Bombay HC dismisses 2 PILs against Lloyds Metals
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
'Can't comment on actions of EC': Centre cites 1988 ruling to reject Opposition demands for Bihar SIR debate
NEW DELHI: The Union government has signaled its unwillingness to allow a debate on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, with Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh invoking a 1988 ruling by former Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jakhar to reject the Opposition's demand. On Tuesday, Harivansh cited Jakhar's December 1988 decision, which barred parliamentary discussion on the functioning or decisions of the Election Commission (EC), stating that the autonomous body's actions cannot be scrutinized in the House. 'You know that I cannot comment upon the actions and decisions of the EC, which is an autonomous body. Never before have I done it, nor will I do it now. Unless you amend the Constitution and bring the EC under parliamentary purview, we cannot discuss its decisions,' Harivansh said, quoting Jakhar's ruling. The Deputy Chairman's remarks came as he dismissed 34 notices submitted by Opposition MPs, most seeking the suspension of business under Rule 267 to urgently debate the SIR in Bihar and other states. Harivansh cited procedural flaws, including incorrect formatting, the sub judice nature of some matters, and the absence of precedent for such discussions. He expressed concern over the frequent misuse of Rule 267, meant for 'rarest of rare' cases, noting that most notices lacked proper citations or pertained to issues outside Parliament's jurisdiction. 'Despite clear rules, some members are using Rule 267 casually, disrupting proceedings when their notices are disallowed,' he said. Highlighting historical data, Harivansh pointed out that very few such notices had been accepted—none between 2000–2004, only four from 2004–2009, one out of 491 during 2009–2014, and just six out of 3,152 between 2014 and the 2025 Budget Session.
Indian Express
34 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Fadnavis heeds public demand; govt to take up cases of elephant Madhuri, Kabutarkhanas
Amid controversy over shutting of Kabutarkhanas (pigeon shelters) in Mumbai and shifting of and elephant from Kolhapur to Vantara in Gujarat, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Tuesday heeded public demands for state government's intervention in these cases. In the case of Madhuri, the female elephant shifted to Vantara in Gujarat from a mutt in Kolhapur district, Fadnavis said that the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court to bring her back to Maharashtra. Even in the case of Bombay High Court's decision on pigeon feeding and order to close Kabootarkhanas, the CM said that if necessary, the state government will present its side at the Supreme Court. Following widespread protests across Kolhapur against the rehabilitation of Madhuri — also known as Mahadevi — to the Vantara facility from the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, Fadnavis convened a meeting with ministers and stakeholders. Vantara is a state-of-the-art animal rescue centre run by Reliance Industries and Reliance Foundation. The controversy arose in July when the Bombay High Court ordered the rehabilitation of the ailing elephant, which was housed in the Jain Mutt in Nandini village in Shirol taluka, based on a petition by animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). The Supreme Court had also upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court subsequently. 'Considering the traditions of Nandani Math and the sentiments of local people, efforts will be made to bring Madhuri back to Math through legal process. Madhuri has been in Nandani Math for the past 34 years, and there is a public sentiment that she should be brought back. Keeping this in mind, the state government will file a review petition. The mutt should also include the state government in its petition. Also, a separate detailed affidavit will be filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the forest department,' said Fadnavis in a statement. Once the elephant is brought back, the state government will set up a team, including a veterinarian, to take care of the elephant and provide necessary assistance, he said. Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar said that the forest department should collect information about all the elephants that were taken out of Maharashtra. Congress MLC Satej Patil said that his party stands with the local people on the issue and believes that the female elephant, who is an integral part of the mutt, should be returned. Former Lok Sabha MP Raju Shetti said that a conspiracy was hatched to snatch the female elephant from the mutt. 'A number of mutts in Maharashtra and Karnataka are getting notices to take away the elephants. This has to be stopped and probed,' said Shetti. On July 30, when the team from Vantara came to transport Mahadevi from Shirol, there was an outpour of grief by local residents, who refused to allow the vehicle to move. In a different case, action against Kabutarkhanas (pigeon shelters) following a Bombay High Court order is likely to get diluted with the CM talking against their immediate closure and directing the civic body to continue controlled feeding to pigeons. On July 31, the Bombay High Court directed the closure of Kabutarkhanas citing health risks involved and based on it, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) covered the pigeon shelter in Dadar. Several Jain organisations objected to it citing their century-old tradition and were supported by minister Mangal Prabhat Lodha. In the wake of the opposition, Fadnavis called a meeting of officials on Tuesday. At the meeting, Fadnavis directed the authorities to conduct a study on the health issues caused by Kabutarkhanas. 'He also mentioned that immediate closure of Kabutarkhanas is not appropriate. Instead, there can be fixed timings for giving them food so control feeding is possible. He also directed the civic body to look for machines to clean pigeon poop, which poses a health risk,' said a government official. 'The hearing on writ petitions filed regarding Kabutarkhanas is ongoing and the state government as well as the BMC will present the side. If necessary, the state government will present its side at the Supreme Court as well,' said the CM. He also directed the BMC to set up a bird shelter. Lodha said after the meeting that the BMC would restore the water connection and remove the cover on the Dadar Kabutarkhana. 'As far as health risks are concerned, CM Fadnavis has strictly directed that all precautions such as cleaning and restricted feeding will be taken. People's health is of utmost importance to us,' he said.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Centre blocks debate on Bihar electoral roll revision, cites EC autonomy; Opposition cries foul
NEW DELHI: The Union government has signaled its unwillingness to allow a debate on the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, with Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman Harivansh invoking a 1988 ruling by former Lok Sabha Speaker Balram Jakhar to reject the Opposition's demand. On Tuesday, Harivansh cited Jakhar's December 1988 decision, which barred parliamentary discussion on the functioning or decisions of the Election Commission (EC), stating that the autonomous body's actions cannot be scrutinized in the House. 'You know that I cannot comment upon the actions and decisions of the EC, which is an autonomous body. Never before have I done it, nor will I do it now. Unless you amend the Constitution and bring the EC under parliamentary purview, we cannot discuss its decisions,' Harivansh said, quoting Jakhar's ruling. The Deputy Chairman's remarks came as he dismissed 34 notices submitted by Opposition MPs, most seeking the suspension of business under Rule 267 to urgently debate the SIR in Bihar and other states. Harivansh cited procedural flaws, including incorrect formatting, the sub judice nature of some matters, and the absence of precedent for such discussions. He expressed concern over the frequent misuse of Rule 267, meant for 'rarest of rare' cases, noting that most notices lacked proper citations or pertained to issues outside Parliament's jurisdiction. 'Despite clear rules, some members are using Rule 267 casually, disrupting proceedings when their notices are disallowed,' he said. Highlighting historical data, Harivansh pointed out that very few such notices had been accepted—none between 2000–2004, only four from 2004–2009, one out of 491 during 2009–2014, and just six out of 3,152 between 2014 and the 2025 Budget Session.
