Environmental-clearance applications returned solely under Vanashakti-I may be reconsidered under Vanashakti-III.

Facts

FACOR’s mining lease for the Katasahi mine had not received Environmental Clearance (EC), and mining operations without EC were disclosed for 2010–11 and 2011–12.

Source reference: pp. 2–8, paras. 2–21

After a change in management following CIRP, FACOR applied for EC in 2022.

Source reference: pp. 2–8, paras. 2–21

SEAC treated the proposal as a violation-category case, issued Terms of Reference, and the proposal proceeded under that framework.

Source reference: pp. 2–8, paras. 2–21

Following the Supreme Court’s judgment in *Vanashakti v. Union of India* (“Vanashakti-I”), dated 16 May 2025, SEAC recommended return of the proposal and SEIAA rejected it on 21 July 2025.

Source reference: pp. 2–8, paras. 2–21

The Supreme Court later recalled *Vanashakti-I* and, in its judgment dated 29 July 2026 (“Vanashakti-III”), directed that applications dismissed, returned or delisted with reference to the earlier stay order or *Vanashakti-I* may be reconsidered.

Source reference: pp. 2–8, paras. 2–21

FACOR challenged the rejection and sought reconsideration of its application.

Source reference: pp. 2–8, paras. 2–21

Issues

Whether, in light of *Vanashakti-III*, FACOR’s EC proposal rejected following *Vanashakti-I* could be reconsidered by the competent authority

Source reference: p. 13, para. 37

Law Applied

In *Vanashakti-III*, the Supreme Court directed that applications dismissed, returned or delisted solely with reference to its stay order dated 2 January 2024 and/or *Vanashakti-I* may be reconsidered by the authority concerned, in light of the judgment’s observations, including its treatment of the prospective quashing of the 2021 Office Memorandum.

Source reference: pp. 15–16, paras. 45–46

Paragraph 80(viii) applies that direction to all EC applications made under the impugned instruments, whether pending or dismissed on those grounds.

Source reference: p. 16, para. 48

The Court also noted that paragraph 79(d) bars fresh applications under those instruments, while paragraph 79 addresses the treatment of existing applications.

Source reference: p. 16, para. 47

The Court did not decide FACOR’s submissions under Sections 31 and 32A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; FACOR asked that those contentions be left open.

Source reference: pp. 10, 13, paras. 31, 37

Reasoning

FACOR’s proposal was returned and rejected because of *Vanashakti-I*, not on an independent assessment of its environmental merits.

Source reference: p. 14, para. 42

That judgment was later recalled, and *Vanashakti-III* expressly provided for reconsideration of applications dismissed or returned on its basis.

Source reference: pp. 14–16, paras. 43–49

SEIAA and SEAC also accepted that FACOR’s delisted application could be revived and reconsidered under paragraph 79(c).

Source reference: p. 17, paras. 50–51

Accordingly, the prior rejection could not stand insofar as it rested on *Vanashakti-I*.

Source reference: no citation

The Court did not direct that EC be granted or determine the proposal’s environmental merits; reconsideration remained subject to the governing law and the competent authority’s assessment.

Source reference: pp. 12–13, para. 36; p. 18, para. 54

Holding

The Court set aside the SEAC recommendation dated 17 June 2025 and the consequential SEIAA communication dated 21 July 2025, insofar as they were based on *Vanashakti-I*.

FACOR was granted liberty to make a fresh representation, for the competent authority to consider the application in accordance with paragraph 79 of *Vanashakti-III* and applicable law.

Source reference: p. 18, para. 54

The Court did not grant EC or decide the merits of the proposal.

Source reference: no citation