Expansion Without Public Hearing Illegal: Supreme Court 2016 in Electrotherm vsPatel Orders Fresh Consultation Under EIA 2006. The Supreme Court in M/sElectrotherm (India) Ltd. vs Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai & Ors examined whetherexpansion of steel plant could be approved without fresh public hearing. The Court on02.08.2016 held that EIA Notification 2006 mandates public consultation for expansionincreasing capacity and pollution load. The Court set aside exemption granted by ExpertAppraisal Committee. However considering compliance and investment, Court orderedpost-decisional hearing instead of closure. This blog explains Electrotherm on publichearing, EC process, and judicial review.
Facts: Threefold Expansion; Water Use Triples; No Fresh Hearing. The SupremeCourt in Electrotherm para 15: In 2008 EC, Pig Iron 350 TPD, Power 24 MW, Water 650M³/Day. In 2010 EC: Sponge Iron 24000 MTPM, DI Pipes 16000 MTPM, Pig Iron 23100MTPM, Water 2165 M³/Day.The Supreme Court in Electrotherm para 15: "Pollution loadwould naturally be of greater order...water requirement had also risen from 650 M³/Dayto 2165 M³/Day".The Supreme Court in Electrotherm para 16: Expert Committeeexempted public hearing citing "no additional land requirement". But ignored increasedwater and pollution.Gujarat High Court set aside EC and ordered stoppage of entireplant.A common mistake EAC makes is granting exemption under Section 7(ii)mechanically. Electrotherm says community stake must be considered.Lafarge Principles: Public Hearing As Mandatory Forum. The Supreme Court inElectrotherm para 18: Relied on Lafarge Umiam Mining (2011) 7 SCC 338 para122(xiv).The Supreme Court in Electrotherm: "Public consultation...provides an effectiveforum for any person aggrieved by any aspect of any project to register and seekredressal".The Supreme Court in Electrotherm para 19: Judicial review test: "Have allrelevant factors been taken into account? Is decision consistent with sustainabledevelopment?"The Supreme Court in Electrotherm: Draft amendment to allow <50%expansion without hearing was rejected in Dec 2009. Hence EC Jan 2010 cannot rely onit.In our practice, post-Lafarge, public hearing is non-negotiable for Category A projectsand major expansions.Remedy: Post-Decisional Hearing Instead Of Closure. The Supreme Court inElectrotherm para 20: Noted CPCB affidavit dated 07.07.2014 that "mostrecommendations...complied with".The Supreme Court in Electrotherm para 20: "We donot deem it appropriate to order closure of entire plant". Directions: Conduct publicconsultation/public hearing in 3 monthsIf negative, scale down to 2008 EC levelsIfpositive, 2010 EC becomes fully operativeThe Supreme Court in Electrotherm para 19:Cited Lafarge para 119 on balancing equities and policy choices.Lesson for Regulators:Follow EIA 2006 strictly. For Project Proponents: Invest after EC, not before. For Public:Participate in hearings as pollution affects community resources like water.
Conclusion
Electrotherm vs Patel establishes that eia notification 2006 public hearing expansionelectrotherm law requires fresh consultation for major expansion. Supreme Court02.08.2016 held exemption illegal but molded relief to avoid closure. Court orderedpost-decisional public hearing within 3 months. As the law stands, public participationis mandatory under EPA 1986. For industry and MoEF, this judgment clarifies thatincreased capacity = increased public stake. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Electrothermupholds environmental democracy while protecting legitimate investments.
