Assam HC Quashes CPC Unit Consent Revived Nearly Nine Years After Expiry, Finding No Consent To Operate Had Been Obtained

NOC Foundation, an NGO, filed a public interest litigation under Article 226 challenging the Pollution Control Board, Assam’s order dated 31.12.2022, which extended the validity of a Provisional Consent to Establish (PCTE) for M.M. Carbon Products Pvt. Ltd.’s proposed Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) unit at Amingaon.

The PCTE had been issued on 10.12.2012 and was valid until 09.12.2013; the unit had not commenced operations during that period.

The Board later treated the company’s application for consent to establish as a request to extend the expired PCTE.

The respondents disputed the petitioner’s standing and raised objections concerning disclosure of document sources and alleged conflict of interest.

Under Rule 10(1)(c) of the Gauhati High Court (Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2011, a PIL petitioner must specifically state the source of knowledge of the pleaded facts and the inquiries made to verify them.

Sections 19(3) and 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, Sections 25 and 26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and Sections 3 and 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, formed part of the regulatory framework considered by the Court.

The Court held that the Board had identified no statutory provision authorising it to revive or extend a PCTE after its validity had expired; an application for a fresh consent could not, without legal authority, be treated as an application to extend the expired PCTE.

The petitioner had stated that its information came from public-domain materials, court records and records maintained by the Board. Since the respondents did not allege that the documents were forged or non-existent, the Court found the disclosure requirement satisfied.

It also rejected the conflict-of-interest objection based on Indian Oil Corporation’s sponsorship, finding no demonstrated connection between that sponsorship and the regulatory decisions challenged in the PIL.

On the merits, the Board admitted that the PCTE expired on 09.12.2013, that the company had not commenced operations within its validity period, and that it had not applied for renewal.

The Court found no legal authority permitting the Board to extend the expired PCTE years later or to convert an application for fresh consent into such an extension.

It further considered the Board’s treatment of the unit as an existing CPC unit unsupported by the necessary consent documents. The Board’s 31.12.2022 order was therefore beyond its statutory authority.

The Court held that the petitioner’s lack of a local footprint did not bar a PIL concerning an issue of public importance.

It set aside and quashed the Board’s order dated 31.12.2022 extending the PCTE for the CPC unit, and directed the Environment and Forest Department and the Pollution Control Board to give effect to the consequences of that decision.

The Board was directed to pay costs of ₹1,00,000 for facilities for specially abled girls in care homes; the State may recover the amount from responsible officials.

The judgment was to take effect 30 days after pronouncement, i.e., from 10.12.2026.