease granted in favour of the appellant is deemed to be extended till decision on the renewal application is taken by the State Govt. in terms of Rule 24 -A(6) of the M.C. Rules and, therefore, no fresh E.C. is necessary, are not tenable and correct because the EIA Notification of 2006 has been amended by virtue of the Notification dated 4.4.2011 (EIA Notification of 2004) issued by the MoEF by amending, inter alia, Item 1 (a) of the Schedule, which categorically speaks that prior E.C. is as well required at the stage renewal of mining lease. It was further contended that prior to the aforesaid amendment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 18.3.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others), which is reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4033 : (2004) 12 SCC 118, has mandated that E.C. necessary at the stage of renewal of mining lease for which the appellant was required to furnish fresh E.C. by the impugned communication dated 2.4.2012 under Annexure -13.