Supreme Court Allows Oil India To Refile Challenge Over Drilling Rejection
Counsel said the project site lay on the fringes of the national park, that statutory permissions had been granted and that authorities appeared to be treating the proposal as mining under the top court's April 26, 2023 order. He described the plan as involving pipeline works outside the park and drilling to about 4,000 metres before proceeding horizontally. He added the project was important to national energy needs, covering nearly three per cent of oil requirement.
It was explained that the application had been filed in the pending TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India case of 1995 and that the registry had declined to number the interlocutory application because of an earlier direction. The Chief Justice observed that a fresh cause of action could justify a new petition and that the registry's restriction would not bar such a filing. The counsel sought liberty to withdraw and refile, and the bench allowed withdrawal with liberty to institute a fresh petition; if refiled, the fresh petition will be considered on its merits.
The company challenged the Forest Advisory Committee decision and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change refusal to permit diversion of zero point zero six nine hectares in Tinsukia district. Oil India argued that Extended Reach Drilling should not be equated with conventional mining, that earlier orders and Standing Committee recommendations had permitted sub-surface extraction with safeguards, and that environmental clearance had been granted in May 2020. The plea also referred to the Eco-Sensitive Zone notification of January 2020, under which the sensitive area extends from zero to eight point seven kilometres around parts of the park, and it said operations would target hydrocarbons at depths around 3,500 to 4,000 metres with surface infrastructure positioned outside the protected boundary and sought to set aside the ministry order dated August 2024 and minutes of the July 2024 meeting.