CHENNAI : Although all is not lost for Vedanta’s , which is likely to file a writ petition in Madras High Court in the next couple of days, the systematic way in which the Tamil Nadu government caught the NGT and Sterlite on the wrong foot and potentially delayed the reopening of the smelter unit, is commendable. A total of 15 specific questions raised by Tamil Nadu counsels on maintainability, laid a strong basis for the case. All the questions were dealt with, in detail by the Supreme Court in its judgment, which made critical comments on NGT’s understanding of various Acts and rejected all of Sterlite’s defence. 

Some of the important questions raised by the Tamil Nadu government are:
 Did NGT fail to note that an order passed under section 27 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, is appealable only under section 28 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, before the appellate authority constituted by the State government? 
 Whether the composite appeal under section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, against the order passed under section 27 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, is not maintainable?
Has the Tribunal usurped the functions of the appellate authority, TNPCB, stipulated under section 28 of the Water Act 1974?

 Did NGT fail to note that an order passed by the State government under Section 18 (1)(b) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, is not appealable before the NGT as per the statute? 
Was the Tribunal erroneous in stating that the respondent herein is remediless against the order of closure when the respondent has approached the High Court for various reliefs relating to the closure of the unit?

 Has the Tribunal failed to note that the respondent herein has the remedy to approach the Constitutional Court against the order of the Government of Tamil Nadu, closing the unit of the respondent? 
 Whether the NGT failed to note that the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board’s order on April 9, 2018, rejecting Sterlite’s application for Consent to Operate was “the basic order”. It is a settled legal proposition that the consequential orders cannot be challenged without the basic order being challenged. 

Sterlite CEO still confident
Sterlite’s CEO P Ramnath said the SC order was only based on maintainability and that, “we are confident to fighting it out in Madras High Court on merits.”Sterlite claims that the plant suffered a production loss of 30,000 tonnes of refined copper each month, which resulted in spike in prices of phosphoric and sulphuric acids, adversely affecting the downstream chemical and fertilisers industry.

“Prices of sulphuric acid have shot up from Rs 3,000/tonne to Rs 12,000/tonne and a tonne of phosphoric acid costs Rs 53,000 as compared to Rs 43,000 a tonne before closure of the factory. Import of the metal has seen a surge, while premium on copper has gone up by 10-15 per cent,” Ramnath said. He also expressed concern over the safety of machinery in the factory in the absence of maintenance.