Section 106 IEA Cannot Fill the Gaps in a Shaky Prosecution Case: Rajasthan High Court Rebukes Investigative Lapses in Murder Trial Accident Claim | Ration Card Cannot Decide a Man’s Age: Punjab & Haryana High Court Forgery in Wife’s Name and Defiance of Court Orders Amount to Contempt: Kerala High Court Limitation | Selectively Active Litigant Cannot Seek Liberal Condonation: Delhi High Court Refuses to Revive 1589 Days’ Delay Mere Unnatural Death Within Seven Months Is Not Dowry Death: Delhi High Court Refuses to Reverse Acquittal in Ruby Hanging Case A Partition Suit Is a Suit for Land: Bombay High Court Rejects Plaint for Want of Clause XII Leave Senior Citizens Act Cannot Be A Shortcut To Reclaim Property Registered In Wife's Name: Bombay High Court State Bound By Its Concession; More Meritorious Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Supreme Court Balances Equity In Rajasthan Grade III Teacher Recruitment Penalty For Delayed Compensation Is The Employer's Personal Fault — Insurance Company Cannot Be Made To Pay For The Employer's Own Default: Supreme Court Bail Cannot Be a Mechanical Exercise in Murder and Atrocities Cases: Supreme Court Cancels Bail Granted on ‘Extraneous Considerations’ Even A Lathi Becomes A Murder Weapon When Repeatedly Aimed At The Head With Bone-Deep Force: Supreme Court Applies The Virsa Singh Test To Demolish The Defence That Lathis Are Not Deadly Weapons Section 149 IPC While Demanding Proof Of Individual Fatal Blow Runs Contrary To The Very Principle Of Vicarious Liability: Supreme Court Statement Under Section 108 Is Substantive Evidence If Voluntary:  Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In Smuggling Case U.P. Anti-Conversion Act Does Not Apply To Interfaith Live-In Relationships Unless Actual Conversion Is Intended: Allahabad High Court Section 480(6) BNSS | If Trial Is Not Concluded Within Sixty Days… Such Person Shall Be Released On Bail: MP High Court Bombay High Court Lifts Stay on Banks’ Fraud Proceedings Against Anil Ambani Preventive Detention Cannot Survive Without Supplying Relied Upon Documents: Karnataka High Court Reasserts Article 22(5) Safeguards Court Subordinate Who Attended Duty Drunk, Abused Advocates & Misbehaved With Judge's Family Gets No Mercy: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Removal From Service XXXVII Rule 3 CPC | Claim Of 24% Interest Without Prima Facie Contract Cannot Be Blindly Accepted In Summary Proceedings : Madras High Court On Summary Suit Defence Re-Testing Under NDPS Act Cannot Be a Tool to Overcome an Adverse Lab Report: J&K High Court Quashes Charge-Sheet After First Report Ruled Out Heroin

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