JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, CHAIRMAN This appeal under Section 28 of the Water (Prevention and, Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is directed against the communication dated 2.4.2012 issued by respondent No.2-Senior Environmental Scientist (M) of the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, vide Annexure-13, requiring the appellant to furnish fresh Environmental Clearance (EC) for consideration of consent to operate its iron ore mines beyond 31.3.2012. The appellant has accordingly prayed for a direction to respondent No.1-the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, ('the Board' hereinafter) to issue consent to operate the iron ore mines forthwith without insisting upon furnishing fresh E.C. 2. Briefly stated, the case of the appellant is as follows: The appellant-M/s. Geetarani Mohanty, which claims to be a registered partnership firm, has been granted lease for mining iron ore over an area of 67.586 Hectares in village Raikela under Bonai Sub-division of Sundergarh district for a period of 20 years expiring on 1.7.2011. On 14.3.2005 the appellant made an application to the Board for grant of consent to establish in respect of its Raikela Iron Ore Mines to enhance the production of iron ore, vide Annexure-1, considering which the Board by its Office Memorandum dated 31.1.2006 (Annexure-4) conveyed consent to establish under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter called 'the Water Act') and Section 21 of the Air (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter called 'the Air Act') for production enhancement of iron ore of the quantity of 7200 MT/month, 100 and 50 Tons per hour Crushing and Screening Plant, 200 and 100 TPH ROM Screening Plant of Raikela Iron Ore Mines in the M.L. Area over 64.068 Ha. Thereafter on 17.3.2006 the appellant made an application to the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), Govt. of India, for grant of E.C. in favour of its Raikela Iron Ore Mines, vide Annexure-5. The MoEF by the communication dated 2.7.2008 granted E.C., vide Annexure-8, in accordance with para 12 of the EIA Notification, 2006 read with Para 12 of the Circular dated 13.10.2006 issued by the MoEF. Before expiry of the lease period, on 20.5.2010 the appellant made an application to the State Govt. for renewal of its mining lease along with required documents and the same was acknowledged under Annexure-9. Till filing of this appeal, no order granting renewal of the lease was passed. Before expiry of the lease period, on 20.5.2010 the appellant made an application to the State Govt. for renewal of its mining lease along with required documents and the same was acknowledged under Annexure-9. Till filing of this appeal, no order granting renewal of the lease was passed. The appellant then moved the Board for grant of consent to operate for a period of five years, i.e. from 2011-12 to 2015-16, vide its application dated 23.12.2010 (Annexure-10) but the Board by its order dated 19.7.2011 granted consent to operate under Section 25/26 of the Water Act and Section 21 of the Air Act for one year only, vide Annexure-11, which was valid upto 31.3.2012. The appellant again moved the Board for grant of consent to operate till 2015-16 vide its application in Annexure-12. When the said application of the appellant for grant of consent to operate till 2015-16 was pending with the Board, respondent No.2-the Senior Environmental Scientist (M) by letter dated 2.4.2012 intimated the appellant to furnish fresh E.C. for consideration of grant of consent to operate beyond 31.3.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 28 of the Water Act for the relief indicated hereinabove. 3. Shri U.C. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that since before expiry of the lease period, no decision on the renewal application has been taken by the State Govt. the period of the lease would be deemed to be extended till decision is taken by the Govt. as provided in Rule 24-A(6) of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960 ('M.C. Rules' hereinafter) and after the E.C. was granted in 2008, there being no enhancement of the annual production capacity of the mines and the E.C. being valid for a maximum period of thirty years as provided in the notification dated 14.9.2006 (EIA Notification of 2006) issued by the MoEF, no fresh E.C. is required to be obtained for the appellant's mining project. In other words, the existing lease having been extended by operation of law in terms of Rule 24-A(6) of the M.C. Rules, no further E.C. is required for the mining project of the appellant for consideration of grant of consent to operate by the Board since the appellant has a valid and subsisting E.C. under Annexure-8. In other words, the existing lease having been extended by operation of law in terms of Rule 24-A(6) of the M.C. Rules, no further E.C. is required for the mining project of the appellant for consideration of grant of consent to operate by the Board since the appellant has a valid and subsisting E.C. under Annexure-8. Therefore, the impugned communication issued by respondent No.2 requiring the appellant to furnish fresh E.C. for consideration of grant of consent to operate beyond 31.3.2012 is contrary to the EIA Notification of 2006 and beyond the scope and ambit of such notification. 4. Shri B.P. Pattajoshi, Law Officer of the Board, appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the grounds taken by the appellant that no fresh E.C. for grant of consent to operate beyond 31.3.2012 is necessary in view of the fact that it has already had a valid and subsisting E.C. vide Annexure-8, and that since the lease granted in favour of the appellant is deemed to be extended till decision on the renewal application is taken by the State Govt. in terms of Rule 24-A(6) of the M.C. Rules and, therefore, no fresh E.C. is necessary, are not tenable and correct because the EIA Notification of 2006 has been amended by virtue of the Notification dated 4.4.2011 (EIA Notification of 2004) issued by the MoEF by amending, inter alia, Item 1 (a) of the Schedule, which categorically speaks that prior E.C. is as well required at the stage renewal of mining lease. It was further contended that prior to the aforesaid amendment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its judgment dated 18.3.2004 passed in W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and others), which is reported in 2004 AIR SCW 4033 : (2004) 12 SCC 118 , has mandated that E.C. necessary at the stage of renewal of mining lease for which the appellant was required to furnish fresh E.C. by the impugned communication dated 2.4.2012 under Annexure-13. 5. Before examining the issue involved in the present appeal, let us notice the relevant stipulations made In the EIA Notification of 2006 so also the amending EIA Notification of 2011. 5. Before examining the issue involved in the present appeal, let us notice the relevant stipulations made In the EIA Notification of 2006 so also the amending EIA Notification of 2011. The EIA Notification of 2006 issued by the MoEF in exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 3(1) and 3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Rule 5(3)(d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, which superseded the earlier notification dated 27.1.1994, required that construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of the existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the said notification entailing capacity addition with change in process and/or technology, could be undertaken with prior E.C. from the Central Govt. or, as the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority. Para 2 of the EIA Notification of 2006, which dealt with requirement of prior E.C., provided thus: "2. Requirement of prior Environmental Clearance (EC) - The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State Level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity: (i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification; (ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization; (iii) Any change in product - mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range." The Schedule appended to the EIA Notification of 2006 under item No. 1 (a) dealing with mining of minerals project, which is relevant for the present purpose, is extracted hereunder: "SCHEDULE (See Paragraph 2 and 7) LIST OF PROJECTS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRING PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE Project Category Conditions if any or with Activity threshold limit A B 1 xxx xxx xxx xxx (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 (a) Mining of 50 ha. of <50 ha. of <50 ha. General Conditions shall minerals mining lease 5 ha. of apply. area mining Note - Mineral Prospecting Asbestos lease (not involving drilling) mining Irrespective area are exempted provided of mining area the concession areas have got previous clearance for physical survey. The aforesaid EIA Notification of 2006 was amended by the EIA Notification of 2011 incorporating several amendments including amendment to Column (5) of Item No.1 (a) of the Schedule thereto by way of substitution. The stipulation made in column (5) has been substituted as follows: "General condition shall apply. Note (i) Prior environment clearance is as well required at the stage of renewal of mine lease for which application should be made upto one year prior to date of renewal. (ii) Mineral prospecting is exempted." The aforesaid amendment requires that prior E.C. is necessary even at the stage of renewal of lease for mining of mineral projects. The E.C. granted by the MoEF in favour of the iron ore project of the appellant on 2.7.2008 vide Annexure-8 does not indicate the validity period. But para 9 of the EIA Notification of 2006 dealing with validity of E.C. stipulates as follows: "9. Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC): The 'Validity' of Environmental Clearance is meant the period from which a prior environmental clearance is granted by the regulatory authority, or may be presumed by the applicant to have been granted under sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 7 above, to the start of production operations by the project or activity, or completion of all construction operations in case of construction projects (item 8 of the Schedule), to which the application for prior environmental clearance refers. The prior environmental clearance granted for a project or activity shall be valid for a period of ten years in the case of River Valley Projects (item 1 (c) of the Schedule), project life as estimated by Expert Appraisal Committee or State Legal Expert Appraisal Committee subject to a maximum of thirty years for mining projects and five years in the case of all other projects and activities. However, in the case of Area Development Projects and Townships (item 8(b), the validity period shall be limited only to such activities as may be the responsibility of the applicant as a developer. However, in the case of Area Development Projects and Townships (item 8(b), the validity period shall be limited only to such activities as may be the responsibility of the applicant as a developer. This period of validity may be extended by the regulatory authority concerned by a maximum period of five years provided an application is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant within the validity period, together with an updated Form 1, and Supplementary Form 1 A, for Construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule). In this regard the regulatory authority may also consult the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee as the case may be." The aforesaid clearly stipulates that in regard to mining projects, the validity of E.C. is for the project life as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committee or the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, subject to a maximum of thirty years. Therefore, it can be concluded that the E.C. granted in favour of the appellant on 2.7.2008 is valid for a maximum period of thirty years and, therefore, the appellant has a valid and subsisting E.C. 6. Now it is to be examined whether the appellant, which has obtained E.C. from the MoEF on 2.7.2008, and the said E.C. having been valid for a maximum period of thirty years in terms of para 9 of the EIA Notification of 2006, is required to obtain a fresh E.C. at the stage of renewal of its lease and at the time of consideration of grant of consent to operate beyond 31.3.2012, as required by the Board under Annexure-13. 7. The respondents in support of their stand relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra) and advanced an argument that prior E.C. would also be necessary at the time of renewal of the mining lease. In other words, the amending Notification of 2011 brought all renewals within the ambit of the Notification of 2006. On perusing the Notification of 2006, we find that it did not speak of renewals. There were three contingencies, which have been listed in the said Notification of 2006 and have been quoted above. The scope of the Notification of 2006 was essentially to cover all the new projects, expansions, modernizations, change in technology, change in capacity, change in product mix, etc. There were three contingencies, which have been listed in the said Notification of 2006 and have been quoted above. The scope of the Notification of 2006 was essentially to cover all the new projects, expansions, modernizations, change in technology, change in capacity, change in product mix, etc. The case at hand is that the MoEF by letter dated 2.7.2008 has granted E.C. under the provisions of the EIA Notification of 2006 with the conditions specified therein including safeguards. So, there is no change as required under the EIA Notification of 2006. In our considered opinion, the EIA Notification of 2006 does not apply to a situation where there was no change. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 75, 76 and 77 of the decision in M.C. Mehta (supra), which was cited on behalf of the respondents held thus: "75. Be that as it may and reverting to legal position in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, (1987) 1 SCC 213 , though a case under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 rejecting the contention that approval at the stage of renewal was not necessary and also the plea that since the leaseholders had invested sums of money in mining operation, it was the duty of the authorities to renew the lease, it was held that having regard to the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and the same should be prevented, and that the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stood eroded by the mandate of the FC Act. It was held that the primary duty was to the community, and that duty took precedence. In such cases, the obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation of the individuals. It would be apposite to reproduce what was said by Justice Mukherjee (as he then was) in paras 14 and 15 which read thus : (SCC p. 219). "14. Here the case of the appellants is that they have invested large sums of money in mining operations. Therefore, it was the duty of the authorities that the power of granting permission should have been so exercised that the appellants had the full benefits of their investments. "14. Here the case of the appellants is that they have invested large sums of money in mining operations. Therefore, it was the duty of the authorities that the power of granting permission should have been so exercised that the appellants had the full benefits of their investments. It was emphasized that none of the appellants had committed any breach of the terms of grant nor were there any other factors disentitling them to such renewal. While there was power to grant renewal and in these cases there were clauses permitting renewals, it might have cast a duty to grant such renewal in the facts and circumstances of the cases specially in view of the investments made by the appellants in the areas covered by the quarrying leases, but renewals cannot be claimed as a matter of right for the following reasons. 15. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. 1980 Act' was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980. Therefore, the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals. 76. In Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 504, agreeing with views expressed in Ambica Quarry Works it was held that the FC Act applies to renewals as well as even if there was a provision for renewal in the lease agreement on exercise of the lessee's option, the requirement of the Act had to be satisfied before such renewal could be granted. In State of M.P. v. Krishnadas Tikaram, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 587, these two decisions were relied upon and it was held that even the renewal of lease cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Government. It is settled law that the grant of renewal is a fresh grant and must be consistent with law. In State of M.P. v. Krishnadas Tikaram, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 587, these two decisions were relied upon and it was held that even the renewal of lease cannot be granted without the prior concurrence of the Central Government. It is settled law that the grant of renewal is a fresh grant and must be consistent with law. 77. We are unable to accept the contention that the notification dated 27th January, 1994 would not apply to leases which come up for consideration for renewal after issue of the notification. The notification mandates that the mining operation shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless environmental clearance by the Central Government has been accorded. The clearance under the notification is valid for a period of five years. In none of the leases the requirement of notification was complied with either at the stage of initial grant of the mining lease or at the stage of renewal. Some of the leases were fresh leases granted after issue of the notification. Some were cases of renewal. No mining operation can commence without obtaining environmental impact assessment in terms of the notification." 8. From the above, it is crystal clear that since renewal of lease was like a fresh grant, it must be consistent with law. Thus, a prior E.C. would be necessary whenever a renewal was sought of the initial grant, which means that after 1994, there could be no fresh grant or renewal of an existing lease unless and until there was a prior E.C. This does not mean that if a person has a valid and subsisting E.C. at the point of time he seeks a renewal of the mining lease, he would still be required to obtain another E.C. prior to the grant of renewal. That, in our view, is not the intent and purport of the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta (supra). The clear direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that there ought not to be any mining activity without an E.C. If the lease holder has already a valid and subsisting E.C., there cannot be a requirement that during the validity and subsistence of the said E.C., he would be asked to get another E.C. at the point he seeks renewal. So, in our considered opinion, when the appellant has a valid and subsisting E.C. and no fresh E.C. is required at the time of renewal of its lease, requirement of fresh E.C. by the Board for consideration of grant of consent to operate in favour of appellant's iron ore mines does not arise, more so when the mining activity is continuing in terms of the provisions of Rule 24-A(6) of the M.C. Rules, 1960. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned communication dated 2.4.2012 issued by respondent No. 2-Senior Environmental Scientist (M) of the Board in Annexure-13 and direct the respondents to grant consent to operate in favour of the appellant beyond 31.3.2012 if it satisfies the other terms and conditions. PROF. M.C. DASH, MEMBER I agree. S.M. PATTANAIK, MEMBER I agree. Appeal allowed.