Orissa High Court
M/S Ferro Alloys vs Union Of India & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 3 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24189 of 2025
M/s Ferro Alloys .... Petitioners
Corporation Ltd., & Anr.
Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Sr. Adv.
Along with Associates
-versus-
Union of India & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P. K. Parhi, DSGI
Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI
Order ORDER
No. 03.09.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement.
2. Heard.
3. The Petitioners, by filing this Writ Petition, have
challenged the Minutes of the 74th Meeting of the State
Expert Appraisal Committee ("SEAC") dated 17.06.2025
recommending rejection of the Petitioners' application for
Environmental Clearance ("EC") proposal for the Katasahi
Mining Block, and the consequential letter dated 21.07.2025
issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment
Authority ("SEIAA") rejecting the Petitioners' EC application,
solely on the basis of the Supreme Court's judgment passed
in Vanashakti v. Union of India1. The Petitioners also assail
the earlier Minutes of SEAC dated 20.08.2022 and the Terms
of Reference dated 03.11.2022 issued by SEIAA, to the extent
that they have wrongly treated the Petitioners' application as
a "violation case".
4. Mr. Ashok Ku. Parija, learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners submits that on 01.08.1998, the Petitioners were
granted a mining lease over an area of 13.674 hectors of land
located over two blocks in Katasahi village of Keonjhar
district ("Mine"). The said mining lease has subsequently
been extended till 31.07.2048 under Section 8A of Mines and
Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 ("MMDR
Act, 1957"). Subsequently, the Petitioners underwent a
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ("CIRP") under the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC, 2016"),
culminating in approval of a Resolution Plan by the NCLT,
Cuttack on 30.01.2020. Upon implementation thereof, the
management and control of the Petitioner stood transferred
to a new Resolution Applicant with effect from 21.09.2020.
By operation of Sections 31 and 32A of the IBC, 2016, all
liabilities, penalties and consequences of non-compliances
2025 INSC 718
attributable to the erstwhile management stand permanently
extinguished, and the Petitioner under its new management
is entitled to a "clean slate". The erstwhile management was
operating the Mines without a valid Environmental
Clearance under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 ("EP
Act, 1986"). In consequence thereof, proceedings were
initiated against the said management under Section 15 of
the EP Act, 1986, and compensation was levied and
recovered under Section 21(5) of the MMDR Act, 1957 and as
per the Common Cause v. Union of India2. It is pertinent to
mention that after completion of the CIRP process, the
Petitioner No.1 company was taken over by the new
management. In furtherance of the revival of its operations,
the Petitioners submitted a fresh application dated 09.03.2022
for grant of Environmental Clearance for prospective mining
operations in the Katasahi Mining Block. However, SEAC in
its meeting held on 20.08.2022, wrongly recommended that
the said proposal be processed as a "violation case" and the
SEIAA, accordingly, issued Terms of Reference dated
03.11.2022 to that effect. The Petitioners consistently
represented that no subsisting or continuing violations exist
and, hence, its application ought to be considered afresh.
(2017) 9 SCC 499
Nevertheless, by the impugned proceedings, namely, the
Minutes of the 74th SEAC Meeting dated 17.06.2025 and the
consequential rejection letter dated 21.07.2025 issued by
SEIAA, the Petitioners' EC proposal has been rejected solely
on the purported application of the Supreme Court's
decision in Vanashakti (supra). It is submitted that the said
rejection is wholly contrary to law and based on a manifest
misapplication of Vanashakti (supra), which is absolutely
unapplicable to the facts of the present case.
5. In such view of the matter, let notice be issued to the
Opposite Parties.
6. Learned counsel for the Union of India waives of
notice on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. Let one extra
copy of the Writ Petition be served on him in order to enable
him to take instruction in the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the State waives of notice on
behalf of the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3. Let two extra
copies of the Writ Petition be served on her in order to
enable her to take instruction in the matter.
8. List this matter on 25.09.2025.
9. Heard.
10. As an interim measure, it is directed that
recommendations made in the 74th SEAC Meeting dated
17.06.2025 vide Annexure-34 and the consequential rejection
letter dated 21.07.2025 issued by SEIAA vide Annexure-35 so
far it relates to the Petitioner No.1 is concerned, shall remain
stayed till the next date of listing.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Gitanjali
