INTEGRAL UNIVERSITY

LUCKNOW

SESSION 2024-25
ENVIRRONMENTAL LAWS ASSIGNMENT-I
LAFARGE UMAIM MINING PVT. LTD V. UNION OF
INDIA, [2011] 7. C. 954
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:
NAME: ZEENAT SIDDIQUI DR. M. J. BEG SIR
BRANCH: LLB
YEAR: 2nd YEAR 4rd SEMESTER
ENROLLMENT NO: 2300105467
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to our teacher Dr. M. J. BEG Sir, for
providing me with a wonderful opportunity to make this assignment.

I would also like to thank Ms Preetika Tripathi, Librarian, Faculty of Law, Integral University
for providing me with possible facilities to enhance our learning and providing us necessary
amenities and required support in completion of this assignment.

ZEENAT SIDDIQUII
LLB
 TABLE OF CONTENT
SL TOPIC PAGE NO.
NO
1. INTRODUCTION 04
2. FACTS OF THE CASE 05
3. ISSUES OF THE CASE 06
4. COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND 07
JUDGMENT
5. EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW 09
6. CONCLUSION 10
7. RELATED CASES 11
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 11
 INTRODUCTION
In the case of The Union of India and Others versus M/s Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt Ltd, heard
in the High Court of Meghalaya on 17 June 2014, the court examined a complex dispute
involving the Union of India, represented by various government officials and departments, and
M/s Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt Ltd, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

The recent decision (July 6, 2011) of the Supreme Court of India relating to Lafarge Umiam
Mining Private Limited (“Lafarge”) (T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, Interim
Applications 1868, 2091, 2225 to 2227, 2380, 2568, and 2937 in W.P. No. 202 of 1995) has been
a breath of fresh air in the increasingly murky world of Indian environmental jurisprudence. In
fact, the Ministry of Environment and Forests (“the MoEF”) of the Government of India has
hailed it as a “landmark judgment which has set the stage for further reforms in environmental
governance”.

The facts of the case are complicated, and I would attempt to summarise them in brief. Lafarge
through a subsidiary had set up a two million tonne per year cement plant at Chhatak in
Bangladesh. The limestone for the cement plant was proposed to be delivered from limestone
mines in Nongtrai, which is in the East Khasi Hills district in Meghalaya. The limestone would
be sent across the India-Bangladesh border on a conveyor belt (7.2 km of which was in the
Indian side of the border).
 FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioner, M/s Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt Ltd, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lafarge
Surma Cement Ltd., a public limited company incorporated under the laws of Bangladesh.
Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. Set up an integrated cement manufacturing unit at Chhatak in
District Sunamgonj of Bangladesh. As there is no limestone available in Bangladesh, the raw
materials required for the manufacture of cement are extracted from mines located at Nongtrai
and Shella Villages in the State of Meghalaya, India. The petitioner-company, which holds
mining leases, extracts limestone and shale from the mines, processes it, and exports the same to
the cement plant of Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. In Bangladesh by a 17 kilometers long elevated
belt conveyor (LEBC).

Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. (‘LSCL’ for short) is a company incorporated under the laws of
Bangladesh. It has set up a cross-border cement manufacturing project at Chhatak in Bangladesh,
which inter-alia has a captive limestone mine of 100Ha located at Phlangkaruh, Nongtrai, East
Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya. The mine is leased out in favour of Lafarge
Umium Mining Pvt. Ltd. (‘LUMPL’ for short), which is an incorporated company under the
Indian Companies Act, 1956 and which is a wholly owned subsidiary of LSCL. The entire
produce of the said mine is used for production of cement at the manufacturing plant at Chhatak,
Bangladesh under the agreement/arrangement between Government of India and Government of
Bangladesh. There is no other source of limestone for LSCL except for the captive limestone
mine situated at Nongtrai, East Khasi Hills District in the State of Meghalaya. The limestone as
mined by LUMPL is conveyed from the mine situated at Nongtrai after crushing in a crusher
plant. The limestone mined is conveyed by a conveyor belt to LSCL plant in Bangladesh.
 ISSUES OF THE CASE
The core issue revolved around the status of the 17-kilometer long conveyor belt system that
transported limestone from the mines in India to the cement plant in Bangladesh. The petitioner
argued that the conveyor belt system was part of the manufacturing process and should be
included within the Export Oriented Unit (EOU) premises, making it eligible for duty-free
import. The Union of India, however, contended that the conveyor belt was merely a means of
transportation and should not be included within the EOU premises, thus not eligible for duty-
free import.

Trouble started in 2006 when the Chief Conservator of Forests (“the CCF”) for Meghalaya wrote
to the MoEF stating that he had visited the mining area and noted that the mining site was
surrounded by thick natural vegetation. The CCF expressed the view that the land where the
mine was located was forest land and accordingly Lafarge could not carry out operations without
the necessary forest clearance.

Despite Lafarge’s protest that no forest land had been diverted for mining purposes, the MoEF
directed Lafarge to obtain forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (“the FCA”),
and the interim applications before the Supreme Court arose from Lafarge’s application for
forest clearance.

The essential question before the Court was whether Lafarge had obtained the initial
environmental clearances by misrepresenting the nature of the forest land, and if such were to be
the case, whether the application for forest clearance was being presented as a fait accompli and
should be rejected.
 COURT’S OBSERVATIONS AND JUDGMENT
The court observed that the Lafarge Surma Cement Ltd. Of Bangladesh had obtained approval
from the Government of India to set up a 100% subsidiary company for the mining and export
operations. The court also noted that the petitioner had made a significant investment in the
project, including the capital cost of the long belt conveyor system, based on the Letter of
Permission granted by the Board of Approval.

The court found that the Board of Approval’s decision to withdraw the exemption granted earlier
to the petitioner was quashed by the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge also set aside
the demand notice issued by the appellants and restrained them from giving effect to the Board
of Approval decision dated 23.09.2004.

In conclusion, the court upheld the learned single Judge’s decision, thereby favoring M/s Lafarge
Umiam Mining Pvt Ltd. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the doctrine
of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on its promise that has been
relied upon by another to their detriment. The court also noted the significant investment made
by the petitioner based on the assurances and permissions granted by the Government of India.

The judgment is very important for two reasons; firstly it clarifies the extent of judicial review in
a situation where environmental clearances had already been granted and where questions are
subsequently raised with respect to the validity of the process, and secondly it lays down a set of
comprehensive guidelines for future projects that involve both forest and environmental
clearances. It would not be possible to examine both aspects in one post, so this post will deal
with the Court’sdetermination on judicial review. My next post would examine the guidelines
that the Supreme Courthas laid down for future projects, in particular, the interesting concept of
a national environmental regulator.
Going back to the question of whether the project involved the use of forest land, and as such
whether Lafarge had misrepresented the nature of the land in obtaining the various clearances,
Lafarge maintained that both the KHADC and the DFO had certified that the land for the mine
did not involve diversification of project land and therefore there was no obligation on them to
obtain clearance for forest land. Their opponents, specifically the Amicus Curiae appointed by
the Court, and the counsel for the Shella Action Committee argued that the MoEF’s decision was
vitiated by misinformation and non-application of mind and that the Court should order that the
mines be closed. The SAC also argued that the forest cover in the mining area was tropical
deciduous forest, and in terms of India’s Forest Policy, 1988, no development could be permitted
in such forests.

The Court held that the protection of the environment is an ongoing process and therefore
“across-the-board” principles cannot be applied. Courts would have to examine the facts of each
case on whether the project should be allowed or not. The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine
would apply in cases of deciding whether a governmental authority had erred in granting
environmental clearance.

The court placed great emphasis on the rights of locals to determine the value of conservation of
the environment and the KHADC’s letters as well as subsequent findings that the Lafarge project
resulted in significant gains for the local community were to the Court’s mind, evidence that the
local community had taken a conscious decision to support the Lafarge project.
 EXTENT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Court held that the constitutional doctrine of proportionality should apply to environmental
matters as well and therefore decisions relating to Stilization should be judged on the well
established principles of natural justice, such as whether all relevant factors were taken into
account at the time of coming to the decision, whether the decision was influenced by extraneous
circumstances, and whether the decision was in accordance with the legislative policy underlying
the laws that governs the field. If these circumstances were satisfied, the decision of a
government authority (in this case the MoEF) would not be questioned by the Court.

On the basis of these principles, the Court concluded that the accusations of misrepresentation
and fraud by Lafarge were unfounded. The Court also concluded against the contention that there
had been no application of mind on the part of the MoEF. Lafarge was allowed to continue
mining operations.

The importance of this section of the judgment is that the Court lays down a clear principle that
if a project developer complies with the specified procedure for obtaining environmental
clearances and there is evidence on record that the entity granting the clearance had done so after
due consideration, such clearances would not be reversed to the prejudice of the project
developer. This gives some much needed stability to the environmental clearance process and
both project developers and environmental activists would definitely benefit from this consistent
approach.

My post next week will examine the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for future
projects looking for environmental and forest clearance.
 CONCLUSION

The conclusion of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, [2011] 7 S.C.R. 954, is a
landmark judgment in the context of environmental law in India. The Supreme Court of India
dealt with a case involving environmental clearances for the mining of limestone in the Khasi
Hills of Meghalaya, which were critical for the operations of Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd.
(Lafarge).

In its judgment, the Supreme Court concluded as follows:

1. Environmental Clearance: The Court held that Lafarge’s mining activities required prior
environmental clearance under the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. It emphasized that the
requirement for prior environmental clearance was mandatory under the law, especially when the

project involves the extraction of minerals from a sensitive ecological area .

2. Non-Compliance: The Court found that Lafarge had commenced mining operations without
obtaining the necessary environmental clearance, which was a violation of the law.

3. Environmental Impact: The Court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that any mining
activities did not have a detrimental impact on the environment, particularly in ecologically
sensitive areas such as the Khasi Hills.

4. Directions to the Union of India: The Court directed the Union of India to examine the matter
and ensure that proper procedures were followed for environmental clearance in such cases. The
Court emphasized the need for comprehensive environmental assessments and adherence to the
rule of law to protect India's natural resources.

5. Balanced Approach: However, the Court also noted that the project was essential for the
economic development of the region and that such projects must be balanced with environmental
protection. It directed that an appropriate review of the environmental conditions and measures
be undertaken to ensure the sustainable operation of the project.
 RELATED CASE LAWS
 NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN ETC. ETC. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
[2000] Supp. (4) S.C.R. 94

 T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2005]

REFERENCES
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, DR. S. C. TRIPATHI
 COMPANY LAW, AVATAR SINGH
 [Link]
 [Link]