HC Junks PIL Against Lloyds' Iron Ore Expansion In Gadchiroli, Flags Petitioner's Bona Fides
1
2
3
4
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently dismissed two clubbed public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the expansion of iron ore mining by Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited in Gadchiroli.
The court pointed out that the petition was filed by a person with no stakes in the matter, lacked locus standi and was acting without bona fides.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri rejected the pleas filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and co-petitioner Vishesh Bhatpalliwar from Gadchiroli. The bench stated there was no substantive connection between the petitioners and affected population.
It also noted no local resident or tribal community had objected to the environmental clearance (EC) and questioned the motive and timing of the PIL.
"Merely claiming to be a social servant does not give the petitioner the locus standi to filed a PIL as he has not shown any nexus with the cause of such people, who live almost 300km away from his place of residence and that too in another state (Chhattisgarh)," the bench noted.
The judges added the fact that the petitioner did not question the earlier public hearing, conducted at the district headquarters in 2005-06, and is now questioning the subsequent public hearing, sufficiently demonstrates he lacks bona fides in the matter of preferring the PIL.
The HC also observed that it failed to understand the petitioner's source of funds for carrying out the legal battle, especially if he has an annual income of Rs4-5 lakh.
The court noted that the petitioner claimed he gave up his profession as a mine contractor and travelled all the way to Maharashtra from Raipur in Chhattisgarh, where he is based. Aheri, where the plant is located, is more than 200 km from his place, said the court.
Chatterjee, a former mining contractor, challenged the environmental clearances (EC) granted to Lloyds Metals in two stages — from 3 metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA (2023) and then to 16 MTPA (2024).
He alleged violations of EIA norms, improper public hearing, and non-compliance with environmental regulations. He sought to quash the terms of reference and clearances issued in 2022 and 2023 on grounds of procedural lapse under office memorandums dated April 2022 and July 2021 SOPs.
However, the court noted the public hearing at the Gadchiroli district headquarters on October 27, 2022, was legally valid, widely publicised, and attended by a large number of local representatives and citizens.
It also cited the Maoist threat in the mining zones for not conducting the hearing at the actual site.
The bench acknowledged that Lloyds earlier operated without a fresh environment clearance post-2011, but later complied fully with the 2021 standard operating procedure, paid a ₹5.48 crore penalty, furnished a ₹26.64 crore bank guarantee. The environment clearance for 10 MTPA was then granted on February 24, 2023, followed by the terms of reference for 16 MTPA on November 26, 2024.
Calling such PILs "a tool for personal vendetta" and not a genuine public interest action, the court invoked Supreme Court rulings to underscore the need to curb misuse of PILs.
Lloyds, through counsel Raghav Bhandakkar, argued it created 2,000 jobs and contributed ₹2,000 crore in royalties to the District Mineral Fund, and 80% project execution was already complete. Finding no merit in the plea, the court refused to interfere with the environmental approvals and dismissed both PILs.
**Key Takeaways from HC Verdict**
- Petitioner had no local standing or public interest.
- Lloyds Metals paid ₹5.48 crore penalty for prior EC lapse.
- Environmental clearance for 10 MTPA upheld as per SOP
- Public hearing held as per guidelines, no irregularity found.
- 2,000 jobs and ₹2,000 crore royalty cited as development impact.
- Relied on SC rulings to warn against "luxury litigation."
- No locals objected to project
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
HC Junks PIL Against Lloyds' Iron Ore Expansion In Gadchiroli, Flags Petitioner's Bona Fides
1 2 3 4 Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently dismissed two clubbed public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the expansion of iron ore mining by Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited in Gadchiroli. The court pointed out that the petition was filed by a person with no stakes in the matter, lacked locus standi and was acting without bona fides. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri rejected the pleas filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and co-petitioner Vishesh Bhatpalliwar from Gadchiroli. The bench stated there was no substantive connection between the petitioners and affected population. It also noted no local resident or tribal community had objected to the environmental clearance (EC) and questioned the motive and timing of the PIL. "Merely claiming to be a social servant does not give the petitioner the locus standi to filed a PIL as he has not shown any nexus with the cause of such people, who live almost 300km away from his place of residence and that too in another state (Chhattisgarh)," the bench noted. The judges added the fact that the petitioner did not question the earlier public hearing, conducted at the district headquarters in 2005-06, and is now questioning the subsequent public hearing, sufficiently demonstrates he lacks bona fides in the matter of preferring the PIL. The HC also observed that it failed to understand the petitioner's source of funds for carrying out the legal battle, especially if he has an annual income of Rs4-5 lakh. The court noted that the petitioner claimed he gave up his profession as a mine contractor and travelled all the way to Maharashtra from Raipur in Chhattisgarh, where he is based. Aheri, where the plant is located, is more than 200 km from his place, said the court. Chatterjee, a former mining contractor, challenged the environmental clearances (EC) granted to Lloyds Metals in two stages — from 3 metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA (2023) and then to 16 MTPA (2024). He alleged violations of EIA norms, improper public hearing, and non-compliance with environmental regulations. He sought to quash the terms of reference and clearances issued in 2022 and 2023 on grounds of procedural lapse under office memorandums dated April 2022 and July 2021 SOPs. However, the court noted the public hearing at the Gadchiroli district headquarters on October 27, 2022, was legally valid, widely publicised, and attended by a large number of local representatives and citizens. It also cited the Maoist threat in the mining zones for not conducting the hearing at the actual site. The bench acknowledged that Lloyds earlier operated without a fresh environment clearance post-2011, but later complied fully with the 2021 standard operating procedure, paid a ₹5.48 crore penalty, furnished a ₹26.64 crore bank guarantee. The environment clearance for 10 MTPA was then granted on February 24, 2023, followed by the terms of reference for 16 MTPA on November 26, 2024. Calling such PILs "a tool for personal vendetta" and not a genuine public interest action, the court invoked Supreme Court rulings to underscore the need to curb misuse of PILs. Lloyds, through counsel Raghav Bhandakkar, argued it created 2,000 jobs and contributed ₹2,000 crore in royalties to the District Mineral Fund, and 80% project execution was already complete. Finding no merit in the plea, the court refused to interfere with the environmental approvals and dismissed both PILs. **Key Takeaways from HC Verdict** - Petitioner had no local standing or public interest. - Lloyds Metals paid ₹5.48 crore penalty for prior EC lapse. - Environmental clearance for 10 MTPA upheld as per SOP - Public hearing held as per guidelines, no irregularity found. - 2,000 jobs and ₹2,000 crore royalty cited as development impact. - Relied on SC rulings to warn against "luxury litigation." - No locals objected to project
India Today
8 hours ago
- India Today
Court clears NCP leader's chartered accountant in graft case due to lack of proof
The Bombay High Court on Friday acquitted a 62-year-old chartered accountant, Shyam Malpani, of the money laundering case linked to Maharashtra minister Chhagan Bhujbal and his family. The court ruled that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had no substantial evidence to prove Malpani's involvement in the case.A bench of Justice RN Laddha said, 'The (ED's) complaint lacks material to establish a nexus between the applicant and the alleged criminal conspiracy or money laundering activities.' The court noted that the ED's claims were based on 'bare assertions' and lacked proof that Malpani knew about or was negligent regarding the alleged sham served as a statutory auditor for some companies in the Bhujbal Group. The ED had alleged that he played a role in laundering money by failing to report suspicious transactions and arrangements. They claimed his inaction helped the Bhujbals hide and move illicit funds. However, Malpani's lawyers—Senior Counsel Pranav Badheka and advocate Prashant Pawar—argued that Chhagan Bhujbal and his family had already been discharged in related cases by the Special Court in also said Malpani was neither named as an accused nor was he named in any FIRs filed by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) or Taloja Police, which were the basis of the ED's Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) registered in June advocates Hiten Venegaonkar and Ayush Kedia, representing the ED, claimed Malpani knowingly hid the flow of illicit money. They argued that he was aware of the sham deals and failed to perform his professional duties, thereby assisting in the laundering court reviewed all arguments and concluded that Malpani was not involved in the placement, layering, or integration of the alleged proceeds of crimeMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Nationalist Congress Party
News18
12 hours ago
- News18
The Strait Of Hormuz: Has Iran Ever Closed The World's Most Critical Oil Route?
Last Updated: For decades, Iran has threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz. As tensions with Israel hit new highs, the question returns: Has it ever done it? And what happens if it does now? For over half a century, the Strait of Hormuz has served as the world's most vital energy corridor. Connecting the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea, this narrow waterway, just 21 nautical miles wide at its tightest point, is the main transit route for oil and gas exports from some of the most energy-rich nations on the planet. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Iran, and the UAE all depend on it to get their crude to global markets. According to data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), nearly 20–21 million barrels of oil pass through the strait every single day, roughly a fifth of the world's daily consumption. It is also a key route for liquefied natural gas (LNG), especially from Qatar. Any disruption here doesn't just rattle West Asia; it shakes energy markets across the globe. And yet, despite decades of political brinkmanship, proxy wars, sanctions, drone attacks and naval showdowns, the Strait of Hormuz has never once been fully shut in modern history. Has The Strait Ever Been Closed? No. But It Has Come Close One of the most persistent myths about West Asia's conflicts is that Iran has previously blocked the Strait of Hormuz. While it is true that Tehran has repeatedly threatened to do so, sometimes in response to sanctions, sometimes as political posturing, it has never followed through. During the Iran–Iraq War in the 1980s, both sides launched attacks on oil tankers in what became known as the 'Tanker War." Iran mined parts of the Gulf and used fast-attack boats to target Kuwaiti and Saudi tankers. Iraq retaliated with missile strikes. The conflict led the United States to intervene, reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and escorting them with US warships under Operation Earnest Will. Several ships were damaged, some sunk, and global oil prices spiked. But crucially, the Strait remained open throughout, battered but not blocked. In 2011 and 2012, Iran once again threatened to close the Strait in response to European and American sanctions targeting its oil exports and banking system. Senior Iranian officials, including then-Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi, warned of a complete shutdown if oil sanctions were enforced. Western powers responded swiftly, dispatching naval forces to the region. The United States, the UK and France conducted high-visibility naval exercises, making it clear that any attempt to blockade Hormuz would provoke military retaliation. Iran, ultimately, did not escalate further. More recently, in 2019, tensions soared after the US withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and imposed 'maximum pressure" sanctions on Tehran. Iran was blamed for attacks on tankers near the Strait and was caught seizing a British-flagged oil tanker, the Stena Impero. A US surveillance drone was also shot down by Iranian forces. Once again, fears of closure gripped global markets. Yet even amid these flashpoints, the Strait remained navigable. Why Has It Never Been Fully Shut? Iran's threats to block the Strait have historically served as a geopolitical lever — a way to raise the stakes without firing the first shot. But a full closure has always been a risky gambit, not least because it would come at a huge cost to Iran itself. About 90 per cent of Iran's oil exports also pass through the Strait. Blocking it would strangle its own economy, already crippled by sanctions, and isolate it further. Moreover, the move would likely be interpreted as an act of war, giving the US and its allies legal and political justification for direct military intervention. With the US Navy's 5th Fleet headquartered in Bahrain, any closure attempt would be met with overwhelming naval force. Diplomatic costs aside, Gulf countries such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia have also taken measures to reduce vulnerability by building overland pipelines that bypass Hormuz altogether. Though these pipelines don't eliminate dependence entirely, they offer partial mitigation. As a result, Iran's leadership, while often willing to provoke, threaten, or harass shipping, has historically stopped short of a full blockade. So What Makes The Current Crisis Different? The Israel–Iran conflict in 2025 is distinct not because missiles are flying, they've flown before, but because of the scale, openness, and maritime dimension of the escalation. Three developments make this round far more volatile than previous flare-ups. Israel has publicly acknowledged direct strikes on multiple key Iranian nuclear sites, including Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, and Arak. These aren't isolated incidents or covert sabotage attempts. They are deliberate, declared military actions against some of the most protected and strategically vital components of Iran's nuclear programme. This is a sharp departure from previous Israeli operations. In earlier years, Israel was widely believed to be behind cyberattacks like Stuxnet (2010), mysterious explosions at Natanz (2020), and the assassination of nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (2020), but never formally admitted responsibility. Those were covert, plausibly deniable moves aimed at slowing Iran's nuclear progress without crossing into full-scale war. Record ballistic missile barrages deep into civilian areas While Iran has previously launched missiles, including during escalations in 2024, this round was unprecedented in both scale and intensity. Iranian forces fired hundreds of ballistic missiles, including Sejjil-class and newer variants, toward Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Be'er Sheva. One missile landed on the grounds of Soroka Medical Centre, injuring civilians. The combination of sheer volume, trajectory over densely populated areas, and civilian casualties represents a deliberate escalation meant to pressure the Israeli public. Israel publicly declaring Khamenei a wartime target In a major rhetorical escalation, Israel has shifted from opposing Iran's nuclear ambitions to directly targeting its top leadership. On June 19, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz explicitly declared that ' Khamenei cannot continue to exist," calling him a 'modern Hitler" and blaming him for ordering missile strikes on Israeli civilian infrastructure. Complementing Katz's statement, a Reuters report quoted Israeli officials as saying that the June airstrikes were not just about dismantling Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, but were also aimed at 'breaking the foundations of Khamenei's rule" and weakening the regime's internal grip on power. This is the first time Israel has publicly identified Ayatollah Khamenei himself as part of its war objectives. Previous conflicts, even at their peak, focused on Iran's weapons programmes or proxy forces. What Happens If The Strait Is Closed, Even Temporarily? Even a temporary disruption to the flow of oil through Hormuz would have serious global repercussions. Energy markets are already jittery. A full blockade could send oil prices soaring past $120–130 per barrel within days. Shipping insurance premiums would spike. LNG supply chains, particularly to Asia, would be severely impacted. Major energy importers like China, Japan, South Korea and India would feel the heat almost immediately. Naval deployments would increase across the board, and the chances of accidental escalation between rival warships or submarines would rise sharply. The US has already repositioned key naval assets in the Gulf, including aircraft carriers and guided missile destroyers. Freight delays, insurance re-pricing, and investor anxiety could together inflict real damage on the global economy. India: Energy Security and Strategic Stakes India imports more than 60 per cent of its crude oil through the Strait of Hormuz, sourcing supplies from key partners such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the UAE. Given this dependency, any prolonged disruption in the strait could affect energy flows and pricing, but Indian officials have sought to project calm amid rising tensions. Speaking to News18, Union Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas Hardeep Singh Puri offered reassurance, stating: 'Even if everything goes wrong, we have enough oil." He explained that out of the 5.5 million barrels of crude oil India imports daily, around 1.5 million barrels come via the Hormuz route. 'The worry will be if the strait is closed or choked," he noted, adding that 'there are many countries that would not want it to be shut." Puri emphasised that while India is monitoring the situation closely, the Strait of Hormuz has not been closed in the last 50 years, even during high-tension phases. 'I would use the word anxiety, not worry," he said. 'There have been many phases of heightened tensions in the region, but energy does not stop flowing." India's Strategic Petroleum Reserves (SPR) provide an additional cushion, covering approximately 9–10 days of national demand. Conclusion: A Strait Always On The Brink top videos View all The Strait of Hormuz is more than just a strategic waterway; it is a geopolitical barometer. Its status reflects the tensions in West Asia, and the current indicators are flashing red. While history shows that Iran has never actually closed the Strait, the dynamics in 2025 are markedly different: open hostilities, regional spillover, and the growing likelihood of US intervention. Whether Iran crosses that final line, and whether the world can afford the consequences, remains to be seen. About the Author Karishma Jain Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @ More Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : Israel-Iran tensions Strait of Hormuz Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: June 20, 2025, 12:22 IST News explainers The Strait Of Hormuz: Has Iran Ever Closed The World's Most Critical Oil Route?
