National Green Tribunal
Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs The Principal Secretary Environment ... on 16 March, 2023
Item No. 7 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Appeal No. 09/2020(WZ)
Mr. Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman
.....Appellant
Versus
The Principal Secretary-DoE, GoM & Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 16.03.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant : Mr Nitin Lonkar along-with Ms. Pradnya Beke, Advocates
Respondent(s) : Mr. Anirudhha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/Envt. Deptt &
R-2/SEIAA
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocates for R-3/MPCB
Mr. Sameer Khale, Advocate for R-4/MCGM
Mr. Rohan Mahadik, Advocate for R-7/PP
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed seeking quashing of Environmental Clearance dated 15.01.2020 granted to the Respondent No. 7/Project Proponent/M/s. Nathani Parekh Constructions Private Limited for the Project "Nathani Heights" at City Survey (CTS) No. 1/332, C.S. No.1/332, Dr. D.B. Marg & Bellasis Road, 'D' Ward, Tardeo Division, Mumbai Central, Mumbai by the Respondent No. 2/SEIAA; further it is prayed that heavy amount of compensation be realized for damage caused to the environment on the principle of polluter pays; special damages be also realized from the Project Proponent on account of violation of EC condition as it did not provide mandatory 10% landscape area resulting in no plantation of the required trees and for concretization of marginal spaces, open spaces and damage to the ground water level.
Page 1 of 322. The brief facts of this case are that the Respondent No. 7/Project Proponent had procured first Environment Clearance (EC) dated 02.06.2011 and got it amended on 15.01.2020 on the basis of false and misleading information. In form-1 & 1A, Project Proponent had disclosed BUA 86,565.09 Sq. Mtrs. while the EC was granted only for BUA 79151.96 Sq. Mtrs. The water supply for construction is shown to be done from Water Tanker, although actual water was extracted from the ground without taking prior permission from CGWA. The Project Proponent (PP) has suppressed the quantity of building material required for construction in Form-1, therefore, the technical appraisal and Impact Assessment is wrong. The clay bricks have been used for construction instead of fly ash bricks. Timber would be used for construction but it has not been shown in Form-1. Likewise, there are various other violations noted in paragraph no. 6 of the application, which are not being stated in detail here.
3. Further, it is alleged that the conditions which were stipulated by SEAC and SEIAA, were not complied with. The terms and conditions stipulated in EC dated 02.06.2011 and modified EC dated 15.02.2020 were intentionally violated. There were violations of terms and conditions of Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate. Huge damage is caused to the environment and ecology on account of illegal construction, hence, the above prayers are made.
4. This appeal was first heard on 20.03.2020 and notices were directed to be issued to the Respondents and a Joint Committee was constituted to inspect the project in question, verify on the factual aspects and submit a report.
5. In pursuance to the said order, the Joint Committee has submitted its report dated 29th July, 2020, which is quoted herein below:
Page 2 of 323. The current Status of the Project:
As on date the construction of 77090 Sq.M. is complete. The basement, ground floor to 2nd floor commercial area is handed over to the tenants Basement parking is operational. The work of podiums meant for parking from 3rd to 7th floors is completed. 8th floor to 38th floor civil construction work is also completed. The structural skeleton work from 39th floor to 72 floor is completed.
4. Point wise observations:
The committee could inspect the building up to 38th Floor and not up to the 72th Floor as this portion was inaccessible at that time on account of maintenance work. The structural skeleton of this portion is complete and the remaining work is going on. Therefore, for the observation on the total built up area constructed so far the committee relies upon the certificate by the Architect of this project.
Sr. Point examined Observations No.
1. The project proponent has PP has disclosed BUA 86565.09 obtained EC for BUA of Sq. M. in form I and IA.
79151 Sq. M. by PP has submitted revised total providing misleading BUA of 79151.96 Sq.m (Annex.6 information in form-I and and same is apprised and form IA. PP has disclosed assessed by SEIAA. Accordingly TBA only 86565.09 Sq. EC is granted for total BUA of M. whereas the actual 79151.09Sq.
TBA is more than 100000 M. Out of this only 77090.00 Sq. Sq. M. M work is completed. Copy of EC (Annex-2) and FSI non- FSI area statement by the Architect is enclosed (Annex-7) The Construction done far is less than the TBA specified in the EC.
2. The PP has not disclosed PP has used the light weight the quantity of building concrete blocks of quantity 1042 material required for Cu. M. for the walls in the construction. construction completed so far now. The blocks consists 68% fly ash. (Letter by M/s Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.) The structural skeleton is out of reinforced Cement concrete is of the grade required for the high-
rise building construction. Glass is used mostly in windows.
(Annex-8)
3. PP is extracting ground The committee has not observed water without NOC any bore well on the site during CGWA. the visit. It appears that the water from the tankers has been used in the construction. The Page 3 of 32 tanker water bills from 04.06.2018 onwards are shown to the committee (Bills by the service provider)/ The committee is unaware about the type of water used before the aforementioned day.
6. From the side of Respondent No. 3/MPCB, it is submitted in the affidavit dated 28.09.2022 that the Project Proponent (PP) has given possession of rehab wings A & B since December, 2020 without obtaining Consent to Operate from the Answering Respondent and the same has been treated to be non-compliance on the part of Project Proponent for which directions have been issued vide letter dated 27.09.2022 under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 but what happened thereafter, has not been indicated. Orally, it has been apprised by the learned Counsel that reply dated 21st January, 2023 has been submitted by the Project Proponent (PP), where-in it is submitted by the Project Proponent (PP) that they had applied for Consent to Operate, which is under process.
7. In this very affidavit, it has been submitted that the Project Proponent (PP) has provided 244 CMD capacity MBBR type STP for treatment of 224 CMD effluent generation as per Consent to Establish vide letter dated 07.01.2020, which was found in operation on the date of inspection.
Further, the Project Proponent (PP) has provided 300 kg capacity OWC for treatment of wet garbage generated from rehab wings & proposed to provide 300 kg capacity OWC for sale building- Wing C.
8. From the side of Respondent No. 4/MCGM, it is submitted in the affidavit dated 28.09.2022 that a separate Parking Tower was proposed in the amended plans dated 01.12.2021, thereby increasing the construction Page 4 of 32 area, where-in a condition was incorporated that a revised clearance from MoEF shall be obtained before the endorsement of CC (Commencement Certificate). But, it is further mentioned that the Architect of the Project Proponent stated that the Commencement Certificate is requested for already approved construction area, for which NOC from MoEF has already been obtained and that if the parking tower would be constructed, which would attract additional construction area, for the same revised NOC from MoEF would be obtained. At this juncture, we also made query from the learned Counsel for the Answering Respondent as to whether the construction is going on by the Project Proponent, to which it has been responded that it is over and the same has been affirmed by the learned Counsel for the Project Proponent. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has clearly stated before us that there is no violation made of the EC terms and conditions by the Respondent No.7/Project Proponent.
9. From the side of Respondent No. 7/Project Proponent, a reply affidavit dated 08.04.2021 has been filed, where-in para-wise reply has been given, denying all the allegations made by the Appellant. The same has been given in tabular form, which is as follows:-
" Sr. Allegations by Appellant Reply by Respondent No. 7-PP No. a. PP has procured first environment The Respondent No. 7/PP have clearance vide no. SEAC- complied with all terms and conditions 2010/C.R.-364/T.C.2 dated of EC dated 15.01.2020. This 02.06.2011 and Respondent have provided true, modified/amended Environment Clearance vide no. SEIAA-EC- authentic and real information related 0000002296 dated 15.01.2020 on to the project & its development. And the basis of false and misleading there is no violation of any terms and information and also complied with conditions of EC as well as Consents. terms and condition of both EC Respondent No. 7/PP have also and its amounts to violation. submitted six monthly compliance report from time to time to Regional Office, MoEF, MPCB, Environment Department and other concerned Departments. The last such report submitted before the Lockdown on 08.11.2019.Page 5 of 32
b. PP has misleading on account of The allegation is false and this total BUA and BUA of the project is Respondent deny the same. This going to cross 100000 sq. mtrs. In Respondent have not misleaded on form-I & 1A, PP has disclosed only any count. Total BUA disclosed in 86,565.09 sq. Mtrs. and EC is granted only for 79151.96 sq. Form-1 & 1A is 86,565.09 sq. mtrs. Mtrs. However, PP vide his letter dated 28 th November, 2019 has revised Total BUA area to 79,151.96 sq. Mtrs. Out of 79,151.96 sq. Mtrs., only 77,090.00 Sq. Mtrs. work was completed, which is also mentioned in the EC dated 15.01.2020. The copy of said letter dated 28.11.2019 is attached.
c. PP has misleaded on account of There is no extraction of ground water water supply for construction from at project site by any means of bore Water Tanker in item#2.2 of Form- well or open well. As there is no such 1, but actual ground water resource is available at project site, so extraction is under taken without CGWA permission and permission of CGWA is not required therefore the technical appraisal and information provided in the Form- and Impact Assessment is wrong. 1 at item-2.2 is true and correct and therefore the appraisal and Impact Assessment is true and correct.
d. PP has suppressed the quantity of EC under challenge is only building material required for minor increase in the BUA by for Construction in item#2.3 of 424.88 M2, which is less than 10% Form-1, therefore the technical and same was sanctioned by MHADA, appraisal and Impact Assessment is wrong. MCGM, MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA. All the building material required is appraised and assessed while granting the original EC and required material is eco-friendly and procured from approved vendors. Therefore, information provided in the Form-1 at item-2.3 is true and correct and therefore the appraisal and Impact Assessment is true and correct.
e. Project Proponent has suppressed As per the Condition No. XXIII of EC used of clay bricks instead of fly dated 02.06.2011 and Condition No. ash bricks. XXII, use of flash as is mandatory only when the project is within 100 KM from the thermal power plant.
There is no thermal power plant within the radius of 100 KM from project site. However, this Respondent have used fly ash & its material in present project and moreover there is no such condition mandating to use flay ash bricks is imposed in both EC. Hence, the allegation is false. The copy of certificate for use of flay ash bricks is attached hereto and marked as Annexure-"R7-15"
f. PP has suppressed used of timber required for the construction and it has direct impact on environment. The allegation is false. There is no use of tree wood from forest or saw mill in this project Basically this Respondent have used RCC & marble door frames Page 6 of 32 and doors used in this project are of plywood prepared from waste straw of woods, which is eco-
friendly material. Therefore this Respondent have not suppressed any material facts and not caused any adverse impact on environment g. PP has suppressed the There is no Defence installation within defense installation in Item#III.7 15 KMS from the project site. in"ENVIRONMENT SENSITIVITY" of However, building height is 243 Mtrs. Indian Navy, Air force station for which Respondent No.7/PP have within the 15 Kms of the project site and this is affecting the received NOC from Airport Authority of operations of these establishment India, which is required as per IOD as the height of the building is condition imposed by MCGM. more than 200 Meter.
h. PP has suppressed the submission All the compliance Report and Six of compliance Report and Six Monthly Monitoring Reports time to Monthly Monitoring Reports of time and also while obtaining the previous EC dated 02.06.2011 and amended EC are filed and PP had Consents.
complied the terms and conditions of EC dated 02.06.2011 and consent to establish dated 15.02.2014.
i. PP has suppressed the RG area to RG Area on ground admeasuring:
be Provided on ground level and 442.05 sq. mt. is provided on virgin marginal space shown on the land and free of marginal spaces and ground is marked as RG Area.
area on podium as per IOD condition of MCGM and D.C. Regulations as described below:
Required RG Area (8% 392.88
of Net plot area) sq. mt.
Total RG Area Provided 442.05
Sq. mt.
RG on Mother 404.4. sq.
Ground Earth Mt.
Paved 37.65 Sq.
area mt.
Additional Paved 3175.46
green area Sq. mt.
cover area
on Podium
j. PP has not complied the terms 8s This Respondent being diligent and
condition of Consent to Establish punctual have complied all the terms
dated 14.02.2014 and and conditions of the Consent
revalidated
to Establish dated 14.02.2014
consent to establish
dated and revalidated consent to
07.01.2020 obtained from MPCB establish dated 07.01.2020.
MPCB after scrutinizing, considering and verifying all the facts and compliances of terms and conditions has granted Consent to Establish dated 14.02.2014 and revalidated Consent to Establish dated 07.01.2020.
k. PP has started use of premises In the present matter, the construction Page 7 of 32 Without obtaining Consent to of the Building is not completed and Operate. Respondent No.7/PP has not given possession to Flats Purchasers in the Building, same will be done only after obtaining Consent to Operate i.e. before obtaining full Occupation Certificate of the Building.
l. PP has not obtained permission There is no borewell or open well for Ground Water Extraction and existing on site at all. Respondent PP is extracting huge quantity of No.7/ PP have never used ground ground water for construction water for construction or any other from bore well. purpose. Tanker water is being used for construction purpose. The copies of Tanker water receipts are attached hereto and marked as Annexure-"R7-16"
m. PP is operating STP in STP is operational in unscientific manner. proper scientific manner throughout the construction of the Building.
Quality of Treated sewage is being regularly monitored and tested and all precautions and care have been taken. The Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) analysis report/certificate have been obtained by PP from time to time and same have been submitted to EC. One of these reports of STP Certificate is attached herewith as Annexure-"R7-17".
n. Project Proponent has not Respondent No. 7/Project provided any solid waste Proponent have made all provisions disposal system. and provided Organic Waste Converter for treatment of biodegradable garbage including solid waste disposable system on site. OWC is already procured and established on site. Photographs of OWC is attached as Annexure-"R7- 18".
o. PP has not obtained NOC from NOC from Ministry of Defence is not Ministry of Defense for high rise required for the present project as building per the norms, hence, question of obtaining NOC from Ministry of Defence does not arise.
p. PP has not made tree plantation The construction of Building is not as per conditions of EC. yet completed. Total tree plantation required as per MCGM norms is 31 nos. only. However, Respondent No.7/PP had proposed to plant 206 nos. of trees. Out of which 90 nos.
only of trees are already planted on site and remaining trees will be planted before completion of Page 8 of 32 the construction of the Building. Photographs of plantation of trees at site are attached hereto as Annexure-"R7-19". PP has obtained final Tree NOC from MCGM dated 24.07.2020. Copy of said final Tree NOC dated 24.07.2020 is attached hereto and marked as Annexure-"R7-20".
q. PP has not provided Open Space The direction issued by the Hon'ble for recreational purpose as per Supreme Court are applicable to the the DC Rules on virgin land as project commenced on or after the Judgment i.e. after 2015, and the directed by Hon'ble Supreme construction of the present project, Court.
all sanctions, IOD, Commencement Certificate, permissions from MHADA, MCGM, EC, MPCB by Respondent No. 7/PP prior to the Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment.
The construction has started prior to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Neverthless, Respondent No. 7/PP has provided required open space for recreational purpose as per the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 and other policy guidelines of MCGM, and IOD conditions of MCGM, which is applicable to the present project.
Details of the open space are given as below:
Required RG Area (8% 392.88
of Net plot area) sq. mt.
Total RG Area Provided 442.05
Sq. mt.
RG on Mother 404.4. sq.
Ground Earth Mt.
Paved 37.65 Sq.
area mt.
Additional Paved 3175.46
green area Sq. mt.
cover area
on Podium
Thus, R.G. area is provided more than required area under IOD conditions.
r. PP development is not Tenement density of 642/hector meeting Tenement density and Whereas population of the project is Population density 2527 nos. which are much lesser than the permissible as per the DCR. And both densities are appraised and assessed before granting of EC. Further, present redevelopment project is under DCR 33(7) of Development Control Regulations 1991 for reconstruction of old cessed Page 9 of 32 Buildings which were in dilapidated condition. Accordingly, Respondent No.7/PP had obtained all necessary permissions/NOC from all concerned Authorities from time to time by complying all required norms and terms and conditions.
s. PP has not provided Marginal Respondent No.7/PP have Space as per the DC Rules and obtained necessary approvals and turning radius of 9 Mtrs. for fire permissions from the concerned Authorities for construction of engine proposed building. In furtherance to the above facts, turning radius for fire tender movement is more than 9 Mtrs. which is approved by the CFO (Fire Brigade) of MCGM and same is provided.
t. Project Proponent has made The allegations are false. The illegal claim of FSI to the tune of present project is redevelopment of 30,658.14 M2. cess property proceeded as per scheme under DCR 33(7). There were four old Buildings constructed prior to 1930, then occupied by reconstruction. Therefore, the Necessary sanctions and permissions as applicable in the scheme of redevelopment of the old cessed property, obtained from MHADA, MCGM and other concerned Authorities. Hence, the Building under construction has been proceeded as per IOD and sanction plan of MCGM, permissions and NOC of MHADA, Environment, Consent to Establish of MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA and all other concerned Authorities and there is absolutely no violation of any norms of whatsoever nature including violation of FSI.
u. PP has not complied This Respondent have complied all the conditions by SEAC-2, SEIAA and with the conditions imposed by Consent Appraisal Committee to their satisfaction and it is only after SEAC-2, SEIAA and Consent verifying all the facts and Appraisal Committee imposed compliances the Environment while issued Environment Clearance and Consent to Establish Clearance and Consent to are granted.
Establish.
v. PP has deep unholy nexus with Respondent No.7/PP specifically corrupt bureaucrats, deny that it has any nexus with providing funding to the political corrupt bureaucrats, politician or parties for avoiding legal actions with any other person in the matter and regularize his illegal activity.
of alleged providing funding to any political parties for avoid legal actions and regularize the illegal Page 10 of 32 activity or otherwise. Respondent No.7/PP had complied with all the terms and conditions of MHADA, MCGM, MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA and all other concerned Authorities.
There is no violation in the project. The Respondent No.7/PP have no nexus with the bureaucrats and political parties.
w. PP has not complied the This Respondent/PP have complied conditions of commencement with all the conditions of certificate related to installation commencement certificate related to of environment installation of environment infrastructure to avoid the degradation and Project infrastructure and have installed Proponent has not installation of all Pollution Control Devices and Pollution Control Devices there is no circumvention in the compliance. Some of the important /relevant compliances by the Respondent No.7/PP, the details are as follows:
Attribute Measures taken /
proposed in the
project
Water • Reduction in
Saving demand by 40%
using treated
sewage for
secondary
requirement like
flushing and
gardening.
• RWH tank of 75 KL
is already
constructed on site
Sewage • STP of capacity 255
treatment & KL is constructed/
sewerage provided. Reuse of
Network treated sewage for
flushing and
gardening is
provided in the
Building.
Storm Water Provision of Storm
Drainage water Drainage
having capacity 0.06
m3/sec. is made.
Page 11 of 32
Solid Construction phase:
waste 14,156 Cum
excavation earth
managem
partly reused for
ent &
back filling and
Waste
remaining disposed
Disposal
to Authorized landfill
with prior permission
of M.C.G.M.
Operation Phase:
Segregation of all
types of waste on
site including
Biodegradable:
Treatment in
OWC
Non-
biodegradable :
To Authorized
recyclers, is
provided.
Tree RG area on
plantation ground: 442.05
and green Sq.mt.
area Additional green
development cover area on
podium: 3175.64
Sq.mt.
No. of Trees
required to be
planted as per
MCGM NOC is 31
nos.. However,
the PP had
proposed to plant
206 nos. of Trees,
out of which 90
nos. of Trees are
already planted
on site and
remaining
plantation of
trees is
under process
and same will be
completed before
completion of the
Building/project.
Energy Provision of LED
conservation tubes and lamps
Provision of
Advanced BEE 5
Star Rated AC
Equipments is
made
Provision of
Pumps & Motors
Page 12 of 32
with Premium
Efficiency is
made
Provision of
Energy Efficient
Lifts with VVVF
Lift Drive is made
Provision of Solar
System is made
x. PP is careless, reckless and
These are baseless allegations on this
unapologetic towards the Respondent and this Respondent is
environment protection and to
perform his fundamental duties. law abiding entity. The project is
monitored and handled by National and top International Consultants and Expert teams appointed by PP.
Respondent No.7/PP has taken due and utmost care in protecting the environment/ecology by complying with all the environment norms and issues during the course of construction of the Building.
y. Serious intentional violations and There is no violation committed by PP
illegal acts of authorities are at all and PP have followed the
damaging the environment and precautionary principle of
giving counter blast to the sustainable development and
precautionary principle
development of this project from eco- sustainable development and PP is causing huge irreparable friendly material. All the requirement damage to the Environment. and terms and conditions imposed under NOC issued by MHADA, IOD & CC issued by MCGM and terms and conditions imposed by MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA and consent appraisal committee from time to time during the construction of the Building have been complied with.
All the concerned Authorities have inspected and verified the quality of construction and compliances of norms as applicable to the project.
z. There is adverse Carbon footprint There is no damage caused to the impact to the tune of Rs. 300 Environment and ecology from Crore Rupees till filing of this construction of this project as all the application due to remedial measures have been taken these illegal construction activities by this Respondent with due of PP and PP may kindly be charged with environment procedures. This Respondent is not compensation more than Rs. 300 liable to pay any environmental Crores for exemplary and damages. The project is deterrent effect by sending clear redevelopment of cess property and message in the community of reconstruction of four old Buildings violators & polluters, that the consisting of A to V Blocks then compliance to the environmental occupied by about 305 norms is supreme. Project Tenants/Occupants, which were Proponent has caused substantial constructed prior to 1930. The damage to environment and Buildings were in ruinous, ecology more than Rs. 300 Crores, dangerous and dilapidated which shall be recovered from Project Proponent. condition, notice under 88(3) of MHADA Act and notice u/s 354 of MMC Act were issued. MHADA and Page 13 of 32 MCGM Authories declared these old Buildings as dangerous and ruinous condition and required to be demolished and reconstructed and dishoused 305 Tenants have to be accommodated in new Building. In the year 2008, part of the Building collapsed. To safeguard the Tenants' life, the Tenants/Occupants of the old dilapidated buildings had vacated their premises and handed over possession to the Respondent No.7/PP, Developers for reconstruction of old Buildings. This Respondent No.7/PP had taken utmost care in pulling down the old Buildings by taking all precaution, care and protection, publicsafet the construction of thepropose MHADA, IOD, Sanction Plan and CC issued by MCGM and conditions laid clown in EC and Consent to Establish by MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA andother co measures have been taken by this Respondent with due procedures.
Therefore this Respondent is not liable to pay any environmental damages. Without prejudice, basically this is an appeal filed for quashing of EC dated 15.01.2020.
This allegation and alleged demand of compensation is not maintainable under NGT Act, 2010.
aa. There is complete non-application All the concerned Authorities i.e. of mind by the local authority officers of MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA andconsen while issuing building sanction. inspected the site and verified all the records and satisifed with aforesaid facts and after taking into consideration of all compliances of terms and conditions, these permissions were granted. There is no violation of any norms by Respondent No.7/PP and there is complaint or objection from any Author Consultants, Civil Contractors on board, appointed by Project Proponent like Fair wood Project Management and Consultancy Service Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Fairwood Infra Pvt. Ltd.), Gammon India Ltd., Thornton Tomasetti Inc., Ultratech Environmental Consultancy & Laboratory, RWDI, Skyline Architect, Buro Happold, Langdon & Seah Pvt. Ltd., Dongre Associates, Priedemann India Pvt.
Ltd. etc. Thus Respondent No.7/PP has taken utmost care for protection ecology of environment and during the tenure of the project.
bb. Thus it is mandatory to stop the This Respondent have Page 14 of 32 project construction permanently obtained all necessary permissions till the compliance/rectification of under environment enactments as the above illegal act and removal well as MRTP Act, DCR of 1991, of the defects from the for Greater Mumbai, construction.
MMC Act, MHADA Act
and all other statutory
enactments, rules and
policy guidelines made
thereunder time to time and complied with all the terms and conditions stipulated thereunder. All the concerned Authorities i.e. officers of MPCB,SE SEIAA and consent appraisal committee, MHADA, MCGM, Fire Brigade Department had visited and inspected the site and verified all the records and satisfied with aforesaid facts and after taking into Consideration of all compliances of terms and conditions, these permissions were granted. There is no violat by PP like Fairwood Project Management and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Fairwood Infra Pvt. Ltd.), Gammon India Ltd., Thornto Tomasetti Inc.,Ultrate Associates, Priedemann India Pvt.
Ltd. etc. Thus Respondent No.7/PP has taken utmost care for protection of environm ecology during the tenure of the project. There is no alleged illegality, defects in c whatsoever nature throughout the construction of the project. The project is not completed. Once the project is completed and before obtaining the full Occupation Certificate and Building Completion Certificate and handing over possession of the flats to the flats purchasers, the Respondent No. 7/PP will obtain Consent to Operate as per the norms.
31. It is not a matter of mere reconstruction of old dilapidated Buildings but it is a great concern and equally pride and important to provide shelter to 305 dis- housed Tenants and their family Members, who were residing in the highly dangerous, dilapidated and ruinous condition of the old Buildings (as part of one of the old Building collapsed in 2008). The Respondent No.7/PP has taken task of housing to these 305 Tenants/Occupants in the new Building. There is no complaint from the said 305 Tenants/ Occupants and also from any Authority, MHADA, MCGM, Fire Brigade Department, MPCB, SEAC-2 and SEIAA and other Authorities who granted permissions for redevelopment of the said property.
32. Reply To Para 7, For Alleged Non-Compliance To The Seac & Seiaa Conditions:
I say and submit that, contentions of Para-7 "Non-Compliance to the SEAC & SEIAA Conditions" are false 85 misleading and same are denied by this Page 15 of 32 Respondent. This Respondent is denying the averments in Para-7 (a) to 7 (1) with reply given below:
a. I say that, the conditions imposed in 38th SEAC meeting are compiled in totality and only thereafter the proposal is considered in 40th meeting of SEAC and the conditions imposed in 40th SEAC meeting are compiled in totality and only thereafter the proposal is considered in 36th meeting of SEIAA. The proposed FSI of 5.617 has also been substantiated with a statement giving calculation of total area required to be provided to the existing 305 old Tenants/Occupants of the old Buildings. The Committee carried out a visit to the project site on 16th February. It was decided to recommend the proposal for grant of prior environmental clearance subject to the project proponent providing confirmation that the exclusion from FSI as indicated in 35(2) of the DC rules will be applicable in their case.Therefore the issue of loading of FSI to the tune of 30,658.14 Sq. mt. is justified and all necessary prior sanctions were obtained and there is no illegality on account of the same.
b. I say and submit that, the conditions imposed by the SEAC in its 38th, 40th and SEIAA in its 36th meetings are complied with in true letter and spirit. c. I say and submit that, the conditions imposed by the SEAC-2 in its 123rd and SEIAA in its 184th meetings are complied with in true letter and spirit.
33. With Reference To Para 8: Alleged Intentional Violation Of Terms And Conditions Of EC Dated 02.06.2011 And Modified EC 15.01.2020 By Project Pronent:
I say and submit that, contentions of Appellant in Para-8 alleged "Intentional Violation of Terms and Conditions of EC dated 02.06.2011 and modified EC 15.01.2020 by Project Proponent" are false & misleading and same are denied by this Respondent. This Respondent is denying the averments in Para-8 (a) to 8
(k) with reply given below:
a. I say and submit that, this respondent have obtained the EC dated 02.06.2011 and EC dated 15.01.2020 with due process of law. There is slight change in project due to change in policy guidelines of MCGM, but defiantly project is not yet completed and it's within the threshold limit and both the EC's are prior as mandated by EIA Notification.-2006.
b. I say and submit that due to change in policy guidelines of MCGM, the parameter changed while obtaining EC dated 15.01.2020 and each parameter is already defined above, which is also given in the Tabular format below.
c. I say and submit that, this Respondent have obtained EC and consents well prior of commencement of construction. RG area is provided on virgin land as per MCGM sanction/approval, STP of stipulated capacity is already provided, OWC is provided for solid waste disposal, there is no ground water extraction, there is no borewell. Six monthly report, compliance report and half yearly statement are already submitted time to time. The further detail reply of Respondent No.7/PP to the tabular format to Para 8 is as under:-
Sr. Allegations by Appellant Reply by Respondent No. 7-PP No. 8a That, the PP has succeeded in This respondent is denying the procuring the Environment clearance averments in Para-8 (a) to 8 (k) on 02.06.2011, but did not complied with with detail reply given below:
the terms and conditions of the same in Page 16 of 32 letter and spirit. a. The EC dated 02.06.2011 was obtained after following the due process of Law. PP had complied with all the terms and conditions of EC dated 02.06.2011.
b. Due to change in policy
guidelines of MCGM, the
parameter changed while
obtaining EC dated
15.01.2020 and each
parameter is already
defined above.
c. This Respondent have
obtained EC and consents
well prior of commencement of construction. RG area is provided on virgin land as per MCGM sanction/ approval, STP of stipulated capacity is already provided, OWC is provided for solid waste disposal, there is no ground water extraction, there is no borewell. Six monthly report, compliance report and half yearly statement are already submitted time to time.
Respondent No.7/PP have also submitted six monthly compliance report to Regional Office, MOEF & other statutory bodies.
8b. PP has made changes in scope of project by The allegations are false and PP increasing number of shops, deny the same. Number of floors of offices & flats and after completion of the Building i.e. Basement + construction procured ex-post facto EC Ground + 72 upper floors and dated 15.01.2020.
height of the Building i.e. 243.11 Sr. Description EC - 02.06. EC 15.01. meters is not changed at all since 2022 2020 beginning i.e. from 2011 till today.
1. Total Plot 5301.04 5301.04 Initially, PP has proposed to Area construct larger commercial units
2. Net plot Not 4 710.75 area Disclosed of 108 nos. but thereafter PP had
3. FSI Area 29621.68 30658.14 made provision for construction of
4. Non FSI 49105.40 48493.82 smaller commercial units thereby Area increasing the number of
5. Total 78727.08 79151.96 BUA commercial units from 108 to 260
6. Cost 196 370 Crores without increasing the MCGM, EC Crores sanctioned FSI area of the 7. No. of 1 1 commercial units. In the said building
8. Floors B+G+72 B+G+72 project, in 2011, the proposed
9. Flats 342 340 residential units were 342 but now
10. Commerc 108 260 same is reduced to 340 not. All ial units necessary permissions, NOC
11. User Not Disclosed 2527
12. Turning Not Disclosed 9 Mtr including Consent to Establish has
13. Fresh 161 m3 /day 284 KLD been obtained from MHADA, water MCGM, EC, MPCB and other Page 17 of 32 required concerned Authorities and
14. Recycled 193 construction work of the Building is water m3/day 98ICLD in progress as per aforesaid
15. Waste water 241 permissions.
generated ms/clay 234KLD
16. STP 235
capacity m3/ day 255 1CL
17. Treated 98
water m3/day 100 !MD
18. Cooling
tower Not
makeup 95 CMD Disclosed
19. Rain
Water
harvestin
100 in3 75 KL
g tank
20. Debris:
backfilling
&
remaining Debris:
authorized backfilling
site
&
Top soil:
Solid remaining
waste Preserved & authorized
generation reused for site
landscaping
21. 288 376
Dry waste Kg/day
Kg/day
22. Wet 563 598
waste Kg/day Kg/ day
23. 32 Kg/day
STP 35
sludge Kg/day
24. Authorised
Authorised
Dry waste vendor
vendor
25. OWC -
OWC -
Wet Organic
Organic
waste Waste
disposal Waste
Converter
Converter
26. STP Manure
Manure
sludge
27. Power 3896 KW
requirem 7910 KW
ent
28. 2 Nos.
2 Nos.
Capacity:
DG sets Capacity:
200 KVA
1000 KVA
29. 3601.01
422.05 m2
m2 Existing:
Green
10
Belt Area New tree:
New tree:
206 196
30. Parking Not
18,424.35
Area
Page 18 of 32
Disclosed m2
31. Car 568
567
Parking
32. 40
Scooter 43
33. EMP 10 Lakhs
construct 9 Lakhs
ion
34. 99.46
EMP 106.74
Lakhs
operation Lakhs
35. 24.80
O&M
EMP Lakhs
36. By PP for
O&M three
after years; 421.11
possession 24.80 x3 Lakhs
n 73.20
Lakhs
8c. PP has obtained revalidating Consent to While applying to MPCB for revised
Establish on 07.01.2020 for total BUA of Consent to Establish total
86565.09 Sq.Mtrs. and PP has misleaded to construction BUA erroneously
SEIAA while obtaining and suppressed this mentioned as 86,565.09 Sq.Mtrs.
increased BUA in fact PP has stated, the BUA is increased from 78727.08 Sq.Mtrs. to PP vide its letter dated 28th 79151.96 Sq.Mtrs. therefore there is November 2019 has revised Total increase of total BUA to the tune of 7838.01 construction BUA to 79,151.96 Sq.Mtrs. Sq.Mtrs. from 86,565.09 Sq. Mtrs., which is appraised and assessed by SEIAA. Accordingly, EC granted total construction BUA of 79,151.96 Sq.Mtrs.. At the time of application to MPCB for Consent to Operate, PP shall make necessary amendment for total construction BUA of 79,151.96 Sq. Mtrs. Out of the said 79,151.96 Sq. Mtrs., PP has completed construction upto 38th floor i.e. Basement + Ground Floor to 7th Floor and 9th to 38th floor of the Building of the constructed BUA of 54,912.37 Sq.
Mtrs.. The copy of Architect Certificate dated 6th August 2020 issued for total constructed BUA of 54,912.37 Sq. Mtrs. upto 38th floor (excluding 8th floor) is attached hereto and marked as Annexure-
"R7-21".
8d. That, it was mandatory to obtain the • Consent to establish dated is consent to establish before obtained from EC before commencement of Construction, but PP had commencement of Construction. initiated construction prior to consent to establish • Consent to establish dt.16.12.2008 & dt.15.02.2014 is enclosed. Hence, it is incorrect to say that no mandatory to Consent to Establish was obtained before commencement of construction of Page 19 of 32 Building as alleged by the Appellant. It is to be noted that the commencement of construction of Building is started only after obtaining MHADA NOC, IOD and Sanction Plan from MCGM, Consent to Establish/Permission from MPCB and EC and other Authorities and there is no complaint or objection from any of these Authorities for all these years from beginning of the project till 2020. When first time the present Appellant has made false allegation without any valid ground.
8e. It was mandatory to provide the RG area on PP have provided open space for ground, but PP has not provided same and recreational purpose as per the DC PP is misleading on account of RG area on Rules. Details are given as below:
ground, but in actual there is no RG area provided on ground Required RG 392.88 sq. mt.
Area (8% of
Net plot
area)
Total RG 442.05 sq. mt.
Area
Provided
RG on Mother 404.40
Ground sq. mt.
Earth
Paved 37.65
area sq. mt.
Additional Paved 3175.46
green cover area sq. mt.
area on
Podium
The Respondent No.7/PP further submit that as per terms and conditions of MHADA NOC, IOD and Sanction Plan from MCGM, Consent to Establish/Permission from MPCB and EC and as per Development Control Regulation for Greater Mumbai 1991, the Respondent No.7/PP had made required RG area. In fact, in this case, total RG area provided by PP as stated hereinabove is more than the required area of RG, which is as per MCGM direction, hence, allegations made by Appellant are false.
8f. It was mandatory to dispose the 14,156 Cum excavation earth construction waste on scientific manner, but partly reused for back filling and PP has not disposed waste as per Page 20 of 32 conditions. remaining disposed to Authorized landfill with permission of M.C.G.M. Other construction waste : Part reuse on site and disposal of remaining waste to Authorized landfill site. Copy of NOC is attached herewith as Annexure-"R7-22". Hence, PP has disposed off the waste on scientific manner as per terms and conditions of all concerned Authorities above, who granted the sanction for this project.
8g. It was mandatory to provide the Construction of the Building is environment infrastructure like STP, solar not completed. Provision of energy system etc. As stipulated in EC viz. following environment EMP.
infrastructure is made on project site:
Attribute Measures taken /
proposed in the
project
Water • Reduction in
Saving demand by 40%
using treated
sewage for
secondary
requirement like
flushing and
gardening.
• RWH tank of 75
KL is already
constructed on
site
Storm Water Provision of Storm
Drainage water
Drainage having
capacity 0.06
m3/sec. is made.
Solid Construction
phase:
waste 14,156 Cum
excavation
managem
ent & earth partly
Waste reused for
Disposal back filling and
remaining
disposed to
Authorized
landfill with prior
permission of
M.C.G.M.
Operation Phase:
Provision for
segregation of all
Page 21 of 32
types of waste on
site is made.
Biodegradable
:
Treatment in
OWC
Non-
biodegradable
: To
Authorized
recyclers
Tree RG area on
plantation ground:
and green 442.05 Sq.mt.
area Additional
development green
cover area on
podium:
3175.64
Sq.mt.
Total
trees are
to be
planted as per
MCGM is 31
nos. but PP
had proposed
planatation of
total 206 nos.
of trees, out of
which, 90
nos. of trees
are already
planted on
site and
plantations of
remaining
trees are
under
process.
The
construction of
Building is not
yet completed
and before
obtaining
Consent to
Operate,
the
plantation of
remaining
trees will be
done.
Energy The following
conservation provision for
Energy
Conservation is
Page 22 of 32
made:
Provision of
LED tubes
and lamps
Provision of
Advanced
BEE 5 Star
Rated AC
Equipments is
made
Provision of
Pumps &
Motors with
Premium
Efficiency is
made
Provision of
Energy
Efficient Lifts
with VVVF Lift
Drive is made
Provision of
Solar System
is made
8h. It was mandatory to provide solid waste Respondent No.7/PP have made
system, but PP has not provided solid provision of Organic Waste
waste disposal system and segregation Converter for treatment of
unit as per conditions. biodegradable garbage on site.
OWC is already procured and
established on site. Non-
biodegradable waste shall be handed over to MCGM.
8i. It was mandatory to obtain prior There is no ground permission for ground water extraction and water used for construction of construction of basements from competent the building, no borewell or open authority, but PP has not obtained any such well-constructed, hence, question permission. of taking permission for extraction of ground water for carrying out construction of the Building does not arise. Respondent No.7/PP have never ever used ground water for construction or any other purpose. Tanker water is being used for construction purpose. Enclosing herewith copy of Tanker water receipt as Anneznre-"R7-23".
8j. It was mandatory to monitor the ground There is no ground
water for contamination and to carry test, water used for construction of the
but PP has not carried out any ground building, no borewell is
water test. constructed, hence, question of
carrying out testing of
ground water for
contamination or otherwise does not arise.Page 23 of 32
8k. It was mandatory to submit the six monthly All necessary reports report, compliance report and half yearly including six monthly compliance statement, but PP has not submitted any of report have been submitted to such report Regional Office of MOEF and all concerned staturoty bodies and other Authorities.
34. Reply To Para 9: Alleged Violations Of Terms And Conditions Of The Consent To Establish And No Consent To Operate Is Obtained For Completed Part Of Project Before Starting of Its Use:
I say and submit that, contentions of Para-9 "Violations of Terms and Conditions of the Consent to Establish and No Consent To Operate is obtained for completed part of Project before starting of its use" are false as misleading and. same are denied by this Respondent. This Respondent is denying the averments in Para-9 (a) to 9 (p) with reply given below:
a. I say and submit that, this Respondent No.7/PP have obtained the revalidated consent to establish with remedial measure to be taken before commencement of the modification into the project without change in to the total BUA of the project and height of the project. Only increase in the no. of Offices and shops from 108 to 260 (without changing the total sanctioned FSI area. Only smaller commercial units are put up instead of larger units). The detail reply to the tablular form at Para 9b are as under:- b. This Respondent have taken advance precaution of all aspect, STP is already installed, regular monitoring of the ambient air quality and noise quality during the construction. No construction is undertaken during night time. The possessions of flats are not given to flats purchasers. There are qualified consultants and in house staff for monitoring of environmental aspects, No heavy equipments are engaged. Green belt developed as per the CPCB norms. Air quality is monitored at project regularly, therefore there is no violation of terms and conditions of the CTE dated 15.02.2014 ais 07.01.2020 at all.
Further detail reply in tabular format is as under:
Sr. Allegations by Appellant Reply by Respondent No. 7-PP No. 9a. PP has obtained Consent to Consent to establish is obtained before Establish on 15.02.2014 w.r.t. commencement of Construction. Consent to to the Environment Clearance Establish dt. 16.12.2008 & dt. 15.02.2014 are dated 02.06.2011, but attached.
construction has initiated prior to the consent to establish.
9b. PP has obtained revalidated Sr. CTE - CTE- Reply/
consent to establish on No. 15.02.20 07.01.202 comments of
07.01.2020 and revalidated / 14 0 PP
amended Environment
1. M/s Ms. No change
Clearance dated 15.01.2020.
Nathani Nathani
Sr Desc CTE- CTE- Parekh Parekh
. riptio 15.02.2 07.01.2 Construc Constructi
n 021 020 tion Pvt. on Pvt.
1. PP M/s. M/s. Ltd. Ltd.
Nathani Nathani 2. "Nathani "Nathani No change
Parekh Parekh
Height" Height"
Constru Constru
ct e 3 Rs. 196 Rs. 370 Increase due
ions dons Crores Crores to escalation
Page 24 of 32
Pvt. Pvt. of
Ltd. Ltd. construction
2. Proje "Natha "Nathan material /
ct ni i cost of
nam Height" Height"
construction
e
3. Proje Rs.196 Rs.370 in the real
ct Crores Crores estate market
cost over the
4. Total 5301.0 5301.0 period
Plot 4 4 4. 5301.04 5301.04 No change in
Area Sq. Sq. Mtrs sq. mtrs. Sq. mtrs. area.
Mtrs
5. 78727.0 86565.09 While
5. BUA 78727. 86565.
08 0 8 Sq. Sq. Mtrs. applying to
Sq. 9 Sq. Mtrs. MPCB for
Mtrs Mtrs revised
6. Dom 241CM 224 Consent to
esti D CMD Establish
c
total
efflu
ent construction
7. DG 2 Nos. 2 Nos. BUA
sets 200 1000 erroneously
KVA KVA mentioned as
each each 86,565.09
8. Dry 288 366 Sq. mtrs.. pp
wast Kg/day Kg/day vide its letter
e , ,
dated 28th
OWC, Segrega
used as te & November
manure handed 2019 has
over to revised total
authoriz construction
ed BUA to
9. Wet 563 563 79,151,.96
wast Kg/ Kg/
Sq, Mtrs.
e day, day,
Segrega OWC from
te followe 86,565.09
& d Sq. Mtrs.,
handed by which is
over to compost appraised
authori ing,
and assessed
zed used
recycler as by SEIAA.
manure Accordingly,
10. STP 34 Used as EC granted
slud Kg/day manure total
ge for construction
gardeni BUA of
ng
79,151.96
11. Haz Not 5.1
Sq. Mtrs., at
ardo Disclos Spent
us ed Oil, 200 the time of
Ltr/A, application to
& Sale to MPCB for
Othe Authori Consent to
r zed Operate, PP
Wast Dealer
shall make
e
12. STP 235CM 235CM necessary
capa D D, amendment
city MBBR for total
13. BoD 100 10 mg/l construction.
mg/l 6. 214 224 CMD Changed by
14. Susp 100 10 CMD only 10 CMD.
Page 25 of 32
end mg/l mg/l Due to
ed change in
solid policy
s
guidelines
15. COD 250 50 mg/l
and
mg/l
16. Resi 1 ppm 1 ppm amendment
dual to sanction
chlor plan.
ine 7. 2 No. 2 No. As per
17. Wate 354 256 200 KVA 1000 KVA requirement
r CMD CMD each each norms of
cons
umpt BEST/
ion - MCGM, same
dom will be
estic installed
prop before
ose completion of
18. DG 5 Mtrs 6.5 Mtrs
the Building.
Stac
k 8. 228 366 Kg/ Increase by
heig Kg/Day, Day, 87 Kg/Day,
ht OWC Segregate OWC
19. Parti 150 150 used as & handed installed.
cul mg/ mg/ manure over to
ate Nm3 Nm3 authorized
Matt
recycler.
ers
20. Cons Mandat Mandat 9. 563 563 Kg/ No Change.
ent ory to ory to Kg/Day, Day, OWC
to obtain obtain Segregat followed
oper prior to prior to e& by
ate commis commis handed compostin
sioning sioning over to g used as
authoriz manure
ed
recycler
10. 34 Kg/ Used as Will be used
Day manure as manure
for
Gardening
11. Not 5.1 Spent Prior
disclosed Oil, 200 Precaution, is
Ltr/A, taken
Sale to
Authorize
d Dealer.
12. 235 235 CMD No Change.
CMD MBBR
13. 100 10 mg/1
mg/1
14. 100 10 mg/1
mg/1
15 250 50 mg/1
mg/1
16. 1 ppm 1 ppm No change
17. 354 256 CMD Decrease
CMD
18. 5 Mtrs. 6.5 Mtrs. Stack height
is increased
as per MCGM
Page 26 of 32
sanction (but
height of the
Building is
not
increased)
19. 150 150 No change
mg/Nm3 mg/Nm3
20 Mandato Mandatory All
ry to to obtain necessary
obtain prior to permissions
prior to commissio are obtained
commiss ning and norms of
ioning all the
concerned
Authorities
are complied
with by PP.
PP will also
obtain
Consent to
Operate from
EC before
handing over
possession to
the flats
purchasers.
9c. It was mandatory to prior Respondent No.7/PP have obtained Consent to
consent to establish, Project Establish dt.16.12.2008, I0D dt. 11.06.2010
Proponent carried out the and thereafter demolition of old existing
demolition of most of the Buildings have been carried out. The old
buildings without Consent to buildings were in highly dilapidated condition,
Establish notice under 88(3) of MHAD Act and notice
under 354 of MMC Act have been issued whereby Statutory Authorities declared that the old buildings were in ruinous condition and required to be demolished immediately as same were in danger to the life of the Residents, Tenants/Occupants of the old buildings and the Bypassers at large. Part of the old building was collapsed in the year 2008.
9d PP has not provided the All the Tenants/Occupants of the old buildings temporary STP for sewage have vacated their old premises and Tenants disposal in construction had made their own provision for temporary phase alternate accommodation outside the project site, and there is no transit camp for labourers at site during the tenure of the construction of the building. However, Respondent No.7/PP has obtained temporary drainage connection from MCGM for disposal of waste of mobile toilet during treatment of the sewage water the course of construction.
9e There is no monitoring of the Respondent No.7/PP are regularly monitoring ambient air quality and noise ambient air quality and noise. Reports of the quality during construction same are also submitted along with six monthly compliance report submission time to time. There is no complaint from any person till today except the false allegations made in the Appeal when project is near completion. 9f Even in night time there is huge Noise monitoring report is submitted along noise in the area from with six monthly compliance report construction activity submission.No construction activities are being Page 27 of 32 carried out during night time. Respondent No.7/PP had followed rigorously all norms of MCGM. Hence, there is not a single complaint against the Respondent No.7/PP in respect of subject project right from the date of obtaining Consent to Establish till today except the present appeal which is filed on the false and frivolous grounds made first time in 2020. 9g. PP has put many units of No transit camp accommodation including completed building and transit labour camp is allowed in the project. The camp in use without obtaining possession is not given to flats purchases in the consent to operate and there is building. Provision for STP for treatment of installation of STP for treatment sewerage water has been made in the of the sewage water. project.The Respondent No.7 / Project Proponent shall obtain necessary Consent to Operate before handing over possession of the flats to the flats purchasers in the project, which will be done only after completion of remaining construction of the building. 9h. PP has not constituted any Respondent No.7/PP has engaged and availed qualified staff for compliance of the services of highly qualified professionals, conditions of Consents and EC national and international consultants, experts in the project like Fairwood Project Management and Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Fairwood Infra Pvt. Ltd.), Gammon India Ltd., Thornton Tomasetti Inc., Ultratech Environmental Consultancy tis Laboratory, RWDI, Skyline Architect, Buro Happold, Langdon & Seah Pvt. Ltd., Dongre Associates, Priedemann India Pvt. Ltd., etc. 9i There are measures for the Respondent No.7/PP had obtained electricity operations for the DO set during power connection from BEST during construction phase. construction of Building, hence, there was no need of DG sets. The project is not completed. However, before completion of the project and before obtaining Consent to Operate, PP will install the DO set in the building as per MCGM norms.
9j There is use of gas cutters, Respondent No.7/PP are using machines, heavy metal cutting machines, cutters, excavators as per norms and rules laid excavators in project causing air down by the MCGM and concerned Authorities pollution, noise pollutions. as applicable to the subject project. PP has taken utmost care and precaution; that there is no noise pollution and air pollution during the course of construction. Hence, there is no complaint from any person/ s including residents who are residing surrounding the project.
9k There is no treatment of waste Disposal of sewage generated during water discharged during the construction phase is being disposed into sewer construction phase also solid line as per norms and rules of MCGM and other waste generated is also not Authorities. treated scientifically Provision for segregation of solid waste, disposal of segregated waste to Authorized recyclers during the construction phase is made.
9l PP has not developed green belt PP have provided open space for as per CPCB norms, no solar recreational purpose as per the DC Rules. system, no air pollution control RG Area Provision: 442.05 Sq. Mt system. PP have also proposed 3.62% saving through renewable Solar energy As per MCGM conditions, 31 Trees are required to be planted. PP has already planted 90 Trees so far on the site. PP has further made provision of plantation of total 206 trees and same will be planted before Page 28 of 32 completion of construction and before obtaining Consent to Operate. Hence, plantation of total 206 nos. of trees which will act as noise and dust buffer 90 nos. of trees, out of 206, are already planted on site, the provision for plantation of remaining trees are under process and will be completed before completion of the project and obtaining Consent to Operate. 9m There is no installation of Plantation of total 206 nos. of trees which noise barriers and air pollution will act as noise and dust buffer barriers 90 nos. of trees are already planted on site.
Trees shall act as noise and dust barriers. 9n. Ambient Air and noise quality is Respondent No.7/PP are regularly monitoring not monitored ambient air quality and noise. Reports of the same are also submitted along with six monthly compliance report.
9o Thus PP has not complied the Respondent No.7/PP have complied with all terms & conditions of Consent to the terms and conditions of Consent to Establish dated 15.02.2014 and Establish and revised Consent to Establish. revised Consent to There is no violation of any condition.
Establish dated 07.01.2020
obtained from MPCB
9p. Therefore PP has committed Respondent No.7/PP deny that Project
violations of consent conditions Proponent have committed any violation of
intentionally. consent conditions intentionally or otherwise.
35. Reply To Para 10 Alleged Damage To Environment And Ecology On Account Of Illegal Construction:
I say and submit that, contentions of Para-10 alleged "Damage to Environment and Ecology on account of illegal construction' are false & misleading and same are denied by this Respondent. This Respondent is denying the averments in Para-10 (a) to 10 (k) with reply given below:
a. I say and submit that, this Respondent have obtained all the necessary permission well prior to commencement & modification in the project including EC dated 02.06.2011, 15.01.2020 and Consent to establish dated 15.02.2014, 07.01.2020 as mandatory under EIA Notification-2006 r/w.
Environment (Protection) Act-1986, Water (P & CP) Act-1974 and Air (P & CP) Act-1981, defiantly entire state of Maharashtra is pollution prevention area as notified under these act.
b. I say and submit that, it is not the case of appellant that this Respondent have not obtained the necessary clearance under the above enactments, but the case of appellant is there is so called violations of terms and conditions of these permissions, in fact this Respondent have explained in detail that there is no violation of any terms and conditions of any permission. c. This Respondent have taken all due care/ precaution in his construction project and remedial measures. Therefore there is no harm is caused to the environment and ecology as the principle of sustainable Development has been followed by this Respondent in letter and spirit. The detail reply of Respondent No.7/PP to Para 9 in tabular format is as under:
Sr. Allegations by Appellant Reply by Respondent No. 7-PP No. 10a That, the PP is • Respondent No.7/PP have complied with all carrying the construction terms and. conditions of EC and other of redevelopment very & highly Authorities and submitted six monthly Page 29 of 32 polluted area of Mumbai city, compliance report to Regional Office, M0EF but he has not complied with & other statutory bodies.
the terms and conditions of the • Respondent No.7/PP have also complied
EC and consents issued time with all terms and conditions of Consent to
to time. Establish.
The allegations are false.
10b As the Mumbai is pollution Respondent No.7/PP deny that PP
prevention area notified under intentionally caused pollution in the project
the Environment protection act- area and caused any damaged to
1986, Water (P & CP) Act- environment or ecology. PP had taken all
1974 and Air (P 85 CP) Act-- necessary care and steps and protected the
1981, it is necessary on Environment and ecology of the area.
account of PP to protect the
environment and ecology of the area, but PP intentionally caused pollution in the project area and. Damage environment and ecology 10c PP has not carried out the Demolition debris has been partly demolition of existing reused/recycled and remaining has been structures as per the norms disposed to the authorized land fill site as per and there is no scientific permission received from M.C.G.M. disposal of huge quantity of the demolition waste.
10d PP has not provided temporary Respondent No.7/PP have not set up or STP for treatment sewage constructed any labour camp or worker camp generated from construction or transit camp at site, during the period of worker camp and transit camp construction, hence, there is no question for treatment sewage generated from construction worker camp and transit camp arise, as alleged by the Appellant. 10e PP has not provided any Firstly there is no labour camp or transit camp scientific disposal of solid at site during entire period of construction. waste generated from the However, Respondent No. 7 had made construction workers camp provision for segregation of biodegradable and and transit camp. non-biodegradable garbage at site including provision of disposal of segregated waste to Authorized recyclers as per norms of MCGM and other Authorities.
10f PP has not provided any Frequent water sprinkling was done to protection during the Minimize the fugitive emissions of dust demolition for emission of dust causing air pollution during the demolition of causing air pollution. old dilapidated buildings at site and there Project Proponent is causing was no complaint from any person. Now, the emissions of GHG during project is near completion. The PP deny that construction. no protection is taken during the demolition for emission of dust causing air pollution. PP deny that PP is causing emissions of GHG during construction.
10g PP has not provided any RG Respondent No. 7/Project Proponent have area on virgin land all RG area provided open space for recreational purpose are on podium. as per the DC Rules and terms and conditions under IOD and sanction plans of MCGM.
Details are given as below
Required RG Area (8% of 392.88 sq.
Net plot area) mt.
Total RG Area Provided 442.05 sq.
by PP in the project mt.
RG on Mother 404.40 sq.
Ground Earth mt.
Additional 1 Paved area 3175.46 sq.
green cover mt.
area on
Podium
10h PP has not made any tree • Tree plantation started on site as per MCGM
plantation, not maintained norms
Page 30 of 32
hygiene at the project site • As per MCGM conditions, 31 Trees are
required to be planted. PP has already planted 90 Trees so far on the site. PP has further made provision of plantation of total 206 trees and same will be planted before completion of construction and before obtaining Consent to Operate.
• To maintain the hygiene,. provision for segregation of biodegradable (11 kg/ day) and dry garbage (5 kg/day) is made at site. • Provision for disposal of segregated waste - to Authorized recyclers is made.
10i PP has not obtained prior As the construction of the Building is not Consent to Operate and completed. PP shall obtain Consent premises in under to Operate upon completion of the entire Operation. project and before obtaining building completion certificate from MCGM.
10j STP is not in scientific STP is operational in proper operation & no waste disposal scientific manner. Quality of Treated sewage system is being regularly monitored on site. Results of treated sewage are well within stipulated standards.
10k Therefore by considering the • Respondent No.7/PP deny that PP have above fact, it is clear that the caused any damage to environment or PP has caused irreparable ecology & human habitant There is no substantial damage to violation of any terms and conditions of any environment and ecology & permission/s committed by PP during the human habitant to the tune of tenure of the project. more than Rs.300 Crores • in view of the aforesaid facts and compliances of terms and condtions of NOC's of MHADA, IOD, sanciton plan and Commencement Certificate/s of MCGM, EC, Consent to Establish, MPCB, SEAC-2, SEIAA and other Authorities in the matter of implementation of the project, the question of payment of any compensation does not arise. Respondent No.7/PP deny that they are liable to pay any compensation to any Authorities. There is not a single complaint in the project for all these years except the resent Appeal which is filed on false and frivolous ground. As PP had complied all the compliances as required and applicable to the project.
36. In the premises and in view of aforesaid facts I respectfully say and submit that, the Appellant is failed to make out any case against this Respondent/PP. This appeal is liable to dismiss.
37. I state that, the issues and grievances raised in Appeal are fully answered as stated in above paras and Appellant is failed to make out a cogent and compelling case for grant of any relief by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
38. In the present facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly vacate the ad-interim order and dismiss the Appeal with cost."
10. The Respondent No. 2/SEIAA has filed reply affidavit dated 13.02.2023, where-in it is submitted that the proposal for grant of EC was considered in 123rd Meeting of the SEAC on 07th December, 2019, where-by several information were required to be furnished by the Project Proponent (PP), Page 31 of 32 which were furnished by the Project Proponent (PP) vide letter dated 28.11.2019 and thereafter in the next Meeting dated 30th December, 2019, SEIAA decided to grant the EC in question. No violation has been stated to have been done by the Project Proponent.
11. We have perused the record and heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
12. It is evident from the Joint Committee Report cited above that the Project Proponent initially had disclosed BUA 86565.09 Sq.M in Form I and IA and thereafter revised it to BUA of 79151.96 Sq.M, and the EC was granted for the said BUA, out of which 77090.00 Sq. M. has been completed by it.
Therefore, it is apparent that by revising total BUA, the area has been reduced rather than being increased. We do not find that the same is any kind of concealment made by the Project Proponent in Form I and IA as being alleged by the Appellant. Besides that, no violation has been noted in the said committee report, to have been done on the part of the Project Proponent.
13. We also do not find any violation to have been done indicated in the reply-affidavit filed by the other Respondents, which have been mentioned above.
14. Therefore, in view of the above facts, we find that this appeal deserves to be dismissed having no force and is accordingly dismissed.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM March 16, 2023 Appeal No. 09/2020(WZ) P.Kr Page 32 of 32