Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal, Upholds Restrictions on Import and Allocation of Raw Petroleum Coke

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the restrictions on the import and allocation of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC). The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar Datta, dismissed the appeal challenging the allocation criteria for RPC and affirmed the concerns raised by the Environment Pollution Control Authority (EPCA) regarding the environmental impact of calcined petroleum coke (CPC) usage.

The case revolved around the import and allocation of RPC, with the EPCA raising serious concerns about the highly polluting nature of this fuel. The EPCA's report, submitted to the court, emphasized the need to control the usage of pet coke in the country, particularly in industries, to mitigate pollution caused by fugitive emissions.

The Supreme Court took note of the EPCA's recommendations, which suggested that the calciner industry should be allowed to import pet coke for use as feedstock rather than fuel, as anode grade pet coke was not readily available in sufficient quantities in the country.

The judgment also highlighted the importance of accurate estimation of import capacities and utilization of RPC. The figures provided by the industry itself were considered, including the capacity mentioned in the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued by the concerned Pollution Control Board. The guidelines for the regulation and monitoring of imported pet coke were also taken into account.

The court observed that the CTO issued by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board recorded the total capacity of a particular unit, and any increase in capacity after the court's order dated October 9, 2018, would not be considered for allocation purposes. The court emphasized the significance of the CTO as the material document for determining allocation criteria.

The judgment further addressed the interpretation of a public notice issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), which specified the requirement of a State Pollution Control Board certificate indicating the unit's capacity as of October 9, 2018. The court clarified that the certificate from the Pollution Control Board was crucial and that any claims of increased capacity after the specified date would require clearance from the court for consideration in allocation.

The Supreme Court's decision aligns with the government's consistent position that any capacity added after the court's order should not be considered for RPC allocation. The court's dismissal of the appeal affirms the allocation criteria based on the total production capacity as of October 9, 2018, as determined by the court.

Date of Decision: July 3, 2023

M/S. SANVIRA INDUSTRIES   vs RAIN CII CARBON (VIZAG) LTD. & ORS.   

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/03-Jul-2023-Sanvira-Industries-Vs-Rain-Carbon.pdf"]

Latest Legal News