HC Junks PIL Against Lloyds' Iron Ore Expansion In Gadchiroli, Flags Petitioner's Bona Fides

Time of India

20-06-2025

1
2
3
4
Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court recently dismissed two clubbed public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the expansion of iron ore mining by Lloyds Metals and Energy Limited in Gadchiroli.
The court pointed out that the petition was filed by a person with no stakes in the matter, lacked locus standi and was acting without bona fides.
A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Abhay Mantri rejected the pleas filed by Samarjeet Chatterjee, resident of Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and co-petitioner Vishesh Bhatpalliwar from Gadchiroli. The bench stated there was no substantive connection between the petitioners and affected population.
It also noted no local resident or tribal community had objected to the environmental clearance (EC) and questioned the motive and timing of the PIL.
"Merely claiming to be a social servant does not give the petitioner the locus standi to filed a PIL as he has not shown any nexus with the cause of such people, who live almost 300km away from his place of residence and that too in another state (Chhattisgarh)," the bench noted.
The judges added the fact that the petitioner did not question the earlier public hearing, conducted at the district headquarters in 2005-06, and is now questioning the subsequent public hearing, sufficiently demonstrates he lacks bona fides in the matter of preferring the PIL.
The HC also observed that it failed to understand the petitioner's source of funds for carrying out the legal battle, especially if he has an annual income of Rs4-5 lakh.
The court noted that the petitioner claimed he gave up his profession as a mine contractor and travelled all the way to Maharashtra from Raipur in Chhattisgarh, where he is based. Aheri, where the plant is located, is more than 200 km from his place, said the court.
Chatterjee, a former mining contractor, challenged the environmental clearances (EC) granted to Lloyds Metals in two stages — from 3 metric tonnes per annum (MTPA) to 10 MTPA (2023) and then to 16 MTPA (2024).
He alleged violations of EIA norms, improper public hearing, and non-compliance with environmental regulations. He sought to quash the terms of reference and clearances issued in 2022 and 2023 on grounds of procedural lapse under office memorandums dated April 2022 and July 2021 SOPs.
However, the court noted the public hearing at the Gadchiroli district headquarters on October 27, 2022, was legally valid, widely publicised, and attended by a large number of local representatives and citizens.
It also cited the Maoist threat in the mining zones for not conducting the hearing at the actual site.
The bench acknowledged that Lloyds earlier operated without a fresh environment clearance post-2011, but later complied fully with the 2021 standard operating procedure, paid a ₹5.48 crore penalty, furnished a ₹26.64 crore bank guarantee. The environment clearance for 10 MTPA was then granted on February 24, 2023, followed by the terms of reference for 16 MTPA on November 26, 2024.
Calling such PILs "a tool for personal vendetta" and not a genuine public interest action, the court invoked Supreme Court rulings to underscore the need to curb misuse of PILs.
Lloyds, through counsel Raghav Bhandakkar, argued it created 2,000 jobs and contributed ₹2,000 crore in royalties to the District Mineral Fund, and 80% project execution was already complete. Finding no merit in the plea, the court refused to interfere with the environmental approvals and dismissed both PILs.
**Key Takeaways from HC Verdict**
- Petitioner had no local standing or public interest.
- Lloyds Metals paid ₹5.48 crore penalty for prior EC lapse.
- Environmental clearance for 10 MTPA upheld as per SOP
- Public hearing held as per guidelines, no irregularity found.
- 2,000 jobs and ₹2,000 crore royalty cited as development impact.
- Relied on SC rulings to warn against "luxury litigation."
- No locals objected to project