2004 (12) TMI 706 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the petitions.
2. Allegations of business rivalry and lack of bona fide.
3. Alternative remedy available.
4. Disputed questions of fact.
5. Environmental clearance and compliance with EIA Notification.
6. Ex post facto environmental clearance.
7. Classification and definition of foundries.
8. Violation of principles of natural justice.
9. Adequacy of public hearing and consideration of representations.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Petitions:
The court addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petitions. It was argued that the second petitioner, a society, was not competent to sue in its own name, and the first petitioner lacked authority. The court found the resolution produced by the petitioners to be an afterthought and concocted to provide competency. The court also noted that the petitions seemed to be sponsored by a business rival, Electro Steel Casting Limited (ESCL), making them less credible as genuine Public Interest Litigations (PILs).

2. Allegations of Business Rivalry and Lack of Bona Fide:
The court observed that the first petition did not appear to be filed in good faith or for genuine public interest. The relationship between the petitioners and ESCL, a business rival of the respondent, indicated that the petition was sponsored. The court cited the Supreme Court's stance that PILs used to foster personal disputes should be dismissed.

3. Alternative Remedy Available:
The court acknowledged the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Authority Act, 1997. The petitioners could have filed an appeal before the National Environment Appellate Authority, which was competent to address their grievances.

4. Disputed Questions of Fact:
The court found that several disputed questions of fact were involved, which could not be entertained under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Environmental Clearance and Compliance with EIA Notification:
The petitioners argued that the respondent's project required prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification dated 27th January 1994. The court noted that the respondent had applied for environmental clearance for the blast furnace project only and not for the foundry activities. The clearance granted was subject to specific and general conditions to ensure compliance with environmental standards.

6. Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearance:
The court found that the respondent's construction activities, although commenced without prior clearance, were done under a genuine and bona fide belief that no clearance was required for mere construction. The court held that the clearance granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MOEF) was not ex post facto and did not warrant demolition of the construction.

7. Classification and Definition of Foundries:
The court examined whether the respondent's project fell under the category of "Foundries (Individual)" as per the EIA Notification. It was noted that the use of induction furnaces in the project did not constitute a typical foundry operation. The court relied on expert opinions and concluded that the project did not require separate clearance for foundry activities.

8. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners claimed that their representations were rejected without a personal hearing. The court held that the right to a personal hearing was not contemplated in the court's previous order. The representations were duly considered, and the decision was based on expert opinions and internal notings.

9. Adequacy of Public Hearing and Consideration of Representations:
The court found that the public hearing was conducted as per the procedure for the blast furnace project. The subsequent amendments to the EIA Report were based on suggestions received during the public hearing. The court held that the clearance granted was balanced, taking into account the need for economic development and environmental protection.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all three petitions, finding that they were not maintainable, lacked bona fide, and that the environmental clearance granted was in compliance with the relevant laws and procedures. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.