Vedanta Aluminium v. Union of India, WP(C) 19605/2010 (2011.07.19) (High Court of Orissa)
“Law is well settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods or mode of performance are impliedly and necessarily forbidden. The aforesaid settled legal proposition is based on a legal maxim "Expression unius est exclusion alteris", meaning thereby that if a stature provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner and following other course is not permissible.”
Para. 36 (omitting citations).
The court finds that expansion of a project undertaken without required environmental clearance is illegal and that the environmental clearance process “has to be started de novo” with the developer needing to “submit fresh proposal to the Ministry.” Id. at para 43.
[**Later Affirmed on review: in M/S Vedanta Aluminium Limited vs Unknown on 19 January, 2012 High Court of Orissa: Cuttack, RVWPET No.218 of 2011 (In the matter of an application for review of the judgment dated 19.07.2011 passed by this Court in W. P.(C) No.19605 of 2010).
Undisputedly, the petitioner has completed about 50% to 55% of expansion work without obtaining the environmental clearance which is violative of the provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 issued under sub- Rule (3) of Rule 5 of Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 and the same is held to be illegal in the impugned judgment. . . . Law is well settled that when the statute requires to do certain thing in certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. . . .
Law is also well settled that whenever any action of the authority is in violation of the provisions of the statute or the action is constitutionally illegal, it cannot claim any sanctity in law, and there is no obligation on the part of the Court to sanctify such an illegal act. Wherever the statutory provision is ignored, the Court cannot become a silent spectator to such an illegality and it becomes the solemn duty of the Court to deal with the person(s) violating the law with heavy hands. . . .
Now, the question arises as to whether the construction activities undertaken for expansion of the project without adhering to the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 can be regularized . . . . In view of the above settled legal position, the answer is certainly in the negative.
M/S Vedanta Aluminium Limited vs Unknown, RVWPET No.218 of 2011 (High Court of Orissa), paras. 12-14 (citations omitted).]