Supreme Court to hear T.N.’s appeal against Sterlite reopening on Jan. 8

State had moved apex court against the NGT order in favour of Vedanta

January 04, 2019 01:11 am | Updated 01:11 am IST - NEW DELHI

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear on January 8 the appeal filed by the Tamil Nadu government against the decision of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) to reopen the Sterlite Copper plant at Thoothukudi, which was ordered to be closed down due to environmental pollution.

Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi agreed to list the appeal on the day when Vedanta Limited, which owns the plant, made an urgent mentioning for an early hearing of the State appeal. Senior advocate C.A. Sundaram, for Vedanta, said the plant must be opened quickly as there was a problem with with the storage of sulphuric acid.

The appeal filed by the State, through advocate M. Yogesh Kanna, said the tribunal failed to consider the entire gamut of data, documents and evidence placed on record in the case to show that the plant had “irreversibly polluted the groundwater in and around the Thoothukudi district”. Instead, the tribunal on December 15 order chose to direct the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to pass fresh orders of renewal of consent and issue authorisation to Vedanta Limited to handle hazardous substances.

‘Outside its statute’

The State argued that the tribunal went outside the four walls of the statute governing its functions to appoint a Committee led by former High Court Chief Justice Tarun Aggarwala to prepare a report in the case. It said the NGT was not a constitutional court liked the Supreme Court to employ unbridled powers to constitute a committee like that.

The Committee, having been formed, failed to consider any of the contentions as well as documents while preparing its report. The NGT had in turn relied on the committee report. “The scientific material and the analysis report on water and air pollution have not even been set out or considered. Thus, effectively the NGT assumed a non-existent jurisdiction but having done so, failed to exercise it by considering the facts and evidence while arriving at findings. There are no reasons but mere conclusions in the impugned order. ,” the petition argued.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.