Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) dismissed two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging the expansion of mining capacity of a private iron ore company from 3 MTPA to 10 MTPA and then 60 MTPA, holding that the petitioner lacked bona fides and locus to maintain the PILs. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, a resident of Chhattisgarh, had no genuine public interest connection to the mining activities in Maharashtra’s Gadchiroli district. Citing Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, the Court held that “Public Interest Litigation should not be ‘publicity interest litigation’ or ‘politics interest litigation’ or the latest trend ‘paise income litigation.’” Both PILs were dismissed as non-maintainable.
Facts
Two PILs were filed questioning environmental clearances granted to a private company for expanding its iron ore mining capacity—first from 3 MTPA to 10 MTPA (2023 clearance) and then from 10 MTPA to 60 MTPA (ToR issued in 2024). The petitioner, a former mining contractor from Chhattisgarh, alleged violations of Environment Protection Act, 1986; EIA Notification, 2006; and OMs dated 11 April 2022 and 7 July 2021 issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. He claimed the expansion was illegal due to failure to secure proper environment clearance after 2011 and sought reversion of production capacity.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner had the requisite locus to file a PIL in Maharashtra being a resident of Chhattisgarh with no direct link to the mining area.
- Whether the environmental clearance granted to the private company violated the EIA Notification of 2006 and the OMs of 2021 and 2022.
- Whether the grant of clearance despite past violations constituted unjust enrichment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- The mining company continued operations without valid clearance from 2011 to 2022.
- Grant of Terms of Reference (ToR) and Environmental Clearance (EC) under the 2006 EIA Notification was illegal.
- Under OM dated 11 April 2022 and SOP dated 7 July 2021, capacity expansion beyond 50% was impermissible.
- The company had violated the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and even pleaded guilty in criminal proceedings.
- The public hearing was improperly held 150 km from the mining site, denying proper participation of affected locals.
- Courts must protect the interest of the public, citing Adv. Aires Rodrigues v. Communidate of Serula and Indian Banks’ Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents (Union of India, Maharashtra State, and the private company) opposed maintainability on grounds of lack of locus:
- The petitioner had no personal stake or connection to Gadchiroli.
- The petition was luxury litigation with no demonstrated legal injury.
- Public hearings were held lawfully at District HQ due to Naxal threats.
- All expansion procedures followed the EIA Notification, 2006, and SOPs.
- The company had already paid fines, bank guarantees, and was convicted for the earlier violation, which had been cured before clearance.
- The petitioner had no standing to interfere, and cited Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. and Mrinall Shashi Shekhar Chakravorty v. Election Commission of India to show abuse of PIL mechanism.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined the scope of public interest litigation under Article 226 and Bombay High Court PIL Rules, 2010. It emphasized that PILs must be filed by persons acting bona fide and having sufficient interest. The Court highlighted the dangers of misuse through PILs that are motivated by vendetta, publicity, or personal interests, reiterating the caution laid down in Ashok Kumar Pandey.
Precedent Analysis
- Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. – PILs cannot be used for private grievances; must have a clean heart and clean hands.
- Mrinall Shashi Shekhar Chakravorty v. Election Commission of India – Public interest litigation must be backed by genuine public injury and not luxury litigation.
- Adv. Aires Rodrigues v. Communidate of Serula – Distinguished on facts; concerned community land and local standing.
- Indian Banks’ Association v. Devkala Consultancy Service – Not applicable here as petitioner failed to establish interest or knowledge about the public issue.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court concluded that:
- The petitioner lacked locus standi as he was a resident of another state, with no demonstrated injury or even participation in the public hearing.
- There was no evidence of genuine public interest; no local residents had raised similar grievances.
- The entire grievance appeared to be motivated and speculative, filed without clean intent.
- The public hearing was legally conducted considering Naxalite threat, and all statutory processes including penalties and bank guarantees had been followed before clearance.
- Citing Ashok Kumar Pandey, the Court held that judicial process should not be polluted by PILs filed to seek publicity or settle scores.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court dismissed both PILs, holding them to be non-maintainable for want of locus and bona fides. It held that the petitioner had failed to show any direct injury or even a semblance of public interest. The Court reiterated that PIL is a serious constitutional remedy and must not be abused.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the strict boundaries within which Public Interest Litigations must operate. It underscores that:
- PILs cannot be filed by individuals with no local connection or demonstrable injury.
- Courts are not venues for speculative or vindictive litigations.
- Statutory environmental procedures, if followed with compliance, cannot be lightly invalidated on procedural grounds by unrelated parties.
Referred Judgments and Relevance
- Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B. (2004) 3 SCC 349 – Laid down standards for PIL maintainability, emphasized bona fides and public interest.
- Mrinall Shashi Shekhar Chakravorty v. Election Commission – Reiterated principles against luxury litigations and abuse of PIL.
- Adv. Aires Rodrigues v. Communidate of Serula – Distinguished for being fact-specific to Portuguese law and Goa land rights.
- Indian Banks’ Association v. Devkala Consultancy – Referred but found inapplicable as the petitioner failed to prove interest or connection.
FAQs
1. Can a non-resident of a state file a PIL concerning environmental clearances granted in that state?
No. The Bombay High Court ruled that a non-resident with no connection to the area or the issue lacks locus to file a PIL in another state.
2. What is required to prove public interest in a PIL?
The petitioner must show a bona fide connection, direct or indirect injury to public rights, and a clean objective. Mere curiosity or vendetta is insufficient.
3. Are administrative orders like SOPs and Office Memorandums enforceable like statutes in PILs?
No. The Court observed that OMs and SOPs are administrative instructions without statutory force and cannot override statutory environmental clearance procedures if otherwise complied with.
