15 hours ago
Bombay HC dismisses 2 PILs against Lloyds Metals
The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed two public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the grant of permission to the capacity expansion of the Surjagarh iron ore mines of Lloyds Metals and Energy Ltd (LMEL) in Gadchiroli.
While the PILs were quashed on May 9, the order copy was uploaded on June 19. The high court found both the PILs to be without merit.
The PILs filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, a mining contractor from Raipur, Chhattisgarh, alleged that the process of environmental clearance (EC) granted by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) for expansion of mining capacity from 3 million tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA and further Terms of Reference (ToR) towards expansion from 10 MTPA to 26 MTPA were 'illegal'.
The division bench comprising Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri observed that 'the complete procedure based on the ToR is followed,' and found that both the PILs were devoid of merit.
The petitioner also alleged that the public hearing was conducted at a place far away from the project site. The court observed, 'The fact remains that in compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment notification dated May 29, 2006, as amended on December 01, 2009, a public hearing was conducted at the [Gadchiroli] District Headquarters, which is perhaps properly secured in view of the Naxal menace.'
The counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi, and since he never attended the public hearing conducted by the collector at the district headquarters, he lost the opportunity to question the legality of the orders impugned in these PILs.
Further, the counsel submitted that the initial EC was granted in 2005-06 after the hearing conducted by the collector at the very same place, and the said hearing was never questioned by the petitioner for the last 20 years.
The counsel added that the EC for 10 MTPA was issued by the MoEF&CC under strict compliance with and adherence to the provisions of the EIA Notification dated May 29, 2006 and the SOP issued by the ministry.
Though the public hearing was conducted at Gadchiroli district headquarters on the recommendation of the Police Department as the project site fell within the Naxal-affected area, all the locals were given due opportunity to present their say on the mining project, the court observed.
The high court further stated that the courts should be sensitive and careful to the fact that the petitioner should not be allowed to indulge in making wild and reckless allegations. Since the petitioner stated that his annual income was Rs 4-5 lakh, the court observed, 'We fail to understand as to what is the source of expenses incurred by the petitioner as there is a serious doubt about his bona fides also'.
With due observations, the high court dismissed both the PILs without costs.
