Goa Foundation (Iii) v. Union Of India .

Factual and Procedural Background

By an order dated 21-2-2005, the Court directed the Government of India to issue an order within ten days requiring closure of defaulting units operating in violation of environmental laws. State Governments were directed to comply with the Central Government’s statutory directions. The Government subsequently issued an order dated 2-3-2005 under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. [1]

The applicants were among the units listed by the Central Government as operating in violation of the notification dated 27-1-1994. They approached the Court after being directed to close under the order dated 2-3-2005, which required State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to close defaulting units immediately. [2]

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether closure under the order dated 2-3-2005 should be suspended pending consideration of the affected units’ applications, including their claims that environmental-clearance applications remained pending. [2][3][4][5]
2. Whether the pendency of these proceedings prevented the competent authorities from processing and deciding environmental-clearance applications. [6]

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants’ Submissions

• The applicants stated that their applications for environmental clearance under the 1994 notification were pending before the State Pollution Control Boards or the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF). [3]
• Counsel for other affected units explained that some applications had been filed but could not be registered because of insufficient time. These included applications by Hetro Labs, Hetro Drugs and Cirex Pharmaceuticals. Mr K.K Venugopal further submitted that some applications could not even be mentioned because arguments were continuing before the seven-Judge Constitution Bench. [7]

MoEF’s Submission

• The Additional Solicitor General stated that only 44 completed applications were pending with MoEF, but could not identify which of the applicants’ applications were included among them. [3]

Table of Precedents Cited

Court’s Reasoning and Analysis

The Court required further responses in light of the applicants’ assertion that clearance applications were pending and MoEF’s inability to identify which applicants fell within the 44 completed applications awaiting consideration. It directed MoEF to respond and permitted the petitioner to reply, rather than finally determining the applicants’ entitlement to clearance or exemption from closure. [3][8]

Initially, the Court directed that the applicant units should not be closed pursuant to the order dated 2-3-2005. After considering counsel’s submissions about applications that could not be registered or mentioned, it stayed the operation of that order until the next hearing, expressly relying on the totality of the circumstances and procedural background. [4][7][5]

The Court also clarified that the pending proceedings did not prevent MoEF or the State Pollution Control Boards from processing and deciding clearance applications according to the applicable rules and regulations. [6]

Holding and Implications

The operation of the order dated 2-3-2005 was STAYED until the next hearing. The Court also expressly protected the applicant units against closure under that order. [4][5]

MoEF was directed to file responses within three weeks; the petitioner could also reply within that period. Rejoinder-affidavits could be filed within two weeks thereafter. The matter was to be listed after five weeks, with pleadings completed meanwhile. [8][9]

The direct effect was interim protection from the closure order while clearance applications could continue to be decided under the governing rules. The order articulated no new legal principle and did not finally resolve the applications. [5][6][9]