Chhattisgarh High Court dismisses PIL against establishment of industrial plant without environmental clearance

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by people, who were aggrieved by the establishment of an industrial plant in two villages of Ringni and Kesda under Tehsil Simga, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara.

The petitioners were aggrieved by the alleged destroying of the flora and fauna of the said two Villages by the Company in the course of establishment of its industrial plant by cutting a large numbers of trees. Further grievance of the petitioners was that the Company was establishing the said industrial plant without obtaining proper clearance from Respondent No.2 (State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Chhattisgarh).

The Respondent No.2 on affidavit, taken a stand that the nature of the product to be manufactured by the Company was not one which requires prior Environmental Clearance before starting of the construction work or preparation of land by the project proponent and that the nature of business is not the one which falls under the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification’ 2006.

It was the further categorical stand by Respondent No.2 that the Company has the “Permission to Establish” under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 so also the “Permission to Establish” under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 from the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board.

The State Government, in its reply, has also disputed and denied the contentions raised by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition. The Respondents have taken a stand that due proceeding in accordance with the provisions of law in force was taken for the purpose of diversion of the land and the change of land use from agriculture to commercial and that the proceeding was also heard and decided strictly in accordance with the requirement under the statutes.

It was also the contention of the State that the proceeding has been drawn by the Authorities concerned after due publication being made in the newspapers having wide circulation within the State, calling upon the objections from the general public. The State also, in the reply, highlighted the fact that the company has also been granted certain exemption from the payment of stamp duty in terms of the Industrial Policy of 2014-19 issued by the State Government. The exemption so granted was to encourage industrial growth and also for the industrial upliftment of the State as a whole.

The company in turn, has alleged mala fide against the Petitioners alleging that three of the Petitioners have been prosecuted by the Police, as the FIRs were lodged against them for the illegal activities in which they were involved at the initial stage of the construction of the said industrial establishment.

Contention of the company also was that they had duly obtained the requisite “Permission to Establish” from the Chhattisgarh Environment Conservation Board both under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act. They are ensuring and abiding by all the terms and conditions, as are otherwise prescribed under the statutes, and the regulations governing the field.

It was also the contention of the company that the No Objection Certificate was duly granted by the Gram Panchayat, Kesda on 25.7.2018 and also by the Gram Panchayat, Ringni on 31.8.2020 and the said No-objection Certificate was granted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam and the powers that are conferred upon the Gram Panchayat under the said Adhiniyam.

Meanwhile, there was another application filed for intervening in the Petition and seeking for impleadment as a necessary party to the dispute. The Intervener supported the stand of the Petitioners and contended that the Company has meanwhile already applied for obtaining the necessary Environmental Clearance from Respondent No.2, which by itself would establish that the Company has till date not obtained the Environmental Clearance and, therefore, the whole construction and the establishment of the Company is bad in law.

Senior Counsel for the company , on the contentions of the Intervener, submitted that as the Company intends to go in for an expansion, it was under the said circumstances that the company had made an application for grant of Environmental Clearance. However, the necessity for the Environmental Clearance would only be required as and when the company goes in for the expansion, which is yet to begin.

During the course of hearing, it has been revealed that the Company has already been established, the production has also commenced for the past about 1½ years now. From the materials available on record, the Bench noted that necessary “Permission to Establish” both under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act as also under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, has been duly obtained by the company.

The stand of the Respondents, particularly, that of the Respondent No.2 is that the Company, in its present form, does not require the Environmental Clearance in terms of the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification’ 2006, as the company does not come within the categories mentioned in the said Notification.

On perusal of the pleadings, particularly, the contents of the Petition, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice P. Sam Koshy noted that the Petition is bereft of details as regards the allegations made in respect of the so called pollution that is likely to be caused to the environment as also in respect of the flora and fauna of the concerned area.

Further, the Court noted that the contentions of the Petitioners in the pleadings is the large-scale cutting of trees. However, the records show that it was agricultural land which has been purchased by the Company over which the plant has been established. Given the fact that it was an agriculture field, there was no likelihood of there being a large number of trees over the said piece of land. Even if there would have been trees which must have been uprooted, those would have been very few in number. It was probably for this reason that the Petitioners have not been able to give any detail or proof in respect of the alleged innumerous trees being cut.

There is also no discussion or details in the Petition in respect of the so-called alleged pollution that is likely to be caused. The fact that the Respondent authorities have already granted “Permission to Establish” both under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act as also under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, would strengthen the case of the Company that there is hardly any environmental impact that is going to be caused in the operation of the company’s plant , the Bench observed.

The Court also noted that the Petitioners have, for the reasons best known to them, suppressed material facts in the Writ Petition in respect of three of the Petitioners already being prosecuted by the State authorities for their alleged illegal movements that they had made when the Company intended to establish its plant.

“These Petitioners were fully aware of the lodging of the FIR against them, yet, it has been suppressed by them in their pleadings. This further forces us to draw an adverse inference that the present Writ Petition now at a later stage has been filed as a counter attack to the FIR that was lodged against the said Petitioners. Thus, it diminishes the involvement of public interest in the present Writ Petition; rather, it appears to be a private interest litigation.”

“For all the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered opinion that no strong case for issuance of Writ as such has been made out. The so called Public Interest Litigation, thus, being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed”, the order reads.