CHENNAI: In its judgement dismissing the plea moved by Vedanta Limited challenging the state government decision to close the Sterlite plant in Thoothukudi, the Madras High Court observed that economic considerations can have no role to play while deciding the sustainability of a high polluting industry.
"Courts have held that when the economy is pitted against the environment, environment will reign supreme...., the only consideration would be with regard to safeguarding environment for posterity and remedying the damage caused," observed the bench of justices TS Sivagnanam and V Bhavani Subbaroyan while dismissing all the petitions filed by Vedanta Limited.
The 815-page judgement pointed out all the deviations made by the company in complying with the orders of the environmental agencies.
The court also came down heavily on the petitioner's contention that the state government has malafide intentions, "If the petitioner states that the TNPCB's action is mala fide it should establish as to
which officer or which authority of the regulator acted mala fide. Thus, mere use of the expression mala fide would not make the decision a mala fide exercise of power."
Also, the court pointed, "If the order of closure is for political considerations, then it needs to be examined as to how the petitioner was able to secure approval from the state government in 14 days for establishing this hazardous industry in Thoothukudi when they were unable to do so in two other states in India."
The division bench also observed on the report submitted by the Supreme Court-appointed expert committee where it was suggested that the existing waste management practices of the petitioner are not in compliance with environmental standards. The solid hazardous waste generated also required to be properly managed, particularly in terms of available space and infrastructure and it would be inadvisable to consider expansion of the unit at that stage.
The bench also pointed out that there was enough material available indicating the company had commenced expansion activities without prior permission.
"For 20 long years, the petitioner has been issued such orders, be it a closure order or a renewal order. The petitioner was closed twice by TNPCB and thrice by the Court. Non-compliance, violation, partial compliance or total disregard to the conditions would empower the Board to take action against the licensee and such action can be an action to stop, action to close down till the breach is remedied, action to close permanently in cases, which warrant such action and action for permanent closure and removal. Therefore, the impugned orders cannot be stated to be devoid of reasons, as the Government Order while endorsing the closure order of the Pollution Control Board, directs permanent closure and sealing of the unit and has referred to the mandate cast on the State by the Constitution and bearing in mind the larger public interest," said the high court.