{"id":716,"date":"2023-08-08T11:42:37","date_gmt":"2023-08-08T06:12:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=716"},"modified":"2023-08-08T11:42:37","modified_gmt":"2023-08-08T06:12:37","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-rejection-of-request-for-enhanced-allocation-of-raw-pet-coke","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/supreme-court-upholds-rejection-of-request-for-enhanced-allocation-of-raw-pet-coke\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme court upholds rejection of request for enhanced allocation of raw pet coke"},"content":{"rendered":"

M\/S. SANVIRA INDUSTRIES (APPELLANT) Vs. RAIN CII CARBON (VIZAG) LTD. & ORS. (RESPONDENT)<\/strong><\/h1>\n

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3834-3838 OF 2023<\/p>\n

(2JB, S. RAVINDRA BHAT and DIPANKAR DATTA, delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present appeal if preferred by the appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the Delhi High Court, which has interfered with and set aside the minutes of the meeting as well as the decision of the Central Government allocating pet-coke. Pet coke is cheaper and burns hotter than coal and is, therefore, used as a fuel, for several industrial uses. However, tests on imported pet-coke and crude coke evidence that they have extremely harmful effects in as much as their residues thrown into the atmosphere contain Sulphur as well as injurious particulate material.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> The allocation of quantities of raw pet-coke, a residue of the leftover from the refining of petroleum products and sand crude as well as other heavy oils.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is argued on behalf of Sanvira industries and the Government of India, which are in appeal, by special leave<\/a> that the impugned judgment is in error and that the judgment of the single judge is correct. Further, there was a change of criteria adopted in the Public Notice issued by the Government. Contrary to the earlier requirement of certification of production capacity by the Unit, the Public Notice required certification by the State Pollution Control Board Certificate. In this case, the Andhra Pradesh Pollution control board certified Sanvira\u2019s production capacity to be 3,30,000 Metric Tonnes and that figure was correctly considered while making allocation in its favour. Further, in the absence of any challenge to the Public Notice or the certificate issued regarding Sanvira\u2019s production capacity (as 3,30,000 MT as on 09.10.2018), the challenge by Rain 12 CII was untenable and was liable to be rejected. Further, the orders of this court merely clarified that the overall import has to be confined to 1.4 million Metric Tonnes per Annum (MTPA), and the court did not consider Sanvira\u2019s claim that its production capacity was in fact, 3.30 lakh Metric Tonnes.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

In reply Rain CII argued that the Committee had from the very beginning rejected requests for enhancement of allocation on the ground that any capacity increase after 09.10.2018 would not be taken into consideration. In fact, even the Government defended the rejection of Sanvira\u2019s request, before the impugned allocation by contending before the High Court that Sanvira was abusing the judicial process by repeatedly requesting the same relief. Further, all facts pertaining to the alleged increase in capacity prior to 09.10.2018 i.e. the issuance of the Consent to Operate (CTO), the fact that inspection had been conducted by Sanvira\u2019s creditors i.e. State Bank of India on 28.09.2018, were all mentioned in the previous requests for enhancement and even in the two applications filed before the Court. Having regard to all these circumstances, the issuance of the certificate or letter by the Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board (APPCB) almost two years after 09.10.2018, certifying that the second phase of Sanvira\u2019s expansion had increased its capacity by 1,30,000 Metric Tonnes (MT), was not any new development, and in these circumstances the view expressed by the Division Bench in the impugned order was reasonable.<\/p>\n

Held: <\/u><\/strong>\u00a0The court, while dismissing the present appeal, held that, \u201cthis court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the impugned judgment is correct. Barring the fact that a clarification was issued on 04.05.2020, by the APPCB, there was no change in circumstance; the material document to be considered was the CTO, which for the relevant period (i.e. as on 09.10.2018) was 2,00,000 MT per annum, for Sanvira. Even according to it, the claim for enhancement was made later, and the CTO for the increased capacity was issued on 26.12.2019. In these circumstances, the clarification of APPCB, that as on a particular date, the production capacity was 3,30,000 MTPA was of no consequence, because it was the CTO that was considered all along, in all previous meetings. Therefore, the findings and conclusions of the Division Bench cannot be faulted.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

M\/S. SANVIRA INDUSTRIES (APPELLANT) Vs. RAIN CII CARBON (VIZAG) LTD. & ORS. (RESPONDENT) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3834-3838 OF 2023 (2JB, S. RAVINDRA BHAT and DIPANKAR DATTA, delivered by S. RAVINDRA BHAT) Facts: The present appeal if preferred by the appellant, aggrieved by the decision of the Delhi High Court, which has interfered with and set […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":718,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-716","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/716","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=716"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/716\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":719,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/716\/revisions\/719"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=716"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=716"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=716"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}