T.N. files caveat in Supreme Court

The Tamil Nadu government on Thursday filed a caveat in the Supreme Court apprehending that Vedanta Limited may move the top court against the closure and disconnection of power supply to its copper smelter plant in Thoothukudi by the State, following widespread protests which led to 13 deaths in a police firing.

Advocate Yogesh Kanna, for the State government, moved the caveat as precautionary measure to prevent the apex court from passing any orders without first hearing the version of the State.

The closure order said the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) did not renew the consent to operate to Vedanta in an April 9, 2018 order.

Subsequently, on May 23, the Board also issued directions for closure and disconnection of power supply to the plant. The supply was cut on May 24.

The Board’s order is not detailed. It merely cites Article 48A of the Constitution, which says that “the State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”.

The government said the closure of the plant is required in the “larger public interest.” The State government said it “endorses” the Board’s order under Section 18 (1) (b) of the Water Act of 1974. It directed the TNPCB to “seal the unit and close the plant permanently.”

Closure and disconnection of power to an industry under Sections 33A and 31A of the Water Act and Air Act — as quoted in the government order — should be backed by specific reasons and grounds. The order should fix a specific violation and subsequent liability on the industry concerned.

As of now, the government order for closure does not contain the grounds. However, the TNPCB can take its evidence against Vedanta to National Green Tribunal or a lower court.

The courts have held that no “corrective steps” can be taken by a Pollution Control Board under Section 31A and 33A “without issuing a show cause notice and without giving an opportunity to the alleged violator to rectify the defects detected during an inspection of the premises carried out in accordance with the relevant rules.”

Any deviation from procedure would make the act of closure “vulnerable to invalidation on the grounds of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.”

The Supreme Court has categorically held in its Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action case judgment that a Pollution Control Board can order closure of any industry or stop basic facilities to it only if such a direction is necessary for effective implementation of the provisions of the Water or Air Act.