The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack Bench has clarified that Environmental Clearance addresses project appraisal and approval, while Consent to Operate governs actual operation under Sections 25/26 of the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air Act. Where both are required, the permissions operate cumulatively. The Court held that Amalgamated Environmental Clearance dated 10 June 2026 could not retrospectively rewrite the Consents to Operate (CTO) dated 31 March 2026. Nevertheless, the Board could not disregard it when considering the subsequent enhancement request.
The Court declined to treat the recognition of 60,000 TPA as an accidental transcription. The two complexes’ configuration, regulatory history, furnace status, land boundaries and operational compliance required examination by the competent authority. Article 226 did not permit the Court to determine enhanced operating capacity in the first instance. Equally, outstanding technical or regulatory questions did not relieve the Board of its duty to decide the request.
Briefly, VISA Chrome Limited, formerly VISA Steel Limited, challenged the Odisha State Pollution Control Board’s Consent to Operate (CTO) dated 31 March 2026, which recognised its Ferro Chrome plant’s capacity at 60,000 tonnes per annum (TPA) and granted consent only until 30 September 2026. The company relied on earlier permissions and CTOs recognising 1,50,000 TPA. It also relied on an Amalgamated Environmental Clearance dated 10 June 2026 and sought enhancement of the CTO before the Board on 18 June 2026. A personal hearing followed, but the request had not culminated in a final decision. The company also questioned the repeated grant of short-duration consents. Its challenge to the consent period relied on the Board’s circulars and the 2026 consent guidelines.
A Single Judge Bench comprising Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi observed that the dispute was not a simple clerical error in the production-capacity figure. Although earlier permissions recognised the higher capacity, the inspection had identified two separate Ferro Chrome complexes and their operational status. Whether those complexes could be treated as one presently authorised configuration required the Board to examine their regulatory history, plant configuration, furnace status, land boundaries and compliance with operating conditions.
The Court would not undertake that technical determination in the first instance under Article 226. However, the Board could not rely on the technical nature of the issues to leave the company’s request undecided indefinitely. The Board’s obligation to conclude the decision-making process remained despite the outstanding regulatory questions. The Court said that Environmental Clearance and Consent to Operate are distinct statutory permissions that operate cumulatively. The subsequent clearance could not retrospectively rewrite the CTO dated 31 March 2026, but the Board was required to consider it when deciding the enhancement request.
Under Article 226, the Court may require a statutory authority to exercise its discretion lawfully, but ordinarily cannot predetermine the outcome where technical and regulatory assessment is entrusted to that authority. Accordingly, the Court declined to issue a positive mandamus requiring a CTO for 1,50,000 TPA.
