In Brief
A sugar factory (appellant) applied for an IEM to establish a new mill in Maharashtra in 2010. Two writ petitions challenging the IEM remained pending for four years (2010-2014). The appellant sought extension and location change, which were granted by the Central Government on the grounds that the litigation period and environmental constraints beyond the appellant's control justified the delay. The High Court dismissed the extension and cancelled the IEM, holding the time limit had expired. The Supreme Court held that the litigation period should be excluded, as the appellant—not being the writ petitioner—prudently avoided heavy investment pending the outcome. The Court affirmed that amendments to the Control Order operate retrospectively to pending IEMs and that an IEM does not automatically lapse but requires a formal forfeiture order after notice and hearing. The appeals were allowed and writ petitions dismissed.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.