IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                       W.P.(C) No.2247 of 2012

           Electrosteel Steels Ltd.                     .........   Petitioner
                                  Versus
           The Jharkhand State Pollution
           Control Board & Ors.                         .........   Respondents
                                 ..............

          CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
                              ..............

            For the Petitioner              : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
                                              Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
            For the Respondent
            Nos. 1 and 2                    : Mr. Sohail Anwar, Sr. Advocate
                                              Mr. Prabhash Kumar, Advocate
            For the Respondent No.4         : Mr. Mokhtar Khan, ASGI
            For the Respondent No.5         : J.C. to A.A.G.
                                 ------

5/05.11.2012

: The petitioner is a company and is in process of establishing a 'green field' 3 MTPA integrated steel plant in Chas-Chandankyari Block in the District of Bokaro. The industry is to be set up on investment of Rs.Ten thousand crores. According to the petitioner, out of the said amount they have already invested more than Rs. Eight thousand crores. For arranging the said heavy amount, the petitioner has to raise loan from the bank and other financial institutions on which they have to pay heavy amount of interest. Substantial amount has also been raised from the general public by issue of shares.

2 The petitioner has claimed that the proposed steel plant is being constructed with the latest technical knowhow and with virtual no pollution due to waste water and air emission. The waste water is to be recycled with the application of modern technology as also the air pollution shall be controlled by advanced devices bringing the standard of emission well within the norms provided by Pollution Control Board. The company has invested Rs.525 crores on pollution control measures.

3. Before proceeding with the project the petitioner obtained terms of reference from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and they were directed to approach the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for conducting public hearing/public consultation. After public hearing, the Environmental clearance was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter, approached the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board for taking consent to establish the said industry. The petitioner, for that purpose, made an application under the Provisions of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

4. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, was granted consent and 'No Objection Certificate' by the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board. The petitioner, thereafter, started the construction work. The said 'no objection' was issued on the basis of furnishing tentative locations of the project cited within the study area. The construction was started and information was duly furnished to the respondents. The period of 'no objection' was also extended from time to time after being satisfied with the petitioner's construction in accordance with the environmental norms.

5. The petitioner, in the same manner, made an application for extending the validity of consent to establish beyond 4.5.2010. The respondent-Board thereupon served a notice to show-cause purportedly on the basis of a report submitted by a memo dated 4.5.2010 alleging that the construction work is being carried out on a part of forest land. The petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why the petitioner's application be not rejected and an order of -3- closure be passed on that ground.

6. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause stating, inter alia, that the land claimed by the Forest Department in Bhagabandh including Plot No.1159, 1389 and 1120 was frivolous. No notification was ever issued declaring the area as a protected forest. A similar claim of the Department was under the challenge in another case being Title Suit No.26/1989 and the claim was rejected and the order was upheld up to the Supreme Court. The Board, on being satisfied after considering the reply and the materials on record, extended the validity period of NOC till 4.5.2011 by a fresh order dated 30.7.2010 (Annexure-5/1). The petitioner, thereafter, resumed the construction activities and made further constructions.

7. When the petitioner was about to complete the construction of blast furnace, they applied for 'consent to operate' the said unit as specified in the NOC for 'consent to establish' dated 5.5.2008.

8. In stead of granting consent, the Pollution Control Board issued another show-cause notice asking the petitioner as to why the application for 'consent to operate' be not refused.

9. The petitioner filed reply stating, inter alia, that there was no ground for refusal of the consent as the company has complied with all the requirements of the Pollution Act. After application for consent, four months' statutory period has expired and there is deemed consent of the concerned authority under the provisions of Section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Section 21(1) read with Section 21(4) and 21(5) of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. -4-

10. On expiry of the prescribed period, the petitioner made trial test run of the unit and information was also given to the respondents. The petitioner's representative also held a meeting with the respondent no.2 and explained everything to their satisfaction including that the area where the unit is set up is part of the study area.

11. Despite the same, another notice dated 15.2.2011 was issued by the respondent no.2 asking the petitioner to submit an explanation for change of the site of the industry from South Parbatpur, Chandankiyari Block to Bhagabandh, Chas Block.

12. The petitioner sent reply to that letter stating, inter alia, that the lands of village Bhagabandh were within the study area of the impact study in respect to which clearance was granted by the respondent nos.1 and 2 for setting up the steel plant. The respondents, thereafter, sought for full land schedule giving the description of village, Block, Khata No., Plot No., etc. which were also furnished. The period for the consent i.e. 'No Objection Certificate' was then extended till 4.5.2011.

13. The petitioner, thereafter, made application dated 4.4.2011 praying for grant of extension of the said 'No Objection Certificate' for the remaining units for a further period of two years.

14. The grievance of the petitioner is that since thereafter more than a year elapsed, but the same has not been responded by the respondents.

15. According to the petitioner, though the extension is deemed to have been given after the lapse of the prescribed period as provided under Section 21(1) read with Section 21(4) and 21(5) of -5- the Air Act and Section 25(7) of the Water Act, in order to avoid any controversy the respondents are required to issue an expressed 'No Objection', as the petitioner has fulfilled all the parameters and norms required under the provisions of the aforesaid Acts. However, till date the respondents have kept the matter hanging in balance. The petitioner, under that circumstance, has to file this writ petition.

16. Mr. M. Sohail Anwar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the Board has no intention to forestall the process of the industry. They are concerned with the implementation of the provisions of pollution control laws and the respondents has not proceeded to pass any order or dispose of the application filed by the petitioner only in view of pendency of this writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that the matter shall be taken up by the Board without further delay and effective order shall be passed within five weeks. He further submitted that, if so required, a date shall be fixed for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner .

17. Considering the aforesaid facts and submissions and the stand taken by learned counsel for the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's application and, as assured by them, if so required, give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after taking into consideration the facts and provisions of law and the related decisions, shall dispose of the petitioner's application within five weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

18. Until final order is passed, the respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioner.

(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) I.A. Nos.2991 and 3305 of 2012 In view of the final disposal of the writ petition, these interlocutory applications stand infructuous.

I.A. Nos.2991 and 3305 of 2012 are, accordingly, rejected, as becoming infructuous.

(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.) Shamim/