High Court clears way for case over concerns regarding STELCO powerhouse

The High Court has rejected a procedural case lodged by STELCO, deciding to proceed with a case filed by a group of residents who allege that smoke emissions and excessive noise from the company’s power plants pose serious risks to public health and the environment.

The case was brought before the High Court on appeal after five residents of the affected area in Malé lost their initial lawsuit at the Civil Court. The plaintiffs argue that the emissions and noise pollution violate their constitutional right to a clean and healthy environment.

During the High Court proceedings, STELCO raised a procedural objection and sought the dismissal of the entire case. The company argued that, under the Civil Procedure Act, an appeal form must clearly specify the relief sought. It contended that the ninth section of the appeal form, which outlines the remedy requested by the appellant, was entirely missing. On this basis, STELCO asked the court to dismiss the case and order the plaintiffs to cover its legal fees and court costs.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the High Court found that the relief sought had been clearly stated in both the original and amended forms. However, the court established that when two pages were resubmitted to correct a minor clerical error, the page containing the ninth section had inadvertently been omitted due to an administrative oversight.

In its ruling, the High Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had erred by omitting the page, while also noting administrative negligence by the court for accepting the form without detecting the omission. The court determined that dismissing the case over a procedural technicality, without allowing the plaintiffs to file it again, would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

The bench unanimously ruled that STELCO’s request for dismissal could not be granted, as the procedural omission could still be rectified at this stage. The High Court consequently ordered the case to proceed, accepting the relief sought as stated in the original submission.

The case is being heard by a bench comprising Judge Abdul Maaniu Hussain, Judge Hassan Shafeeu and Judge Faruheeza.