Facts of the Case

M/s Balasore Alloys Limited held a mining lease over 64.463 hectares of non-forest land at Kaliapani, Sukinda, Jajpur District, Odisha, used for captive chrome-ore mining feeding its ferro-chrome plants at Balasore and Sukinda, together employing over 2,000 people and representing investment of hundreds of crores of rupees.

The area, treated as non-forest from the start of mining in 2000 until 2015, was later found by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to require forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, following a change in its recorded land classification. After protracted proceedings — including an earlier round of litigation, payment of Net Present Value (NPV) of over Rs. 17.39 crore, and grant of Stage-I forest clearance in 2016 with 32 conditions — the petitioner's mining operations were suspended in 2022 pending Stage-II clearance.

The Odisha State Government had, by December 2022, recommended final approval to the Central Government, reporting full compliance with Stage-I conditions, but the MoEF&CC continued to raise queries (including about a six-year delay in submitting the compliance report and about penal NPV) without granting Stage-II clearance. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the Union to grant Stage-II clearance in a time-bound manner, and alternatively sought permission to transport already-excavated ore.

This is an environmental and mining-law dispute under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; the reference to GST in the arguments was only the petitioner's passing submission that resumed mining would generate revenue for the State by way of royalty, District Mineral Fund contributions, and State GST — it was not an issue the Court was asked to, or did, decide.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner had substantially complied with the conditions of Stage-I forest clearance so as to be entitled to a mandamus directing grant of Stage-II forest clearance.
  2. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to transport minerals already excavated and lying stacked, in the absence of Stage-II clearance.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioner had complied with all 32 conditions of the Stage-I forest clearance, paid the required NPV and compensatory afforestation levies, and the State Government had itself recommended final approval to the Centre in December 2022 — leaving no impediment to grant of Stage-II clearance except bureaucratic delay.
  • Since a large part of the mining block (61.968 out of 64.463 hectares) was already broken-up area with excavated ore in stock, the petitioner should be permitted to transport the already-excavated Chromite Ore for use in its captive plants, relying on Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Mineral Conservation Rules, 2016 and the Supreme Court's ruling in Chowgule and Company v. Goa Foundation.
  • Non-grant of clearance, despite full compliance, was arbitrary and caused serious hardship to the company and its employees.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Central Government argued that the State's compliance report on Stage-I conditions was submitted after a delay of over six years, that clarifications sought from the State remained pending, and that calculation of penal NPV for the delay period was still underway, so final approval could not yet be granted.
  • The State Government argued it had recommended approval and was awaiting the Centre's decision, while also stating that penal NPV was under process of calculation for the period of alleged violation.
  • Both sets of respondents relied on the Supreme Court's earlier order dated 06.06.2022 holding that the petitioner could not continue mining or excavation without valid forest clearance merely under the guise of a status-quo order.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found no dispute on the factual matrix — Stage-I clearance had been granted, conditions largely complied with, NPV paid, and the State had recommended final approval — and held there was no impediment on the part of the Central Government to grant Stage-II clearance.
  • Applying settled principles on the scope of mandamus (citing K.S. Jagannathan, M.R. Appa Rao, S.B. Vora, and National Textile Corporation), it held that continued inaction by the authorities, despite the petitioner discharging its statutory obligations, warranted issuance of a writ of mandamus.
  • It directed the respondent authorities to grant the necessary Stage-II forest clearance for the 64.463-hectare mineral block expeditiously, by complying with all formalities without further hindrance, and disposed of the writ petition with no order as to costs.
  • However, it declined the alternative prayer to permit transport of already-excavated ore, holding that, absent Stage-II clearance, any removal of minerals would violate the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Supreme Court's earlier order of 06.06.2022.

Important Clarification

This is a forest-clearance and mining-law ruling under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; it does not decide any GST issue. The single mention of State GST in the petitioner's submissions was simply part of an argument that resuming mining would benefit State revenues generally — the Court's actual reasoning and direction concerned only forest clearance, not tax.

Sections Involved

  • Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – Section 2 (prior approval for use of forest land for non-forest purpose)
  • Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 – Rule 8
  • Mineral Conservation Rules, 2016 – Rule 12(1)(gg)
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India – writ of mandamus

Decision – In Favour of

Decided substantially in the petitioner's favour — a mandamus was issued directing the Central Government to expeditiously grant Stage-II forest clearance — though the alternative prayer for permission to transport already-excavated ore pending that clearance was refused.

Case Details

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. W.P.(C) No. 14204 of 2023 (M/s Balasore Alloys Limited & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.). Coram: Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Dr. B.R. Sarangi and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Raman. Date of Hearing: 30.10.2023; Date of Judgment: 03.11.2023.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.