The top court took note of the July 2022 report of the High Powered Committee, set up by the Tamil Nadu government, for carrying out a ‘Civil and Structural Safety Integrity Assessment Study’ of the plant.
At least 13 people were killed and several injured on May 22, 2018 when police had opened fire on a huge crowd of people protesting against environment pollution being allegedly caused by the factory.
The Tamil Nadu government had on May 28, 2018 ordered the state pollution control board to seal and “permanently” close the mining group’s copper plant following violent protests over pollution concerns.
The company stated in a statement that “they have complete faith in the judiciary and the State, and the measures taken will be in the interest of the public, environment and larger economic agenda.”
The top court, in its order, referred to the HPC report and said, “Evacuation of remaining Gypsum and the required manpower as requested by the unit may be permitted.
“In this regard, the unit shall submit a detailed proposal and time schedule including the man power, machineries, number of trucks required for removal of the remaining gypsum. Once the evacuation of the Gypsum is over the manpower and the machineries permitted for that purpose should be withdrawn,” it ordered. It said the activity shall be carried out with the already permitted manpower for the said purpose by the District Collector.
“To undertake the green belt maintenance and for clearing the wild bushes and dried trees the same shall be carried out under the supervision of BDO, Ottapidaram,” it said.
The bench said the District Collector had not permitted the firm to undertake ‘civil and structural safety integrity assessment study’ in the plant premises besides removal and transportation of spares and equipment.
It also noted that the district collector also denied the nod to conduct evacuation of “in-process reverts and other raw materials lying idle in the premises of the plant/stores.”
However, the apex court noted the submission of the state government that it will once again “evaluate whether any further or supplementary directions should be issued in that regard.”
The bench has now posted the matter for further hearing on May 4.
