2023 (11) TMI 625 - SCH - Customs

SC Delegates Pet Coke Quota Reassessment to CAQM; Ministry Gets 3 Months for Import Review; Urgent Crop Burning Report Sought.

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors.

M.C. Mehta Versus Union Of India & Ors. - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) should be directed to reassess and determine the distribution of domestically available petroleum coke (Pet Coke) and the import requirement, including allocation among industries and consideration of industry-specific demands. 2. Whether interim directions concerning allocation, quotas and use of Pet Coke should be left to CAQM, and if so, the appropriate timeframe for CAQM to issue interim and final directions. 3. Whether applications for modification, impleadment, intervention and related reliefs concerning Pet Coke import/enhancement of import quota and allocation should be disposed of by delegating consideration to CAQM. 4. Whether an application seeking directions to allow use of Pet Coke as fuel by a paper industry association is maintainable in light of a notification banning such use. 5. Whether CAQM should be directed to provide an urgent report and steps being taken to address crop burning and resultant air pollution in and around the national capital region. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Delegation to CAQM to reassess Pet Coke availability, import requirement and allocation among industries Legal framework: The Court recognizes the regulatory competence and institutional role of the Commission for Air Quality Management in evaluating matters concerning air-polluting substances and policy measures for their management. Precedent Treatment: No prior judicial precedent is invoked or overruled in the decision; the Court relies on the institutional mandate and practical considerations in delegating the matter. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observes that ground realities have evolved since earlier actions were taken pursuant to a prior report, including changes in industry requirements (e.g., aluminium industry) and overall availability of Pet Coke. Given the complexity of quota allocation across multiple industries and the practical difficulty of continuous judicial monitoring, the Court reasons that CAQM is best placed to undertake a holistic reassessment of domestic availability, necessity of imports, and the inter-se distribution of Pet Coke. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - It is the Court's operative conclusion that regulatory reassessment of Pet Coke allocation and import requirement is within the remit of CAQM and should be delegated to that expert administrative body. Obiter - Observations on specific industry changes are factual and illustrative rather than binding legal dicta. Conclusions: The Court delegates to CAQM the responsibility to reconsider availability of Pet Coke, need for imports, and distribution among industries, subject to hearing all concerned parties. Issue 2 - Interim directions and timeframe for CAQM action Legal framework: The Court acknowledges CAQM's authority to issue interim regulatory directions as necessary in discharge of its mandate to protect air quality. Precedent Treatment: None cited. The Court frames the direction on administrative and pragmatic grounds. Interpretation and reasoning: Considering industry closures and urgent operational impacts, the Court accepts the need for expedited interim measures. It balances the administrative request for a three-month period to complete comprehensive reassessment with the need for quicker interim relief, directing CAQM to consider and, if necessary, pass interim directions within approximately 4-6 weeks, while allowing up to three months for completion of the overall task. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - CAQM may issue interim directions within 4-6 weeks; CAQM is permitted up to three months to complete the broader reassessment. Obiter - The Court's characterization of industry anxieties and closures serves explanatory purposes. Conclusions: CAQM shall prioritize early interim relief (4-6 weeks) and complete the holistic reassessment within a period of up to three months, hearing all affected parties and free from influence of orders of other courts. Issue 3 - Disposition of pending applications concerning import/enhancement of import quota, impleadment and intervention Legal framework: Judicial management of interlocutory applications can include delegation to the appropriate statutory/regulatory authority where technical expertise and administrative competence are required. Precedent Treatment: Not addressed; the decision follows institutional competence rather than invoking case law. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the delegation to CAQM and its comprehensive role, the Court finds it appropriate to dispose of the pending applications (including those for modification, impleadment and intervention) by referring substantive consideration to CAQM. The Court emphasizes that CAQM will hear all concerned parties and may grant interim relief where warranted. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - The pending applications concerning Pet Coke allocation/import/quota and related impleadment/intervention are disposed of by delegating their determination to CAQM. Obiter - Administrative convenience and practical difficulty of judicial oversight are explanatory. Conclusions: The applications are disposed of in terms of referral to CAQM; impleadment and intervention applications are similarly disposed. Issue 4 - Maintainability of application seeking directions to use Pet Coke as fuel where a notification bans such use Legal framework: Administrative notifications prohibiting certain uses of polluting substances have decisive effect on the legality and availability of relief seeking contrary permission. Precedent Treatment: Not invoked; decision grounded in applicability of an existing notification. Interpretation and reasoning: The Amicus curiae noted the existence of a notification barring the use of Pet Coke as fuel. No counsel appeared for the applicant, and the Court infers that the application may have become academic over time. The presence of a statutory or executive prohibition renders the application untenable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An application seeking directions to permit use of Pet Coke as fuel is dismissed where a notification already bans such use and there is no showing to the contrary. Obiter - The notion that time may have rendered the application moot is explanatory. Conclusions: The application seeking directions for use of Pet Coke as fuel is dismissed. Issue 5 - Direction to CAQM to report urgently on crop burning and air pollution control measures in and around the capital Legal framework: CAQM's mandate encompasses measures to control sources of air pollution, including agricultural residue burning; courts can call for reports from competent authorities on imminent public health/environmental risks. Precedent Treatment: None cited. Interpretation and reasoning: With the approach of winter and a heightened risk of air-pollution episodes exacerbated by crop burning, the Court accepts the Amicus' emphasis on urgency and directs CAQM to submit an urgent report detailing measures being taken to control air pollution in and around the capital. The Court schedules limited-listing to monitor this specific compliance. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - CAQM is directed to urgently report steps being taken to control crop-burning-related air pollution in the capital region. Obiter - Factual urgency noted by Amicus is explanatory. Conclusions: CAQM shall submit an urgent report on measures to address crop burning and related air pollution; the matter is listed for limited purpose on the specified date.