Electrosteel Steels Limited vs Jharkhand State Pollution Control ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 8 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Electrosteel Steels Limited vs Jharkhand State Pollution Control ... on 1 May, 2025

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                      2025: JHHC: 13075

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                  W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018

Electrosteel Steels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956, Shiyaljori, Jogidih, Bangaria, P.O. & P.S. Chandankeyari,
District Bokaro, represented through its Chief Operating Officer, Suresh
Kandelwal, son of Shri Banwari Lal Khandelwal, resident of Plot No. 103,
Lohanchal Housing Colony, Sector-12, P.O. & P.S.Sector-12, District
Bokaro                                          ...     ...     Petitioner
                              Versus
1. Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board through its Member
   Secretary, at Town Administrative Building, H.E.C. Township, P.O.
   & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, Town
   Administrative Building, H.E.C. Township, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa,
   District Ranchi
3. Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Govt.
   of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Prithavi Wing, Jorbag Road, New
   Delhi-110003                                 ...     ... Respondents
                              With
                    W.P. (C) No. 4850 of 2018

Electrosteel Steels Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956, Shiyaljori, Jogidih, Bangaria, P.O. & P.S. Chandankeyari,
District Bokaro, represented through its Authorized Signatory, Sauvick
Mazumdar, son of Late B.N. Mazumdar, aged about 50 years , resident of
Flat No. B 262, Landscape Pinto Park, Campal, P.O. Panaji, P.S. Panaji,
District North Goa, Goa (Union Territory)         ...     ...      Petitioner
                               Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and
   Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Prithavi Wing, Jorbag
   Road, P.O. New Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi.
2. Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,
   Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Prithavi Wing, Jorbag Road, P.O. New
   Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi.
3. Scientist 'F' / Director, Government of India, Ministry of Environment,
   Forest and Climate Change, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Prithavi Wing,
   Jorbag Road, P.O. New Delhi, P.S. New Delhi, New Delhi.

                                1
                                                          2025: JHHC: 13075

   4. Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (Central), Ministry of
      Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Eastern
      Central Zone), Banglow A-2, Shyamali Colony, at Doranda, P.O.
      Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi
   5. Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Environment & Forest,
      Government of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa,
      P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
   6. Principal Conservator of Forest and HoFF, Van Bhawan, at Doranda,
      P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi.
   7. Chairman, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, H.E.C. Dhurwa,
      P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
   8. Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board, H.E.C.
      Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnathpur, District Ranchi.
   9. Additional Collector, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S. Bokaro, District
      Bokaro.
   10.Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro Range, Bokaro, P.O. Bokaro, P.S.
      Bokaro, District Bokaro.
   11.Secretary, Land & Revenue, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Building
      Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Distt. Ranchi
                                                   ...     ... Respondents

                       ---

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate (through Video Conferencing) : Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, Sr. Advocate Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ninad Laud, Advocate Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate Mr. Aditya P. Swain, Advocate Mr. Avinash Mathews, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General Mr. Shray Mishra, AC to AG Mrs. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG Ms. Komal Tiwary, AC to AG For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. SGI Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC Ms. Chandana Kumari, AC to ASGI

---

2025: JHHC: 13075

39/1st May 2025

1. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"i. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of order contained in letter dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure-19), whereby and whereunder it is communicated to the petitioner that the competent authority has decided to revoke the Environmental Clearance ("EC") which was accorded to the petitioner vide letter no. J-11011/137/2006- IA.II(I) dated 21.02.2008 with immediate effect in accordance with Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, with a further direction to the petitioner to apply for Environmental Clearance afresh after clearing all the issues as per the rule;

And / Or ii. Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

Arguments of the petitioner

2. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter can be disposed of on short point of gross violation of principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order contained in letter dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure-19). It is submitted that the Unit involved in this case is an Integrated Steel Plant set up in the District of Bokaro and all necessary clearances including Environmental Clearance (EC) was accorded to the petitioner vide Letter No. J-11011/137/2006-IA.II(I) dated 21.02.2008 and the environmental clearance has been revoked vide impugned order contained in letter dated 20.09.2018.

3. The learned senior counsel has referred to Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 4 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 to submit that the revocation of environmental

2025: JHHC: 13075

clearance is governed by the aforesaid provisions of Act and Rules and prior to revocation, there is a mandate of granting an opportunity of hearing. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the show cause for revocation was issued way back in the year 2012 which culminated in the impugned order dated 20.09.2018.

4. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the hearing in connection with revocation of environmental clearance was granted by Shri Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, New Delhi. He has referred to the minutes of hearing held on 10.09.2018 and has submitted that during the course of hearing Shri Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary was accompanied by a number of officers including one Shri Sundar Ramanathan Scientist 'D'. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that Shri Gyanesh Bharti was under orders of transfer and ultimately, he gave the charge in the afternoon of 12th September 2018.

5. The learned senior counsel further submits that as per the counter- affidavit filed by the Union of India, it has been asserted that Shri Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary had heard the matter and he was relieved from his official duty on 12.09.2018 and he had recorded his observation with respect to personal hearing conducted on 10.09.2018 at 10:00 a.m. before leaving his office; Gyanesh Bharti was succeeded by Ms. V. Vidyavathi who joined the office as Joint Secretary on 12.09.2018 itself.

6. The learned senior counsel has submitted that along with the counter-affidavit, the note-sheet has also been placed on record and as per the note-sheet, the noting has been prepared and signed by Sundar Ramanathan Scientist 'D' on 11.09.2018 who was present during the course of hearing and therefore the statement made in the counter- affidavit that the noting was prepared by Shri Gyanesh Bharti does not appear to be correct. The learned senior counsel has also submitted that the noting having been prepared by another person, other than Shri

2025: JHHC: 13075

Gyanesh Bharti who was to hear and pass an order, the impugned order contained in letter dated 20.09.2018 has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

7. The learned senior counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1959 SC 308 (Gullapalli Nageswara Rao vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation) and has referred to paragraph 15, 17, 32 and 35 of the judgment to submit that the personal hearing is not a mere formality and the authority who has heard the matter has to pass appropriate order. It is submitted that in the present case, the noting of the hearing was also done by another person and not by Shri Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary, who heard the matter.

8. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2011) 2 SCC 258 (Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Assn vs. The Designated Authority And others) paragraph 83 and 84 to submit that the aforesaid judgment passed in the case of Gullapalli Nageswara Rao (supra) has been followed. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1974) 2 SCC 121 (Nawabkhan Abbaskhan vs. State of Gujarat) paragraph 14 to submit that where hearing is obliged by a statute, it has a bearing on the fundamental rights of a citizen and natural justice having not been satisfied, such order is void-ab-initio and a nullity in the eyes of law.

9. The learned senior counsel has submitted that revocation of environmental clearance has serious impact on a running industry and many aspects of the matter which were raised by the petitioner during the course of arguments and the materials placed before the authority have not been taken care of while passing the impugned order of revocation. He submits that not only the natural justice has been violated, but the petitioner has been highly prejudiced by the impugned order and therefore the impugned order be set-aside.

2025: JHHC: 13075

Arguments of the Union of India

10. The learned ASGI representing the Union of India has referred to the counter-affidavit and has in particular referred to paragraph 10 and 11 thereof to submit that the revocation of environmental clearance is by a speaking order wherein the reasons has been duly recorded. He has further submitted that as per the counter-affidavit, the personal hearing was conducted by Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary and he exercise such power after approval of the Additional Secretary in accordance with the prevailing guideline and has further submitted that though Gyanesh Bharti was relieved from duty on 12.09.2018 but he had recorded his observation with respect to the personal hearing conducted on 10.09.2018 and consequently the ingredients of natural justice has been duly complied. He has further submitted that the Joint Secretary was working in his official capacity and having recorded his observations on the file before leaving office, the same cannot be a substantive ground for interfering with the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 since the order was obtained after approval of the Hon'ble Minister in compliance with the laws in vogue.

11. However, during the course of hearing, when the learned ASGI was confronted with the proceeding sheet as annexed with the counter- affidavit, he could not deny that the file noting has been recorded on 11.09.2018 under the signature of Shri Sundar Ramanathan Scientist 'D' who as per his file noting submitted that decision on the matter be taken by 18.09.2018 so as to facilitate the filing of affidavit in the High Court by 20.09.2018. The course of action was also suggested and one of the course of actions was revocation of environmental clearance.

12. Upon this, the learned ASGI has submitted that at best the mater may require fresh hearing and for that a date may be fixed by this Court itself.

Argument of the State

2025: JHHC: 13075

13. So far as the learned Advocate General, State of Jharkhand is concerned, he submits that the order regarding revocation of environmental clearance having been passed by the authority under the Union and accordingly, the state of Jharkhand has nothing to say in the matter.

Findings of this Court

14. After hearing the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court finds that it is not in dispute that after completing the necessary formalities, the petitioner had set-up the Integrated Steel Plant and the environmental clearance was also granted vide letter dated 21.02.2008. However, certain violations were noted with respect to the location and other related issues and consequently, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner seeking to revoke the environmental clearance. This happened way back on 06.06.2012. The matter remained pending and ultimately an order was passed by this Court on 25.08.2018 wherein the petitioner was directed to approach the Union of India with their proposal/application for regularization of the alleged violation without prejudice to their rights (including right, title, interest, possession and nature of property of the petitioner) and advance submissions before the authority pursuant to the show cause notice issued to them vide letter dated 06.06.2012. Ultimately, the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 has been passed which is under challenged in the present proceeding.

15. The grievance of the petitioner in short is violation of natural justice in passing of the impugned order. Paragraph 10 and 11 of the counter- affidavit of the Union of India and materials placed on record reveal that though the matter was heard by Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary on 10.09.2018, but the noting was prepared by Shri Sundar Ramanathan Scientist 'D' on 11.09.2018 and also signed by the Shri Sundar Ramanathan Scientist 'D'. Thus, admittedly the noting on hearing was not prepared by Gyanesh Bharti, the joint Secretary and on the very next day,

2025: JHHC: 13075

that is on 12.09.2018, said Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary gave charge on account of transfer and after his order of transfer, the impugned order was passed.

16. This Court finds that though the hearing was done by Shri Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary, but he neither prepared the noting nor passed the final order to be placed before the concerned Hon'ble Minister for approval and consequently the whole purpose of hearing stood frustrated.

17. This Court is of the considered view that the matter regarding revocation of environmental clearance on the alleged grounds mentioned way back in the show cause issued in the year 2012 is a serious matter and many aspects of the matter are involved. The records do not reveal that the Joint Secretary who heard the matter had the occasion to apply his mind, inasmuch as, even the note was not prepared by him or under his signature and soon after hearing on 10.09.2018 and preparation of note by the aforesaid scientist on 11.09.2018, Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary gave charge on 12.09.2018 in the afternoon. The manner in which the aforesaid impugned order has been passed amounts to gross violation of the principles of natural justice and has certainly caused great prejudice to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and as a result of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order contained in letter dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure-19) is hereby set- aside and the matter is certainly required to be heard afresh by the concerned Joint Secretary.

18. The petitioner, the concerned authorities of the State of Jharkhand and the Pollution Control Board who had participated in the hearing before Gyanesh Bharti, Joint Secretary shall appear before the Joint Secretary on 26th May 2025 at 11.00 am for fresh hearing on the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice issued way back as in the year 2012.

2025: JHHC: 13075

19. Upon their appearance, the Joint Secretary shall hear the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of appearance. It is further observed that it will certainly be open to the petitioner to file their synopsis of arguments/written submissions before the concerned authority so that no point raised during the course of hearing remain untouched while passing the fresh order.

20. It is made clear that this order has been passed only on account of violation of principles of natural justice and this Court has not gone into the merits or otherwise of the proposed action taken by the respondents in the show cause issued in the year 2012 and it will be open to the concerned Joint Secretary to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Since the impugned order has been set-aside, fresh order has to be passed without being prejudiced /influenced by the impugned order.

21. The parties to furnish their e-mail id before the Joint Secretary for various communication including date (s) and time of hearing and also for communication of various orders/directions including the final order.

22. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

23. Pending interlocutory applications are closed.

24. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

"I. An appropriate writ, order or direction upon the Respondents to issue formal consent to operate for the period 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2022, for which the application will all requisites were submitted to the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) on 24.08.2017.

And/Or ii. Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner."

2025: JHHC: 13075

25. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that in view of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4850 of 2018, the petitioner is relegated to the status that the show cause notice issued way back in the year 2012 is yet to be taken to a logical end by passing a fresh order. It has been submitted that the Pollution Control Board had refused to grant the environmental clearance on account of the pendency of show cause notice for revocation of environmental clearance.

26. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that till Joint Secretary passes a fresh order on the aforesaid show cause of the year 2012, the Unit of the petitioner may be permitted to operate with the same rider as was placed while passing order dated 16.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018. The learned senior counsel has submitted that as per the interim order, the petitioner was allowed to operate under the supervisory regulatory control of the respondent-Board, who was to carry out periodical checks as to the adherence by the petitioner to the Pollution Control Acts which was awaiting the final decision. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the petitioner is ready and duty bound to adhere to all the Pollution Control Norms and in order to operate, similar observation may be made by this Court which may continue to be operative subject to passing of the fresh order on the show cause of the year 2012 pursuant to order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4850 of 2018. Learned Advocate General representing the authorities of the State has no objection to the aforesaid relief subject to the same condition as was imposed by this Court.

27. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1873 of 2018 is also disposed of with an observation that the petitioner would continue to run its Unit subject to final decision to be passed by the Joint Secretary and further subject to the condition that the petitioner would operate under the supervisory regulatory control of the respondent-Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board who may carry

2025: JHHC: 13075

out periodical checks as to the adherence by the petitioner to the Pollution Control Board. The aforesaid order will continue to operate only till the decision is taken by the Joint Secretary in terms of order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4850 of 2018.

28. Pending interlocutory applications are closed.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Mukul