1


  BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
                (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

                     APPEAL NO. 32/2011


IN THE MATTER OF


1. Rana Sengupta
   52/D/9/4, Babu Bagan
   Dhakuria, Kolkata - 700 031
   West Bengal

                                               .... APPELLANT

                      Versus

1. Union of India
   Through Secretary
   Ministry of Environment and Forests
   Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex,
   Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110 003


2. West Bengal Pollution Control Board
   Through its Member Secretary,
   Paribesh Bhawan
   10A, Block-LA, Sector III, Bidhan Nagar
   Kolkata - 700 098


3. M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited
   Village Gokulpur, P.O. Shyamraipur
   P.S. Kharagpur, District Paschim Mednipur
   West Bengal.
                                  2


4. The State of West Bengal
   Through its Secretary
   Department of Environment
   Block - G, 2nd Floor, Writers Building
   Kolkata (West Bengal)
                                             .... RESPONDENTS


Counsel for Appellant(s):

Mr. Naresh K. Sharma
Mr. M.P. Jha
Mr. Ram Ekbal Roy
Mr. Suprit Mukherji & Mr. Anirban Pramanik


Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Ms. Neelam Rathore               for R - 1

Mr. Nayan Chand Bihani
Ms. Asha Nayar Basu              for R - 2
Ms. Papiya Banerjee Bihani

Mr. Pawan Upadhyay
Mr. Ankit Sibbal
Mr. Amitabh Majumdar             for R - 3
Mr. Kailash Thakker

Mr. Abhijit Sengupta
Mr. Raja Chatterjee              for R - 4
                                   3


                              ORDER

PRESENT:

Justice A.S. Naidu (Acting Chairperson) Dr. G.K. Pandey (Expert Member) Dated 24th August, 2012 The Appellant claims to be a public spirited citizen having experience in working with Steel and Iron industries. He has knowledge with regard to the impact caused by the aforesaid industries in the ecology, environment and human lives. He has approached this Tribunal, inter-alia, assailing the Environmental Clearance dated 1st June, 2012, granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) to M/s. Rashmi Metaliks Limited (Respondent No. 3) for expansion of its existing steel plant by adding 1.5 mtpa Beneficiation cum Pellet Plant which would enable it to produce 1.2 mtpa pellets with Producer Gas Plant. The Appellant in this Appeal seeks for following reliefs :-

(a) To restrain the Respondent No. 3 from making further expansion of its present plant for which already the 4 executive summary pertaining to the Public Hearing has been published in the month of September, 2011 (Annexure-A-8) and the appellant accordingly represented to the authorities on 16.07.2011, 17.10.2011 and 01.11.2011; (Annexures A-4, A-5 and A-6 respectively); and

(b) To quash the Environmental Clearance granted by the Respondent No. 2 dated 09.01.2009 (Annexure-A-1), which is in flagrant violation of the provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, and against the Arbitrary Acts and conducts of the Department of Environment, Government of West Bengal in violation of Article 21 read with Article 48A of the Constitution of India as well as in contravention of the principles of human rights and public policy in general;

(c) To direct the Respondent No. 1, Union of India to produce the Environment Clearance if were required in 5 the case of Ductile Iron Pile Plant and manufacturing of capacity of 2 lac tpa or not?

(d) To quash the illegal grant of license for the commencement of the production by the Respondent No. 3 which was obtained pursuant to consent to establish also granted without due process of law and as such, said commencement of production is against the public policy;

(e) To quash the illegal grant for expansion of project for installation of Mini Steel Plant by the State Government Authorities, which is violative of the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and the rules framed thereunder as also the notification issued to that effect by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India, New Delhi;

(f) To quash the arbitrary action or inaction on the part of the Environment Regulatory Authority and thereby enabling the Respondent Nos. 3 herein to perpetrate continued violation of the provisions of the Environment 6 Protection laws of the Land read with Articles 51A of the Constitution of India; and

(g) To cancel/quash the Environmental Clearance unlawfully obtained by the Respondent No. 3 from Respondent No. 2;

(h) To stay the operation of the Environmental Clearance unlawfully granted by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 3 till the disposal of the Appeal; and

(i) To pass such other further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. After receiving notice, the Respondents have entered appearance and filed detailed replies repudiating all the averments made and allegations levelled in different paragraphs of the Memorandum of Appeal.

3. In course of hearing, it appears that a proposal for expansion had been forwarded to MoEF and the said proposal was still under consideration. In other words, no decision had 7 been taken by the competent authority on the date on which this appeal was presented.

4. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties at length. First relief sought for by the Appellant is to restrain Respondent No. 3 from making further expansion of its present plant. Law is well settled that expansion of existing plant can only be made after obtaining necessary environmental clearance from the Competent Authority. It appears that no clearance has been granted when the Appeal was filed for expansion and the matter was pending before the Competent Authority. According to Respondent No. 3, he has clearly submitted that without obtaining prior permission, no extension shall be made.

5. Under prayer (b), the Appellant prays to quash the Environment Clearance granted by the Respondent No. 2 on 09.01.2009 vide Annexure A/1. In consonance with Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, an order passed, has to be assailed before this Tribunal within a period of thirty days. Thus, the said relief is grossly barred by time and cannot be entertained. 8 Other reliefs sought are more or less consequential to the prayer

(a) and (b) and also cannot be entertained at this stage.

6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant, in course of hearing, submitted that the appellant has preferred another Appeal assailing the Environment Clearance said to have been granted by the MoEF on 01.06.2012. The said submission clearly reveals that by afflux of time this appeal has become infructuous. Considering the facts and circumstances narrated above, we dismiss this Appeal. It is needless to be said that the appeal said to have been filed assailing the alleged Environment Clearance granted on 01.06.2012, shall be disposed of on its own merits in accordance with law.

Dr. G.K. Pandey                             Justice A.S. Naidu
Expert Member                               Acting Chairperson

Dharamvir
24th August, 2012