National Green Tribunal
Rameshwar Radheshyam Maniyar vs 1. Union Of India on 1 May, 2023
Item No. 6 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Original Application No.100/2019(WZ)
Rameshwar Maniyar
.....Applicant
Versus
Union of India through Secretary, MoEF&CC & Ors.
....Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 01.05.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. K. R. Maniyar, Advocate
Respondent(s) : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC& 19/PMC
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-3 & 4/Envt. Deptt.,
R-5/SEIAA
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate R-6 & 7/MPCB
Mr. Sameer Khale, Advocate for R-8 & 9/PMRDA
Mr. Saurabh Sapar, Advocate for R-10/PP
ORDER
1. This application has been filed with the prayers that a Committee of experts be constituted to examine the present condition and violation made of the EC terms & conditions; and Respondent No. 10/Project Proponent be directed to pay an amount of compensatory cost for reinstatement of ecology in the area including the soil, River Indrayani and other natural resources in the vicinity.
2. In brief the facts of this case are that the Respondent No. 10/Project Proponent have constructed Residential Group Housing Scheme consisting of Bunglow Plinths, Row Houses and various buildings over an area of 130890 sq. meters in Gat Nos. 387 and 404 of Village:
Jambhul, Taluka: Maval, District: Pune, which is close to River Indrayani.Page 1 of 41
The main objection with respect the project in question appears to have been narrated at page nos. 59 to 65 of the paper book, where-in, in para no. 2, it is recorded that the Project Proponent flouted all the major conditions of Environment Clearance dated 18.10.2012, which are as follows:-
" a) The Developer was given permission upto 8 buildings and 450 flats as Proponent or developer represented to EC that Village Panchayat has plans to take sewerage project in the village to which developer was asked to follow the same rigorously further it was decided to accord approval for grant of EC for phase One i.e. upto 8 building and 450 flats maximum for PHASE I subject to developer providing and/or furnishing revised area and other statements for phase I and most importantly " AN UNDERTAKING THAT NO TREATED AND UNTREATED WASTE WATER WOULD BE LET OUT TO ANY NALA OR WATER BODY OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA" the Developer is and project is functioning exactly contradictory to such undertaking, which is causing the Principal Water Reservoir , River Indrayani to dirt Gutter and same is itself a sufficient cause to withdraw the EC permission of the project as per Landmark judgments in this regards along with compensatory cost which shall deter the notorious and mischievous attitude of the developer.
b) The Developer has given a Physical possession of the building, tenements without having completion certificate till date, so logically and factually there is no STP Plant either by panchayat and/or Developer is functioning as per initial EC.
c) The Developer has not constructed STP plant as per initial EC obtained, neither taken any efforts for processing the said sewage water. The natural slope of the land is from south to North towards river Indrayani which is fresh water river 86 water of the same is drinkable water; the present complex is emitting all the polluted water towards river Indrayani. The admission to this effect is been given by the developer.
d) The developer has given possession of the said premises without having any solid waste converter or garbage processing unit which is resulting in said pollution of the locality.
e) The developer has not taken any efforts to stop waste water emission 86 storm water collusion being polluting the river Indrayani.
f) The developer and/or project proponent has not considered 86 ensured the completion of STP, MSW, disposal facility, Green belt Development prior to occupation of the building 86 without which the physical occupation is being given without prior permission from the appropriate Authority.Page 2 of 41
g) As per the norms 86 Conditions of upper limit of developments leads to the local authority setting up the government monitored.
STP's is not available in the present vicinity which leads to flouting basic conditions of EC as provided to the present proponent.
h) The Petitioner further submits that in the hearing of PMRDA it was categorically reiterated by the Project proponent that the occupation of the premises are given for furniture and Interior decoration purposes. The Physical occupation of whatsoever nature is nothing but flouting the terms and conditions of the Plan and EC rules for the simple reason as there is no STP plan function and the said fact can be corroborated by way of Inspection report provided by PMRDA dated 03/11/2018 issued to petitioner under Right to information Act. Further the photographs attached to to the said report reveals that Respondent has constructed floor number 8 and 9 in the month of August 2018 which is clear violation of sanction Plan. It is pertinent to note that any builder and/or developer has to follow the rules and follow the flow of sanction and construction sequence. Any act contravening the same is against the rules and Regulations of EC norms and Act and result shall be cancellation of the EC which shall follow consequence and same is the case with the present project.
i) The present EC having limitation of 5 years 86 since deviations & alterations in the project. Which means that fresh permission were warranted which Respondent did not give heed to the same. Further for the actual consumption of FSI as per above refereed table the petitioner has clearly flouted and exceeded the permitted area of construction.
j) The petitioner submits that the present developer has given possession & occupation of the present sight to the different occupier 84 the said occupiers had further licensed said premises to licensee this fact is corroborated by way of Index II bearing No. 3913/2016 narrating the fact that the sight is been used by the occupants without proper permission to occupy the present project.
k) The petitioner having his own purchased Row house in the same project, he has visited the said property multiple times which has shown a clear usage by the occupants illegally using the said property.
l) The petitioner at the cost of repetition sincerely submits to this Hon'ble court all the misdeeds of the developer require to be curbed by way of strong legal action coupled with deterring other developers as the view taken by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of Apex Judgments.
m) The present developer has flouted all the major conditions of environment clearance as per letter dated: 26/03/2019. The Point of permitted construction and actual construction is existence is contravening to each other.
Page 3 of 41n) The petitioner submits that the Hon. tribunal and Hon. Apex court has followed the principle of " Polluter to Pay" i.e. if it is found that the person causing any pollution he has to compensate for the loss and damage to the environment, however even if the present respondent even if tries to salvage and/or camouflage any illegalities now shall not allow him to follow the pay and Pollute the principle.
o) The petitioner is submitting bonafidely that the Petitioner will send the copies of the present Petition to all the occupants to whom Respondent No.10 has sold the premises by way of the Registered Agreement to sale so as to make them aware that the possession provided to them by the developer is without any authority.
p) The petitioner submits that till date the Respondent has not received any completion and occupation certificate Which categorically means he cannot allow the purchaser of flats to occupy the premises , so the copies of No objection by Gram panchayat for usage of water , copies of agreement of cleaning authorities and garbage management authorities like Swach LLP shall not allow the Respondent to take shelter behind these agreement as principally the developer has erred on sequence and act in toto which is nothing but an illegal act , which shall categorically lead the entire project as illegal.
q) It is clear that construction raised at site and the area of proposed construction is added then the project will fall in B1 category and therefore, the SEIAA had no authority to grant EC dated 26.03.2019 by treating the project as falling under category B2. Therefore, the EC dated 26.03.2019 was beyond the authority of SEIAA and was granted under a totally false assumption and the same is therefore required to be quashed and set aside."
3. This matter was first considered by the Predecessor Bench on 05.03.2020 and direction was issued to send notices to all the Respondents and Joint Committee was also directed to be constituted comprising SEIAA (Maharashtra), Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and the Metropolitan Commissioner with a direction to jointly inspect the project in question, verify the factual aspects set out in the application and submit a report.
4. We find that the said Committee has submitted its report, which is annexed at page nos. 572 to 655 of the paper book, relevant portion of which is quoted here-in below:-
Page 4 of 41"
Sr. PARA REMARKS
No
.
1. The Petitioner and his wife are buyer of Row --
House in the project namely "Anantsrishti"
and which is developed by respondent no.
10. The Petitioner is the citizen of India and is a qualified Architect. He did his B.Arch. from Sir J.J. College of Architecture, Mumbai in the year 1998. The Petitioner has got several awards including AESA, Pune Award 2017 for standalone multi-tenement building category with an aim to encourage, stimulate and inspire creativity in Architect, Team work in building industry and also to generate greater Architectural awareness in the Society, Hereto annexed and marked Annexure- "A" is a copy of Registration between Petitioner as buyer and respondent no. 10 as seller of Row House C1 including Index II.
2. Respondent No. 10 is the Landscape Realty, --
a registered partnership Firm who has undertaken the development of the project. Further the said developer is and was more particularly known in the society and especially in Pune for the Brand of Jeweller having Legacy of more than 150 years and to encase the goodwill of the Jewellery Business, the Respondent no. 10 ventured the activity of Construction business which was started in the year 2010.
3. The Remaining all the Respondents are, --
Authorising authorities and / or an authority allowing the Respondent no. 10 with certain conditions as is stipulated in laws, The Said Parties are responsible for action and / or inaction of whatsoever nature which is directly and / or indirectly causing harm to Environment, Natural Habitat of animals or otherwise. The Said Authorities are also responsible for preserving Natural Resources such as Water reserves, Land and Air, may be owned by Developer and / or otherwise.
4. The Petitioner submits that, Respondent --
number 1 to 9 and 13 to 15 and 19 are the department heads and officer responsible for actions and inactions in the present project. The Respondent number 10 is Developer and Respondent number 11 is Architect and Respondent No. 12 is Environment Page 5 of 41 Consultant of the project. Remaining all the respondents are necessary party in the project.
5. By way of this petition, the Petitioner is --
bringing to notice of Hon'ble Tribunal, the violations of terms and conditions levied by various sanctioning authorities for permitting the construction activity along with pre- conditions of norms to be followed to avoid damage to the environment. Further to notify the action and inaction performed by various sanctioning authorities and / or monitoring authorities' in spite of repeated reminders of petitioner by way of various letters and correspondences, It is pertinent to note that all these mentioned authorities are protector of environment and help curb the pollution by way of strict actions against the violators. The relevant facts in brief are as under
6. 'Project Description which is under Respondent No. 10 challenge' has obtained Consent The Respondent No. 10 purchased a land to Establish from totally adm. 134452.97 sq. meters, Maharashtra comprised in Gat Nos. 387 and 404 of Pollution Control Village Jambhul, Taluka Maval, District Board (MPCB) for Pune. However the actual area under the total plot area layout is 130890.00 sq. meters. The 134452.97 sq. mtr. respondent No. 10 proposed to develop And for total Residential Group Housing Scheme construction BUA consisting of Bungalow Plinths, Row Houses 81781 sq. mtr. On and various buildings. In the group housing 14/10/2016 which scheme the entire area of layout is treated was valid up to 5 as one single plot and no sub-divisions years and then therein are permissible. respondent no. 10 on 08/01/2020 obtained amendment in consent to establish with expansion for construction of residential project having total plot area 130890 sq. mtr and proposed BUA 125166.8 sq. mtr as per EC dated 26/03/2019. This amended C to E is valid up to 5 years from date of issue.
Consent to Establish
dated 14/10/2016
Page 6 of 41
(Attached as Annex
A¬1) and Amended C
to E dated
08/01/2020
(Attached as Annex
A-2)
7. "Condition in 46th, 50th. 54th, Meeting of State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for Environment Clearance (EC)"
(for the sake of convenience hereinafter referred as SEAC) 7a The Respondent No. 10 submitted a proposal As per joint committee before the Environment Department, visit dated Maharashtra State for Environment 05/07/2022 Clearance (EC). As the plot and project is respondent no. 10 close to River Indrayani, proposal of has constructed pond respondent no. 10 was discussed in the as per SEAC and no 46th meeting of the State Level Expert discharge was found Appraisal Committee (SEAC) held on 22nd to any other water October, 2011. body.
Amongst others the SEAC Committee decided Storm Water shall be collected and stored in separate pond. The Location of the same shall be shown in plan along with the location of another separate pond for the storage of treated waste water, Calculations to show adequacy of ponds shall be furnished.
7b After minutes of meeting of 46th Meeting of Environment SEAC which was held on 22nd October Clearance granted on 2011, the project case was discussed in 50th 18/10/2012 for total Meeting of the State Level Appraisal plot area 134492.97 Committee held on 8th to 11th February sq. mtr. and total 2012 as Compliance Case. Amongst others BUA 81781 sq. mtr. the SEAC Committee decided, "The case was EC dated discussed on the basis of the presentation 18/10/2012. made by the proponent. Phase-I is already in under progress and the proposal is an expansion project. Details of the construction are not mentioned in form 1. Therefore it is deemed to be violation of the EIA Notification, 2006. Environment Department may look into matter for the aforesaid violation and take necessary action. It was decided by SEAC and the project proponent was requested to comply with the observations of the committee.
7c After 46th Meeting and 50thMeeting, the As per certificate project case was considered in 54th Meeting dated 10/01/2020 of the SEAC which was held on 2nd to 5th (Attached as Annex May 2012 as Compliance Case. SEAC A-3) stating that decided to recommend the proposal for respondent no. 10 Page 7 of 41 Environment Clearance only after complying has completed with the following conditions: Amongst installation and others important condition was to Reduce erection of 1580 KL the depth of the pond to 1.5 m and increase evaporation pond at the surface area for better evaporation. This Gat No. 387 & 404, was important condition as River Indrayani Mouje Jambhul, Pune. is very close to the project and the committee The details of said decided not to let out water outside the pond are-
project area.
Pond capacity
(volume)- 1580 KL.
Area of pond-
1265 sq. mtr.
Depth of pond-
1.25 mtr and no
discharge was
found outside the
premises from
pond and from
outlet of STP.
7d After 46th, 50th and 54th Meeting of SEAC, Details of pond are
project proponent explained the proposal to mention above.
State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in its 46the Meeting of SEIAA held on 16th / 17th May 2012.
"Conditions in 46th Meeting of SEIAA"
In its 54th Meeting SEAC recommended the As per condition no proposal for grant of EC only after complying 23 mentioned in with the following conditions :- (i) the depth commencement of the pond (for storage of surplus treated certificate dated water) should be reduced to 1.5 m (from 22/03/2018, 1681 3.5m) and surface are should be increased trees to be planted. for better evaporation; and (ii) 2000 trees Developer has should be planted. The project proponent submitted Certificate explained that maintaining a depth of 3.5m dated 12/08/2020 would ensure that smaller quantity of water with application for would be lost by evaporation, so that more part Occupancy water could be utilized. They also stated mentioning 1650 that the tank will be adequately protected on trees are planted and all sides with fencing. The suggestion assured that regarding planting of 2000 trees will be remaining would be complied with. planted prior to "Important conditions discussed in Meeting obtaining final as River Indrayani is very close to the occupancy certificate.
project" (Attached as Annex P-
It was found that there are no sewage lines 1)
available in the area. The project proponent Respondent no. 10 stated that the Village Panchayat has plans has provided STP of to make up sewerage project in the Village.
270 CMD capacity The project proponent will vigorously pursue based on MBBR the matter. It was clarified to him it would technology. The said Page 8 of 41 not be possible to take up the entire project STP is in operation by unless there is certainty regarding coming respondent no. 10, into existence of sewerage project. treated waste water It was, therefore, decided to accord approval is being used for for grant of EC for phase 1 of the project landscaping, flushing (with up to 8 buildings and 450 flats) subject etc. to the project proponent furnishing (i) revised area and other statements for phase 1; and
(ii) an undertaking that no treated or untreated waste water would be let out to any Nala or water body outside the project area.
7e Before undertaking the further project the Respondent no. 10 Respondent No. 10 submitted a proposal has provided STP of before the Environment Department, the 270 CMD capacity. proposal was considered in its meetings and The consent in 46th, 50th and 54th Meetings decided to committee meeting recommend the project for prior dated 20.7.2019 environmental clearance to SEIAA. consider the Information submitted by respondent no. 10 compliance status of was considered by State Level Environment closure direction Impact Assessment Authority in its 46th dated 4.4.2019 and Meeting. Amongst others the proposal withdrew the closure contained that the total fresh water direction and granted requirement of the project was 577.12 consent to operate m3/Day. In the proposal 2 STP were (part) dated 6.8.2019. proposed on having capacity of 372 m3/day The Respondent and another of 91.7 m3/Day. In the 54th Project Proponent Meeting of SEAC, it was clarified to the obtained renewal Respondent No. 10 that it would not be consent to operate possible to take the entire project unless (part) on 17.4.2022. there was certainty regarding coming into (consent to operate existence of Sewerage Project and that attached collectively initially Phase-I could be taken up with upto as Annex A-4) 8 buildings and 450 flats out of 12 buildings and 870 flats and Phase-II may be taken up after the Sewerage Project is prepared indicating possibility of completion of the project in 3 to 4 years and work is awarded for execution. Thereafter EC clearance was given to the Respondent No. 10 on 18.10.2012 on the terms and conditions stated therein. One of the condition is that no treated or untreated waste water would be let out to any Nala or Waterbody outside the project area. Another condition is that the Respondent No. 10 shall ensure completion of STP, MSW Disposal Facility, and Green Belt Development prior to occupation of the buildings and that no physical occupation or allotment shall be given unless the environmental infrastructure is installed and made Page 9 of 41 functional including water requirement. The petitioner states that the Indrayani River is very close to the Project. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure- "B" Collyare copies of the Minutes of 46th Meeting, 50th Meeting, Recommendation of SEAC of 54th Meeting and Minutes of 46th Meeting of SEIAA and Environment Clearance dated 18.10.2012 and Google map of the project area.
8. The Petitioners state that earlier the Before 31st March Respondent No. 10 had obtained sanction to 2015 Collector, Pune the layout and building plans for an area district had the less than 20000 sq. meters, in the year authority to give 2011. After EC Clearance the Layout and Development the building plans were again modified permission in inconformity with the EC Clearance on the Regional plan 04.01.2013. The 8 buildings were area of Pune District. sanctioned with Parking on the ground and In line with this, the 7 upper floors. In these 8 Buildings there said project got were 448 tenements consisting of 1 BHK, 2 approval from BHK and 2.5 BHK. The plans were Collector, Pune on sanctioned also for 39 Row House and 136 04/01/2013 for Plot Plinth Bungalow Structures and two Club area- 130890.00 Houses. The plans also showed 5 open Sq.mt.(as per spaces A to E. The Pond area as per EC was 7/12 extract), in Open Space A. These plans were Permissible Built up recommended by ADTP Pune and sanctioned Area is69,294. 83 by the Collector Pune as at that time the Sq.mt.(75% of net plot lands fell within their jurisdiction. Here to area) and Proposed annexed and marked Annexure- 'C' is a Built up Area is copy of the Plan sanctioned on 04.01.2013. 50,749.12 Sq.mt.
Which was well
within the
Environment
Clearance dated
18/10/2012 for plot
area 1,34,452.97
SQ.MT.(area as
per
demarcation),
Proposed FSI 69,294.
83 Sq.mt. And Total
Built up Area
81,781.00Sq.mt.
9. The Respondent No. 10 stared construction On 31st March 2015,
of Buildings, Row Houses and Bungalow Pune Metropolitan
Plinths and also stared entering into Regional Development
agreement with the Buyers. Out of 39 Row Authority was
Houses the construction of about 16 Row constituted under
Houses is in progress. The Petitioners have provision of
purchased a Row House C¬01 which is Maharashtra
under construction. The Respondent No. 10 Metropolitan Region
Page 10 of 41
started construction of 6 out of 8 Buildings. Development
In the sanctioned plans of 2013 all these 8 Authority Act and
buildings were parking plus 7 upper floors. 4 Maharashtra
buildings are complete and the Respondent Regional and Town
No. 10 has handed over possession of Flats Planning Act
there in to the Buyers without occupancy 1966.Since then Pune
certificate as well as without complying with Metropolitan Regional
the conditions in EC Clearance as well as Development
Fire Safety Requirements. The Petitioner was Authority is Planning
initially an Architect appointed for the and Development
Project. The Respondent No. 10 started Authority for the Pune
illegal constructions in variance with the Metropolitan region.
sanction plans such as constructing 8the Accordingly Revised
floor of two buildings even though the plans Permission has been
were sanctioned upto 7th floor to which accorded by Pune
petitioner objected. The Petitioner objected Metropolitan Regional
irregularities of respondent No. 10 through Development
emails at various occasions. As per Authority for the said
guidelines, rules and regulations of Council project on date
of Architecture framed under Architects Act 22/03/2018. for the 1972, and as per bye laws of PMRDA, Plot area1,30,890 Architects are responsible for their duties sq.mt., Proposed FSI and responsibilities towards nation such as is 67,633.76Sq.mt. Architects should not supervise illegal And Non FSI is constructions and / or sign any plan / 32,150.80 sq.mt. drawings in deviation of bye laws and / or Total Built up Area is issue completion certificate if the 99,784.56 sq.mt. construction is not carried on in accordance subject to condition to with the approved drawings / plans and get revised hence petitioner objected. Hence the Environment Respondent No. 10 removed the Petitioner as Clearance for an Architect on 29.11.2016 and they additional built-up thereafter appointed another Architect who area. is respondent no. 11. It was duty of The said Project got respondent no. 11 to follow guidelines, rules Revised Environment and regulations of Council of Architecture Clearance dated framed under Architects Act 1972, and as 26/03/2019 for plot per bye laws of PMRDA, Architects are area 1,30,890 responsible for their duties and sq.mt.,Proposed FSI responsibilities towards nations such as is 1,01,131.66 Sq.mt. Architects should not supervise illegal And Non FSI is constructions and / or sign any plan / 24,035.22 Total Built drawings in deviation of bye laws and / or up Area is 1,25,166.8 issue completion certificate if the Sq.mt.
construction is not carried on in accordance Occupancy Certificate with the approved drawings / plans. for building H, I, J Petitioner has filed complaint against and Q dated respondent no. 11 as per Architects Act 20/01/2020 was 1972 to Council of given by PMRDA.
Architecture. The Council opined that there is (Attached as Annex P-
Prima Facie case of Professional Misconduct
2) Developer had against the respondent no. 11. Hereto submitted consent to annexed and marked Annexure "D" Colly is Establish dated Page 11 of 41 a copy of the public notice by Council of 14/10/2016 and Architecture, Letters of Council of consent to operate Architecture. All the matters related dated 06/08/2019, Architects Act 1972 have been submitted to which was valid Council of Architecture. till date 30/04/2022 with application for occupancy certificate.
Penalty has
been imposed
on developer
for giving
occupancy without
procuring
occupancy
certificate as per
PMRDA's resolution
dated 20/08/2018.
10. The responded No. 10 and 11 thereafter Provisional fire
submitted plans for revision of layout and NOC dated
building permission before the Respondent 19/12/2011 and
No. 9 who now is the Competent Authority final fire NOC dated
for issuing Provisional Fire NOC. Respondent 19/07/2014 for
no. 9 issued Provisional Fire NOC to building 'H' and 'I'
respondent no. 10. The Petitioner objected has been given by
about the change in layout as layout of Directorate Of Fire
plans are changed after four years as it was Services, Mumbai.
without the consent of petitioner and plinth / (Attached as Annex plot, flat, row houses purchasers. The P-3 ) Petitioner has filed complaint in Maha RERA Final Fire NOC for as respondent no. 10 has delayed the building 'J' and 'Q' possession of unit / project by almost more dated 25/09/2019 than three years. (Attached as Annex P-4 ) and for building 'P' and 'K' on date 28/08/2020 given by PMRDA -Fire Department.
(Attached as Annex
P-5)
Developer has
obtained consent of
purchasers on
registered
instrument- sale deed
to revise project,
accordingly open
space revision has
been allowed.
PMRDA has accorded
revised building
permission by
Page 12 of 41
following due
process.
11. The respondent no. 10 and 11 thereafter Revised Permission
submitted plans for revision of layout and has been given by
building permission before the Respondent Pune Metropolitan
No. 8 who now is the Competent Authority Regional Development
for sanctioning the project. In presences of Authority for the said
complaints of petitioner and without any project on date
reply to petitioner, Respondent No. 8 22/03/2018, by
sanctioned the revised Layout / Building following due
Plans on 22.03.2018. Hereto annexed and process.
marked Annexure- "E" Collyis a copy of the Approval and Commencement Certificate of Revised Plans dated 22.03.2018 and the map and NA Order.
12.
a) The Petitioner submit that the above said Revised Permission revision of the plans is illegal and contrary has been given by to law and that has resulted in the common Pune Metropolitan facilities available to the Buyers under the Regional old plans are either removed or deleted. Development There is also violation of the provisions Authority for the said relating to FSI. The details of the Violations project on date are stated hereinafter. 22/03/2018.
Minimum required
10% Open space and
15% amenity space
are provided as per
prevailing
Development Control
and Promotion
Regulations.
b) The Petitioner submit that the provisions of Developer has
the Development Control and Promotion obtained consents of
Regulations for Regional Plan Areas in purchasers on
Maharashtra, hereinafter called Regulations, registered instrument-
are applicable to the project and the PMRDA sale deed, to
is the Planning Authority. The Petitioners revise project,
submit that as per R-13.3.3 the open spaces accordingly open
cannot be rearranged without the consent of space revision has
majority of Plot / Tenement Holder / Co- been allowed. PMRDA
owners and such a revision of recreational has accorded revised
open spaces shall ordinarily not be allowed building permission
after a period of 4 years from the first by following
sanction. The Petitioners submit that as per due process laid
the revised Plant the open space has been down in prevailing
rearranged without the consent of the Plot / Development Control
Tenement / Co- Owners. No such a consent and Promotion
has even been asked by the Respondent No. Regulations.
10 from the Petitioner and the Petitioner submit that no such a consent was asked for by the Respondent from the other Plot / Page 13 of 41 Tenement / Co-owners. The sanction of the revised plan is therefore illegal.
c) The Petitioner submit that in the Plans Minimum required initially sanctioned five open spaces were 10% Open Space and shown namely A to E. As far as open space 15% Amenity Space A is concerned its area is reduced and are provided as reduced area has been rearranged in the per prevailing portion marked as 'F' in the revised map. Development This too is illegal as no development of any Control and kind is permissible within a distance of 30 Promotion meters from the adjoining District Road. The Regulations. In Petitioner thus submit that no open space accordance with can be shown in this area within 30 meters Development from the District Road and hence the revised control rules, no plan is illegal. construction is permitted within 30 meter distance from the centre of the district road, i.e. building line.
However no
restriction is imposed
to keep open space
within 30mt.
i.e.building line.
d) The Petitioner further submit that in the As per rule no. 13.3.9
original sanctioned plans an internal "Every plot meant for
independent means of access road of 12.0 recreational Open
meter wide was shown as an access to open Space shall have
space 'E' as per R No. 13.3.9. In the revised independent access, plan this access road is deleted. unless it is Furthermore, in the original plan an access approachable directly road of 6 meterwide was shown as access from every building in to open space 'A'. This road is also deleted. the layout. Present Thus, to both the open spaces 'A' an 'E' scheme is group there is no independent means of access housing scheme and road which is mandatory as per R- 13.3.9. as per sanctioned Even the agreements of sale showed these revised drawing, access roads. The access to these open each and every Open spaces is thus closed in the revised plan. Space is The purchasers thus have no access to these directly open spaces. The revised plan is therefore approachable from illegal. every building. Open Spaces namely "A"
and "E" are directly approachable.
(Attached as Annex P-
6)
e) The Petitioners submit that as far as open As mentioned above.
space 'E' is concerned just adjacent to the 12 meter wide access road shown in the original plan the revised plan is sanctioned Page 14 of 41 for a new building which is illegal, the building line of which, just abuts the original 12 meter wide road. The construction of this building is yet to start. It is pertinent to note that while submitting the proposal for revision of the plans the Respondent No. 10 amongst others submitted a plan of open spaces which shows the above said 12 meter wide road. However the sanctioned plan, sheet No. 1 the said road is deleted. The revised plans are therefore illegal.
f) The Petitioners submit that as this is a The present scheme Group Housing Scheme the entire land is is a Group housing treated as one plot and there cannot be any scheme wherein FSI sub-division therein. The Petitioner submit has been counted on that as regards the Bungalow Plinths though the basic net plot the sanctioned plans show the same as area and it can be bungalow plinths actually on Site these utilized on whole plot. Bungalow Plinths and the plot area is Revised plans separately demarcated and sold as plots by are sanctioned the Respondent No. 10. The Petitioners accordingly. submit that if there is a Sub-division of Plots in the layout then the FSI of the individual plots cannot be utilized anywhere else and the same has to be distributed on pro-rata basis on all individual plots. It is apparent that the Respondent No. 10 after sale of individual plots intends to utilize the balance FSI for construction of proposed buildings or in the future development which is not permissible in law. This is as per the actual site conditions. The revised plan is therefore illegal.
g) The Petitioners submit that the PMRDA could The said project has not have sanctioned the revised plans gotEnvironment without Environment Clearance. Even the Clearance dated PMRDA could not give a conditional 18/10/2012 for plot permission to the effect that the Respondent area 1,34,452.97 No. 10 shall not undertake further sq.mt.(area as per development without revised environment demarcation),Propose clearance. d FSI 69,294. 83 Sq.mt. and Total Built Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the up Area is above said Sanction of Revised Plans of the 81,781.00Sq.mt. Respondent on 22.03.2018, the Petitioner has approached Hon'ble High Court, In the Revised Permission Matter of Art 226 of the Constitution of India, has been accorded by In the matter of the Maharashtra Regional Pune Metropolitan and Town Planning Act, 1966 and In the Regional matter of the Development Control and Development Promotion Regulations for Regional Plan Authority for the said Areas in Maharashtra. Hereto annexed and project on date Page 15 of 41 marked Annexure- "F" Collyis a copy of WRIT 22/03/2018. for the PETITION 13195/2018. Plot area1,30,890 sq.mt.,Proposed FSI is 67,633.76Sq.mt. And Non FSI is 32,150.80 sq.mt.Total Built up Area is 99,784.56 sq.mt.subject to condition to get revised Environment Clearance for additional built-up area.
The said Project got
Revised
Environment
Clearance dated
26/03/2019 for plot
area 1,30,890
sq.mt.,Proposed FSI is
1,01,131.66 Sq.mt.
And Non FSI is
24,035.22 Total Built
up Area is 1,25,166.8
Sq.mt.
Writ petition no
13195/ 2018 has
been filed by
petitioner in Hon'ble
High Court, and
PMRDAhas filled an
affidavit on date
01/11/2019,
as a respondent no. 3.
(Attached as Annex P-
7)
13.
a) The Petitioner submits that Respondent No. Respondent no. 10
10 is responsible for afollowing violations has constructed pond
which is polluting Holy River Indrayani and ) (details are
damaging Environment as well. The mentioned in point
Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 10 is no. 7 c). Storm water
responsible for following violations which is is collected through polluting Holy River Indrayani and the storm water drain damaging Environment as well. The then led to recharge IndrayaniRiver originates in kurvande pit.At present no village near Lonavla, a hill station in the construction activity Sahyadri Mountains of Maharashtra Fed by is going on. rain, it flows east from there to meet the Bhima River, through the Hindu pilgrimage centers of Dehu and Alandi. It follows a Page 16 of 41 course mostly north of the city of Pune [2] it is revered as a holy river and is associated with such great religious figures such as Sant Tukaram and Sant Dnyaneshwar. As stated in 46th, 50th, 54th Meeting of SEAC and 46th Meeting of SEIAA and Environment Clearance no pond has been constructed till date by Respondent No. 10. Amongst others the SEAC Committee decided Storm Water shall be collected and stored in separate pond. Respondent no. 10, till date has not constructed any such ponds and thus violated important condition. It is pertinent to note that all storm water from the project is getting contaminated due to construction Material including Cement, paints and harmful chemicals. The same Contaminated storm water due to slope towards River Indrayani is ultimately getting mixed with River Indrayani and thus polluting the River.
b) It is pertinent to note that 4 buildings are At present there is no occupied, Building H, I, J, Q with almost 224 labour camp in the tenements are occupied without Occupancy premises. Certificate, Labour Camp is Occupied with many Labours. There is use of various Occupancy Certificate household chemicals, acides, cleaning for building H, I, J soaps, phenyl, toilet cleaning materials and and Q on date other harmful materials due to construction 20/01/2020 given by and occupancy at site. As there is no PMRDA. Developer Sewage Treatment Plant at Labour Camp had submitted and as well for buildings, all these harmful consent to Establish chemicals and oils, fuels are ultimately dated 14/10/2016 getting mixed in Storm Water and through and consent to water outlets of toilets / septic tank, operate dated ultimately contaminating ground water and 06/08/2019, which River Indrayani. An undertaking that no was valid till date treated or untreated waste water would be 30/04/2022, with let out to any Nala or water body outside the application for project area was given by respondent no. 10 Occupancy Certificate.
to Environment Committee. This condition is As per PMRDA's
also been violated by respondent no. 10. resolution dated
20/08/2018 Penalty
has been imposed on
developer for
occupancy given
without
procuring
Occupancy Certificate.
c) The proposal has been considered by SEIAA Respondent no. 10
in its 46th Meeting and decided has provided STP and
environmental clearance to the said project pond the details are
Page 17 of 41
under the provisions of Environment Impact mentioned in point no.
Assessment Notification, 2006 subject to 7 d) and 7 c)
implementation of the following terms and respectively.
conditions.
Important Conditions of EC dated 18th October 2012 which are violated area as follows:
Condition 3 (i) of EC clearance dated 18th Respondent no. 10 October 2012 at Page 2 states "No treated or has provided STP and untreated waste water would be let out to pond the details are any Nallah or water body outside the project mentioned in point no. area". This condition is violated as there is 7 d) and 7 c) no pond and as there is no STP as per EC at respectively and site. It is pertinent to note that all water from during joint visit the project is going to River Indrayani due to dated 05/07/2022 its proximity and slope towards River there is no any Indrayani. Hence River Indrayani and discharge outside the Ground water is getting Contaminated. project observed.
Condition 3 (vi) of EC clearance dated 18th MPCB had issued October 2012 at Page 3 states "Project Closure Direction Proponent shall ensure completion of STP, dated 04/04/2019 MSW disposal facility, green belt (Attached as Annex A- development prior to occupation of buildings. 5) to respondent no. No Physical occupation or allotment will be 10 as he failed to given unless all above said environmental obtain consent to infrastructure is installed and made operate from MPCB functional including water requirement in before giving Para 2. Prior certification from appropriate possession to flats authority shall be obtained". This condition owners, not provision is violated as Physical Occupation and of STP (Sewage allotment is given by respondent no. 10 Treatment Plant) and without above mentioned facilities. There is OWC (Organic Waste no STP at site since 2012. Hence EC is no Converter). longer valid. This condition is also violated Respondent no. 10 by respondent no. 10 as according to him has obtained EC there is no physical occupancy at site where dated 26/03/2019 as Inspection report of Chief Fire Officer, from competent PMRDA (respondent no. 9) states that there authority. is occupancy in buildings, Index II of Leave and License agreement states that there is physical occupancy in building and attached photographs stated that there is physical occupancy in buildings.
Condition 3 (vii) of EC clearance dated 18th At present there is no October 2012 at Page 3 states "Provision labor camp in the shall be made for the housing of construction premises. labour within the site with all necessary infrastructure and facilities such as fuel for cooking, mobile toilets, mobile STP, safe drinking water, medial health care, crèche, and first aid room etc." This condition is violated as there is no Mobile STP for toilets Page 18 of 41 and thus resulting in Pollution of River Indrayani and violation of EC.
Condition 3 (x) of EC clearance dated 18th Respondent no. 10 October 2012 at Page 1 to 5 states "Wet has provided OWC of garbage should be treated by organic waste 900 kg/day capacity converter and treated waste (manure) for treatment of wet should be utilized in the existing premises garbage but operated for gardening. And, no wet garbage will be at very low volume disposed outside the premises. Local due to less authority should ensure this. "This condition occupancy. is also violated by respondent no. 10 as according to him there is no physical occupancy at site where as inspection report of Chief Fire Officer, PMRDA states that there is occupancy in building, Index II of Leave and License agreement states that there is physical occupancy in buildings. Condition 3 (xi) of EC clearance dated 18th Respondent no. 10 October 2012 at Page 3 states "Arrangement has provided STP for shall be made that waste water and storm treatment of domestic water do not get mixed". This condition is waste water and also violated by responded no. 10. hence storm water and waste water do not get mix at present.
Condition 3 (xxviii) of EC clearance dated PP is not using 18th October 2012 at Page 3 states "The natural source of ground water level and its quality should be water and shall monitored regularly in consultation with monitor the ground Ground Water Authority." This condition is water. also violated by respondent no. 10.
Condition 3 (xxx) of EC clearance dated 18th Occupancy Certificate October 2012 at Page 3 states "Local body for building H, I, J should ensure that no occupation and Q on date certification is issued prior to operation of 20/01/2020 given by STP / MSW site etc. with due permission of PMRDA. Developer MPCB." This condition is also violated by had submitted respondent no. 10 as building are already consent to Establish occupied without valid occupancy certificate dated 14/10/2016 from Local body. and consent to operate dated 06/08/2019, which was valid till date 30/04/2022, with application for Occupancy Certificate.
As per PMRDA's
resolution dated
20/08/2018 Penalty
has been imposed on
developer for
occupancy given
Page 19 of 41
without procuring
Occupancy Certificate
Condition 3 (lii) of EC clearance dated 18th Respondent no. 10
October 2012 at Page 3 states "The has submitted half
proponent shall upload the status of yearly compliance
compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, report to MoEF and
including results of monitored data on their MPCB. Latest report of
website and shall update the same submitted on
periodically. It shall simultaneously be sent 01/06/2022 and first
to the Regional Office of MoEF, the respective page is attached as zonal offices of CPCB and the SPCB. The Annex A-6. criteria pollutant levels namely; SPM, RSPM, SO2, NOx (ambient levels as well as stack emissions) or critical sector parameters, indicated for the project shall be monitored and displayed at a convenient location near the main gate of the company in the public domain." This condition is also violated by respondent no. 10.
Condition 5 of EC clearance dated 18th PMRDA may examine October 2012 at Page 2 to 7 states "In case the occupancy of submission of false document and non- certificate and confirm compliance of stipulated conditions, condition no. 10, if Authority / Environment Department will conditions of EC are revoke or suspend the Environment violated by PP, Clearance without any intimation and PMRDA to initiate appropriate legal action under communicate alleged Environment Protection Act, 1986." This violations to SEIAA, condition is also violated by respondent no. Maharashtra and 10 as buildings are already occupied accordingly SEIAA without valid occupancy certificate from Maharashtra may Local body and violations of stipulated take necessary conditions are done by respondent no. 10 actions for violations including conditions mentioned above. as per SOP for identification and handling of violation cases under EIA Notification, 2006 issued by MoEF & CC, OM dated 07/07/2021 and 28/01/2022.
14. The Petitioner submits that respondent no. Presently complied.
10, 11, 12 are based in Pune and The MPC Board has respondent no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 are issued closure Government Authorities are well aware of direction dated Judgment in one of project at Pune by the 4.4.2019 and BG of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Rs 13.23 Lakhs will Appeal No. 10854 of 2016, M/s. GOEL be forfeited as GANGA DEVEOPERS PVT. LTD versus violation of consent UNION OF ENVIRONEMNT AND FORESTS & conditions vide Page 20 of 41 ORS. The Petitioner submits that respondent consent dated no. 10 has done more damaged to 17.4.2022. Environment (when compared with the above judgment) by polluting Holy River Indrayani& by contaminating ground water which is more difficult to treat. The petitioner submits that factual matrix of areas when compared with the project in Judgment is also similar. The Petitioner submits that as in the above Judgment, Polluter pays principle shall not be construed as 'pay and pollute principle' and a clear message that environmental compliance is supreme and the party which is non-complying the environmental standards shall be at economic disadvantage is required. The Petitioner submits that River Indrayani is a Holy River as Lakhs of pilgrims visits the Holy River at Holy Place Alandi. The Petitioner submits that Pilgrims known as "Warkaris" are poor and innocent people visting the place Alandi during Ashadi Ekadashi and all other days in a year and use the water of Holy River Indrayani. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure- "G" are photographs and pollution statements in News Paper.
15. The Petitioner submits that Respondent no.8 The said project has is also responsible for pollution of River got approval from Indrayani and damaged caused to Collector, Pune on Environment. The Petitioners submit that in date 04/01/2013 for the absence of compliance of all the terms Plot area- and conditions in the Environment Clearance 1,30,890.00 approval dated 18.10.2012 the PMRDA has Sq.mt., no power to even consider the proposal for Permissible Built up revision of the plans. The Petitioners submit Area is 69,294. 83 that the Respondent No. 10 has not Sq.mt. (75% of net plot completed STP as per EC & MSW Disposal area) Proposed Built Facility and Green belt Development and yet up Area is 50,749.12 they have handed over possession of 4 Sq.mt. And tenements buildings to the Buyers. The Petitioners are 623, Which are submit that as per the Environment well within Clearance granted in 2012 the approval was the accorded granted for 450 tenements and accordingly Environment the plans were sanctioned in the year 2013 Clearance dated for 448 tenements in 8 buildings. In the 18/10/2012 for plot revised plan there are 10 buildings with area 1,34,452.97 increase of 300 tenements making 748 Sq.mt (area as per tenements in the 10 buildings. The EC was demarcation), only for 8 buildings and 450 tenements. The Proposed FSI 69,294. sanction of the plans in the year 2018 by the 83 Sq.mt. And Total respondent no. 8 is thus illegal. The Built up Area Respondent No. 10 has stared constructions Page 21 of 41 of 8th and 9th floors of two buildings K & P 81,781.00Sq.mt. which is in violation of EC conditions. The Petitioners submit that as per the EC no Revised Permission Ponds have been either shown in revised has been given by plan or created on the Site for the purpose of Pune Metropolitan evaporate Respondent No. 10 has not made regional the facilities of STP, MSW Disposal Facility development authority and Green Belt Development. In the absence for the said project on of compliance with all the conditions in EC Date 22/03/2018 for the respondent no. 8 had no power to revise plot area1, 30,890 the plans, that too without fresh EC. The sq.mt., Proposed FSI Petitioners submit that the Respondent No. is67,633.76 Sq.mt. 10 has handed over possession of 4 And Non FSI is buildings which is about 224 tenements 32,150.80 sq.mt.Total without Occupation Certificate. The Built up Area is possession has been delivered without 99,784.56 sq.mt. complying with conditions in EC and And tenements Regulations. Thus, the Petitioners submit proposed are 903, that the untreated sewerage water, without subject to condition to treatment, is being discharged in the nearby get revised Nalas which ultimately reaches to Indrayani Environment Rive. Hereto annexed and marked Clearance for Revised Annexure- 'H' is a copy of Index II extract of built-up area. The a Leave and License Agreement in respect of said Project got Flat No. 506, I Wing. Revised Environment Clearance dated Respondent no. 8 has not taken timely 26/03/2019 for plot action in spite of Inspection Report of Chief area 1,30,890 Fire Officer, PMRDA (respondent no. 10) sq.mt., Proposed FSI where in it was crystal clear that respondent 1,01,131.66 Sq.mt.
no. 10 has acted in contravention to MRTP And Non FSI is Act 1966. 24,035.22 Total 02.12.2017 - The Petitioner submitted letter Built up Area to respondent no. 9, Chief Fire Officer, 1,25,166.8 Sq.mt. PMRDA about various illegalities and action Since the developer required for Life Safety of Residents. has submitted 29.01.2018 - The Petitioner submitted letter consent to establish to respondent no 9, Chief Fire Officer, certificate dated PMRDA about various illegalities and action 14/10/2016 as required for Life Safety of Residents. per 17.02.2018 - The Respondent No. 9 issued environment letter to respondent no. 11 for explanation clearance dated for Petitioner's complaint. 18/10/2012 and 15.01.2018 - The Respondent No. 10 issued which was valid another letter to respondent no. 11 for for 5 years explanation for Petitioner's complaint as or commissioning REMINDER 1. whichever is earlier. 04.04.2018 - The Respondent No. 9 issued As the project was another letter to respondent no. 11 for already explanation for Petitioner's complaint as commenced as per REMINDER 2. previous approval, 12.04.2018 - The Respondent No. 11 replied said revised
to respondent no. 9. After reading the reply, Page 22 of 41 it was not clear as who will be responsible permission was given for life safety of people staying at to get revised Anantsrishti. environment Oct. 2018 - Respondent No. 9 sent NOTICE Clearance and project FOR ENTRY AND INSEPCTION to respondent was given no. 10 and copy to respondent no. 11 as per revised environment Section 5(1) and rule 7(1), Maharashtra Fire clearance by SEIAA Prevention and Life Safety Act 2006. on date 26/03/2019. 22.10.2018 - The Respondent No. 9 Provisional fire NOC inspected the site. dated 19/12/2011 03.11.2018 - As per inspection report, The and final fire NOC for respondent no. 9 observed that building H building H and I has and I, both the buildings are occupied been given by without the valid occupation certificate and Directorate Of Fire this is a contravention to the provisions of Services, Mumbai. MRTP ACT, hence building permission Final Fire NOC for department of PMRDA i.e. respondent no. 8 building J and Q may take appropriate action in this regards. dated 25/09/2019 Respondent no. 9 further observed that some and for building P and of the flats were occupied in building J and K on date Q. Final Fire NOC is yet to be obtained. The 28/08/2020 given by Petitioner submits hence no occupancy PMRDA - Fire certificate is also obtained. Department. The Petitioner submits that in presence of Occupancy certificate concrete evidence and inspection report for building H,I,J and (after twelve months of complaint) about Q given on violations respondent no. 8 has not taken date any action against respondent no. 10, 11 20/01/2020,after since 03.11.2018. This has resulted in more getting consent to pollution of River Indrayani and Ground operate dated Water Contamination. Ground water once 06/08/2019 from contaminated cannot be treated. Therefore, MPCB. And before to consider the EC Dt. 18/10/2012 was issuing occupancy beyond the authority of SEIAA and was certificate, Penalty continued under a totally false assumption has been imposed for and the same is therefore required to be occupancy given by quashed and set aside.
developer without
procuring
occupancy
certificate as per
PMRDA's resolution
dated 20/08/2018.
At present STP has
provided for treatment
of domestic waste
water and found in
operation.
16. The Petitioner submits that Respondent no. MPCB had issued
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are also more responsible Closure Direction
for pollution of River Indrayani and dated 04/04/2019
Page 23 of 41
damaged caused to Environment as they for the non-
have not taken any timely action against compliance observed.
respondent no. 10.
10.08.2018 - The Petitioner submitted letter --
to SEAC & SEIAA (respondent no. 4, 5) about various violation related to Environment.
SEAC2011/CR-890/TC2 DATED 18TH OCTOBER 2012.
24.08.2018 - Writ Petition was filed by Petitioner against respondent 17.09.2018 - from the office of respondent no. 3, letter was issued to respondents and the letter stated to put up site report for the grievances as in Petitioner's complaint. 21.09.2018 - Petitioner's Lawyer submitted copy of WRIT PETITION which stated various illegalities to respondent no. 3.
16.10.2018 - Petitioner's submitted letter which stated various illegalities to respondent no. 3.
28.12.2018 - Petitioner in his email to respondent no. 3, clearly explained violations of respondent no. 10 and pollution of River Indrayani. Kamat report and letter from Environment department was attached in the email.
08.09.2019 - Petitioner in his email to respondent no. 3, clearly explained violations of respondent no. 10 and pollution of River Indrayani.
25.03.2019 - from the office of Respondent no. 3, letter was issued to respondents and the letter stated to put up site report for the grievances as in Petitioner's complaint as it was not received even after letter dated 17.09.2018. 26.03.2019 - Respondent no. 3, 4, 5 issued These facts are not Amended Environment Clearance in included in the presence of all above mentioned letters and application of the PP violations. The Petitioner submits that this therefore, the is intentional act and the Environment disclosure of the Authorities who are the protectors have same is not made in become destructor of Environment in this front of SEAC while case. (Copy of the same was submitted by appraisal. respondent no. 10 in affidavit in reply at Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 11/09/2019).
11.09.2019 - Copy of the EC dated MPCB had issued 26.03.2019 was submitted by respondent Closure Direction no. 10 (project proponent) in Affidavit in dated 04/04/2019 to reply at Hon'ble Bombay High Court on respondent no. 10 as 11/09/2019. Hence, we approached he failed to obtain consent to operate Page 24 of 41 National Green Tribunal. from MPCB before giving possession to The Petitioners submit that in the absence of flats owners, not compliance of all the terms and conditions in provision of STP the Environment Clearance approval dated (Sewage Treatment 18.10.2012 and in presence of many Plant) and OWC complaints and WRIT PETITION about (Organic Waste violations of EC, the Respondent no. 3 and Converter).
respondent no. 4 has no power to even The joint committee consider the proposal for revision amending during their of Environment Clearance. The Petitioner inspection on submits that it was informed to Respondent 5.7.2022 observed no. 3 and 4 about the violations of EC and that PP has provided that immediate action is necessary to protect STP and OWC, Environment. In presence of Writ Petition, further during respondent no. 4 issued amended / revised inspection STP was EC on 26thMarch, 2019. The Petitioner found in operation submits that EC issued on 26thMarch, 2019 also constructed has been diluted as compared to EC issued holding pond.
on 18th October 2012. As per condition in EC, respondent no. 3 and 4 has no powers Also no discharge of to dilute the conditions of EC. The petitioner any effluent was submits that respondent 3 and respondent 4 observed. in collusion and conspiracy with respondent no. 10, 11 and 12 had diluted EC dated 26th March 2019 as compared to EC issued on 18th October 2012. It is pertinent to note that on page 10 of amended EC, it is misrepresented about "Court cases pending if any--- NA." The petitioner submits that amended EC is based on misrepresentations as well.
Hereto annexed and marked Annexure- "I" a copy of chart explaining the dilution in Amended EC and Relevant Extract of Order of Writ Petition Pending.
17. In addition to Violations of EC conditions in EC dated 18th October 2012, Important Conditions of EC dated 26th March 2019 are also violated which are as follow:
a) The Petitioner submits that as most of the MPCB had issued conditions of EC dated 18th October 2012 Closure Direction are violated for many years as explained dated 04/04/2019 to above, hence the same EC clearance should respondent no. 10 as be suspended and cancelled. he failed to obtain
b) The Petitioner submits that as in spite of consent to operate many complaints to different forums about from MPCB before the same EC violations which are known to giving possession to most of the respondents including flats owners, not respondent no. 1 to 13; hence EC dated provision of STP
18.10.2012 should be considered as (Sewage Treatment deemed suspended and cancelled. Plant) and OWC (Organic Waste Page 25 of 41 Converter).
The joint committee during their inspection on 5.7.2022 observed that PP has provided STP and OWC, further during inspection STP was found in operation also constructed holding pond.
Also no discharge of
any effluent was
observed outside
premises.
c) The Petitioner submits that as per Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10854 OF 2016 and as per Environment norms, project with potential more than 1, 50,000.00 sq. m. has to be considered in 8(a) - B1 instead of Category 8(a) - B2. B1 projects require Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report to be prepared and scoping to be done whereas B2 projects do not require any Environmental Impact Assessment report. The Petitioner submits that in his mail to respondent no. 3 dated 08.02.2019, BUITLT UP AREA OF PROJECT / PROJECT POTENTIAL was more than 1,50,000.00 sq. m.
Sr. Description of In Sq. M
Area Potential
1 Permissible Floor 121965.88
Area
2 Permissible 16306.31
Amenity Area
3 Ground Coverage / 20962.94
Parking Areas
4 Proposed Balcony 9109.63
Area
5 Total of 1, 2, 3, 4 1,68,344.76
The Petitioner submits that project potential including non-fsi areas like Underground water tank of more than 300000.00 liters, Overhead water tanks on all structures, transformers areas in addition to 1,68,344.76 Sq. m will make total to more than 200000.00 Sq. m. In EC dated 18.10.2012, project was considered in 8(a) - B2 category as project potential was less than 1,50,000.00 Sq. m. Due to increase in Page 26 of 41 FSI potential as per rules and regulations of PMRDA, total project potential has increased to more than 1,50,000.00 Sq. m. In such circumstances in Amended EC, project is still considered in the same category which is violation of EC Act and misrepresentation by respondent no. 10, 11 and 12 to Authorities. Considering the project potential of more than 1,50,000.00 Sq. m. project should be considered in Category 8(a) - B1. Hence the entire construction at site is in violation of both EC. (Referring to page number of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment) (1) (2) (3 (4) (5) ) 8 8(a Building >2000 sq.m # (built up ) and and < Area coc covered areaarea constructi 1,50,000 cconstruction for o sq. of n project m. of built In the case of Facilities open construction up areas the ; sky, it will befacilities the activity area)
8) Township Covering ++ all
(b) projects and Area an area Item under 8(b) >50 sky, it shall bewill developme ha and appraised as nt projects or built Category B1 up area > 1,50,00 0 sq.m From para 23 of Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment (Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016), it is clear that construction raised at site and the area of proposed construction is added than the project will fall in B1 category and therefore, the SEIAA had no authority to grant EC dated 26.03.2019 by treating the project as falling under category B2. Therefore, the EC dated 26.03.2019 was beyond the authority of SEIAA and was granted under a totally false assumption and the same is therefore required to be quashed and set aside.
Page 27 of 41d) The Petitioner submits that Amended EC dated 26.03.2019 has intentional dilution of the conditions of earlier EC by responded no. 3, 4, 5.
(i). Reproducing relevant Extract of "Important "Conditions In 46th Meeting of SEIAA" as River Indrayani is very close to the project". It was found that there are no sewerage lines available in the area. The project proponent stated that the Village Panchayat has plans to make up sewerage project in the Village. The project proponent will vigorously pursue the matter. It was clarified to him it would not be possible to take up the entire project unless there is certainty regarding coming into existence of sewerage project.
It was, therefore, decided to accord approval for grant of EC for phase 1 of the project (with up to 8 buildings and 450 flats) subject to be the project proponent furnishing (i) revised area and other statements for phase 1; and (ii) an undertaking that no treated or untreated waste water would be let out to any Nala or water body outside the project area. EC clearance was given to the Respondent No. 10 on 18.10.2012 on the terms and conditions stated therein. One of the condition is that no treated or untreated waste water would be let out to any Nala or Water body outside the project area. Another condition is that the Respondent No. 10 shall ensure completion of STP, MSW Disposal Facility, and Green Belt Development prior to occupation of the buildings and that no physical occupation or allotment shall be given unless the environmental infrastructure is installed and made functional including water requirement.
In presence of such specific condition, Amended EC dated 26.03.2019 has diluted & deleted these conditions and illegally permitted respondent no. 10 to pollute River Indrayani. When there is No STP of village and no sewerage lines in village, amended EC has diluted condition and has specifically given illegal authority to respondent no. 10 to discharge treated water in sewer lines. The Petitioner submits that this illegal act of Page 28 of 41 permission is against Environment Act and respondent's no. 3, 4, 5 in collusion and conspiracy with respondent no. 10, 11, 12 has diluted many important conditions of earlier EC and decisions by SEAC & SEIAA committee.
(ii). Another important condition which is deleted in Amended EC is Provision of Mobile STP for Labour Camp. This will again pollute River Indrayani and contaminate ground water as Labour Camp is located in the same plot. It is pertinent to note that all contours and slope from labour camp goes towards River Indrayani.
(iii). Another important condition "Consent for Board has already Establishment shall be required from MPCB granted C to E on under air and water act and a copy shall be 14/10/2016 and submitted to the Environment Department Amended C to E on before any construction work at the site" has 08/06/2020. been diluted in New Amended EC.
(iv). Most important condition of Earlier EC dated At present 18.10.2012 that "no treated or untreated respondent no. 10 waste water would be let out to any nallah has provided STP for or water body outside the project area" has treatment of domestic been deleted in New Amended EC by waste water and STP respondent no. 3, 4, 5. It is pertinent to note was found in that this specific condition no. 3(i) was operation. mentioned in earlier EC as River Indrayani Also no discharge of was very close to the project.
any effluent was
The petitioner submits that all important observed outside
conditions are either deleted or diluted in premises.
Amended EC by respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 to suit the purpose of respondent no. 10, 11 and 12. This will result in more pollution of River Indrayani.
(v). The Petitioner submits that condition 6 in
both EC states "The Environment
department reserves the right to add any stringent condition or to revoke the clearance if conditions stipulated are not implemented to the satisfaction of the department or for that matter, for any administrative reason." In contrary to condition 6, respondent no. 3, 4, 5 failed to take action against respondent no. 10 when all evidences are submitted to Environment Department. The petitioner believes that respondent no. 3, 4, 5 in collusion and conspiracy with respondent no. 10, 11, 12 have not taken any action when evidences were submitted, when Writ Petition in High Court is pending and no Page 29 of 41 reply to either of them is given by respondent no. 3, 4, 5 AND in presence of all above and letter dated 25.03.2019, issued Amended EC on 26.03.2019.
(vi). As per condition 5 of both EC "In case of These facts are not submission of false document and non- included in the compliance of stipulated conditions, application of the PP authority / Environment department will therefore, the revoke or suspend the Environment disclosure of the Clearance without any intimation and same is not made in initiate appropriate legal action under front of SEAC while Environmental Protection Act, 1986." The appraisal. petitioner submits that all evidences including Inspection report of CFO, PMRDA proves that stipulated condition has been violated and there is non-compliance of many conditions by respondent no. 10. The Petitioner submits that respondent no. 3, 4, 5 instead of taking action as per condition 5 & 6 of both EC has acted contrary to above condition and helped respondent no. 10 which has resulted in Environmental damage, River pollution, Ground Water Contamination. The Petitioner submits that action as per Environmental Protection Act 1986 should be initiated against all respondents who are responsible for damaging the Environment.
18. Respondent no. 16 GROUP GRAMPANCHAYAT, JAMBHUL has issued Letters / No objection certificate dated 03.08.2019 and 27.08.2018 to respondent no. 10 stating that it will provide 520 KLD drainage line. Hereto marked as Annexure- "J" Colly. This is contrary to Environment Clearance. It is pertinent to note that there as per Minutes of Meeting in its 46th Meeting by SEIAA it has mentioned;
"as it was found that there are no sewerage lines available in the area. The project proponent stated that the Village Panchayat has plans to make up sewerage project in the Village. The project proponent will vigorously pursue the matter. It was clarified to him it would not be possible to take up the entire project unless there is certainty regarding coming into existence of sewerage project.
It was, therefore, decided to accord approval for grant of EC for phase 1 of the project (with up to 8 buildings and 450 flats) subject to the project proponent furnishing (i) revised Page 30 of 41 area and other statements for phase 1; and
(ii) an undertaking that no treated or untreated waste water would be let out to any Nala or water body outside the project area." In presence of such condition respondent no. 16 has issued letter without any facilities being present in village. Hence all letters and NOC issues by Group Grampanchayat should be quashed and set aside. Respondent no. 16 be kindly directed to provide all details about sewerage facilities available in village; drinking water facilities available for village during summer when River Indrayani is dry and details about discharge from storm waters and condition related to storm water in EC of Anantsrishti project and what precaution is being taken by Group Grampanchayat for not polluting River Indrayani.
19. The Respondent no. 17 'Swach Pune Respondent no. 10 SevaSahakari Sanstha Ltd.' And the had handed over Respondent no. 18 'HI-TECH RECYCLING garbage waste to INDIA PVT. LTD.' Are also responsible respondent no. 17 & for the damage caused to Environment. 18. The Petitioners submit that in the absence of compliance of all the terms and conditions as mentioned in their Service Agreement entered between the respondent 10 & Respondent 17 and Respondent 10 & Respondent 18, it is crystal clear that Environment Laws has been flouted. Copy of the service agreement and engagement letter is annexed as Annexure' "K" colly.
20. As Residents / buyers / purchasers are --
mostly unaware about the environmental damage by respondent no. 10 and River Indrayani pollution and that respondent no. 10 i.e. developer of Anantsrishti has denied in his reply about possession given to all flat purchasers to stay / to rent or to occupy the premises and that they are staying forcefully; hence for information copies of this petition will be served to flat / unit purchasers of Anantsrishti.
21. The Petitioner submits that feeling aggrieved MPCB has issued and dissatisfied with the violations which is Closure Direction to damaging the Environment and polluting respondent no. 10 for River Indrayani, Petitioner has approached violation caused by all possible forums and authorities since him. 2017 including Mr. Anil Diggikar, Principal Secretary, Environment Department, Maharashtra State. There is no reply by Page 31 of 41 Respondent no. 4 to complaints and further there is no reply received till date in Writ Petition by Respondents. The application and correspondence to different authorities is marked Annexure- "L" colly.
22. The Petitioner submit that the Chief Planner, Provisional Fire PMRDA had called for Hearing between NOC dated Petitioner and respondent no. 10 at his office 19/12/2011 and in PMRDA on 18th July 2019. The various Final Fire NOC for authorities has pointed out about the building H and I has violations to Respondent no. 8 and 10 such been given by as CFO, however till date Respondent no. 8 Directorate of Fire (PMRDA) has not taken any appropriate Services, action. Further the correspondence with and Maharashtra. Final from the PMRDA and submissions are hereto Fire NOC for building marked as Annexure- "M" colly. J and Q dated 25/09/2019 and for building P and K on date 28/08/2020 given by PMRDA -
Fire Department.
Occupancy certificate
for building H, I, J
and Q given
on date
20/01/2020,after
getting consent to
Operate dated
06/08/2019 from
MPCB. And before
issuing occupancy
certificate,Penalty
has been imposed for
occupancy given by
developer without
procuring occupancy
certificate as per
PMRDA's resolution
dated 20/08/2018.
23. Petitioner received a copy of Amended EC by --
Environment Department as annexure in affidavit in reply by developer i.e. Respondent no 10 at Hon'ble Bombay High Court on 11.09.2019 along with various other documents.
Hereto annexed and marked Annexure- "N" Colly.
24. The Petitioner is being as Architect time and --
again informing the Developer about wrong development acts, the copy on one the email dated 14 Sept. 2016 is annexed as Annexure- "O", the petitioner is ready and Page 32 of 41 willing to provide further correspondence if required in future, however same being not subject matter of the petition, the Petitioner is avoiding the same. However, on each and every forum, the Petitioner is being alleged by the Developer for some flimsy reason and trying to avoid to address the main subject.
25. Petitioner submits that, petitioner is in Writ petition no.
receipt of Notice for Entry and Inspection 13195/ 2018 has along with report of Inspection by Chief Fire been filed by Officer dated 03/11/2018, marked as petitioner in Annexure- "P" colly, which is along with Hon'bleHigh Court, photographs of buildings clearly showing the and PMRDA has filed construction and occupation by occupant an affidavit on date without occupation of the Project. Petitioner 01/11/2019, as a has filed the present copy to Hon'ble High respondent no. 3. Court of Bombay along with his Affidavit in Copy of the same Reply / Rejoinder in Writ Petition Annexed herewith. 13195/2018, marked Annexure- "Q".
26. Petitioner being law abiding citizen it was --
required for him to understand and study the subject before any submission to Hon'ble Tribunal, hence petitioner approached Environment Engineer, being and expert in the field and after studying the subject he has issued the report on the topic, the Petitioner is filing the ready reference report for assisting forum about present mishap / damage which can cause to ecosystem due to noncompliance by Developer along with maps showing the details of topography of area marked Annexure- "R" colly. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the above said Amended Environment Clearance received on 11.09.2019, Revised Plans of the Respondent no. 10 on 22.03.2018, violations of all important conditions of Environment Clearance dated 18th October 2012 the Petitioner has approached Hon'ble Forum, National Green Tribunal in the Present Matter.
The Petitioner submits following evidence and details of Violations of Respondents which is not only polluting River Indrayani but also Environment.
Objections and Grounds of PETITION:
1. The petitioner submits that petitioner wish to --
bring before the Hon'ble forum all the illegalities which are causing a grave loss to the mankind and to the future generations of Page 33 of 41 mankind along with that the irreparable damage to the environment system & ecology which is required to be protected by way of effective majors & as per the guidelines and / or directive principles mentioned in Civil Appeal No. 10854/2016 with Civil Appeal No. 10901/2016 and 5157-5158 of 2018 in the land mark judgments of Apex Court, the sake of convenience copy of said judgments is annexed herewith for the ready assistance of this Hon'ble NGT Forum.
The Hon'ble apex court is pleased to consider seriously about all the illegalities dealt by then environment Department, Corporation 7 the Developer.
Considering the Guidelines the present project is somewhat of similar nature & required to be deal seriously because of highhandedness of the Developers.
2. The present developer has flouted all the major conditions of environment clearance dated: 18/10/2012
a) The developer was given permission upto 8 Respondent no. 10 building and 450 flats as Proponent or has provided STP for developer represented to EC that Village treatment of domestic Panchayat has plans to take sewerage effluent and no water project in the village to which developer was discharge outside the asked to follow the same rigorously further it premises. was decided to accord approval for grant of EC for phase One i.e. upto 8 building and 450 flats maximum for PHASE I subject to developer providing and / or furnishing revised area and other statements for phase I and most importantly.
"AN UNDERTAKING THAT NO TREATED AND UNTREATED WASTE WATER WOULD BE LET OUT TO ANY NALA OR WATER BODY OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA" the Developer is and project is functioning exactly contradictory to such undertaking, which is causing the Principal Water Reservoir, River Indrayani to dirt Gutter and same is itself a sufficient cause to withdraw the Environmental Clearance permission of the project as per Landmark judgments in this regards along with compensatory cost which shall deter the notorious and mischievous attitude of the developer.
b) The Developer has given a Physical Page 34 of 41 possession of the building, tenements without having completion certificate till date, so logically and factually there is no STP Plant either by panchayat and / or Developer is functioning as per initial EC.
c) The Developer has not constructed STP plant as per initial EC obtained, neither taken any efforts for processing the said sewage water.
The natural slope of the land is form South to North towards River Indrayani which is fresh water river & water of the same is drinkable water; the present complex is emitting all the polluted water towards River Indrayani. The admission to this effect is been given by the developer.
d) The developer has given possession of the At present respondent
said premises without having any solid no. 10 has provided
waste converter or garbage processing unit organic waste
which is resulting in said pollution of the converter for
locality. treatment of wet
waste
e) The developer has not taken any efforts to Respondent no. 10 stop waste water emission & storm water has provided STP for collusion being polluting the River Indrayni. treatment of domestic waste water and hence storm water and waste water do not get mixed at present.
f) The developer and / or project proponent has MPCB had issued not considered & ensured the completion of Closure Direction STP, MSW, disposal facility, Green belt dated 04/04/2019 to Development prior to occupation of the respondent no. 10 as building & without which the physical he failed to obtain occupation is being given without prior consent to operate permission from the appropriate Authority. from MPCB before giving possession to flats owners, not provision of STP (Sewage Treatment Plant) and OWC (Organic Waste Converter).
g) As per the norms & Conditions of upper limit At present respondent of developments leads to the local authority no. 10 has provided setting up the government monitored. STP's STP for treatment of is not available in the present vicinity which domestic effluent. leads to flouting basic conditions of EC as provided to the present proponent.
Page 35 of 41h) The Petitioner further submits that in the Occupancy Certificate hearing of PMRDA it was categorically for building H, I, J reiterated by the Project proponent that the and Q on date occupation of the premises are given for 20/01/2020 given by furniture and Interior decoration purposes. PMRDA. Developer The Physical occupation of whatsoever had submitted nature is nothing but flouting the terms and consent to Establish conditions of the Plant and EC rules for the dated 14/10/2016 simple reason as there is no STP plan and consent to function and the said fact can be operate dated corroborated by way of Inspection report 06/08/2019, which provided by PMRDA dated 03/11/2018 was valid till date issued to petitioner under Right to 30/04/2022, with Information Act. Further the photographs application for attached to the said report reveals that occupancy certificate. Respondent has constructed floor number 8 As per PMRDA's and 9 in the month of August 2018 which is resolution dated clear violation of sanction plan. It is pertinent 20/08/2018 Penalty to note that any builder and / or developer has been imposed for has to follow the rules and follow the flow of occupancy given by sanction and construction sequence. Any act developer without contravening the same is against the rules procuring occupancy and Regulations of the EC norms and Act certificate. and result shall be cancellation of the EC which shall follow consequence and same is the case with the present project.
i) The present EC having limitation of 5 years Revised Permission & since deviations & alteration in the project. has been given by Which means that fresh permission were Pune Metropolitan warranted which Respondent did not give Regional development heed to the same. Further for the actual authority for the said consumption of FSI as per above refereed project on Date table the petitioner has clearly flouted and 22/03/2018 for plot exceeded the permitted area of construction. area 1,30,890 sq.mt., Proposed FSI is 67,633.76Sq.mt. And Non FSI is 32,150.80 sq.mt. Total Built up Area is 99,784.56 sq.mt. subject to condition to get revised Environment Clearance for Revised= built-up area. The said Project got Revised Environment Clearance dated 26/03/2019 for plot area 1,30,890 sq.mt.,Proposed FSI 1,01,131.66 Sq.mt.
Page 36 of 41 And Non FSI is
24,035.22 Total Built
up Area 1,25,166.8
Sq.mt.
j) The petitioner submits that the present Occupancy Certificate
developer has given possession & occupation for building H, I, J
of the present sight to the different occupier and Q on date
& the said occupiers had further licensed 20/01/2020 given by
said premises to licensee this fact is PMRDA. Developer
corroborated by way of Index II bearing No. had submitted
3913/2016 narrating the fact that the sight consent to Establish
is been used by the occupants without dated 14/10/2016
proper permission to occupy the present and consent to
project. operate dated
06/08/2019, which
was valid till date
30/04/2022, with
application for
Occupancy Certificate.
As per PMRDA's
resolution dated
20/08/2018 Penalty
has been imposed for
occupancy given by
developer without
procuring occupancy
certificate.
k) The petitioner having his own purchased Please refer above Row house in the same project, he has mentioned para (J) for visited the said property multiple times parawise remark. which has shown a clear usage by the occupants illegally using the said property.
l) The present developer has flouted all the Revised Permission major conditions of environment clearance as has been given by per letter dated: 26/03/2019. The Point of Pune Metropolitan permitted construction and actual regional development construction is existence is contravening to authority for the said each other. project on Date 22/03/2018 for plot area1,30,890 sq.mt.,Proposed FSI is 67,633.76Sq.mt. And Non FSI is 32,150.80 sq.mt.Total Built up Area is 99,784.56 sq.mt. subject to condition to get Revised Environment Page 37 of 41 Clearance for Revised built-up area. The said Project got Revised Environment Clearance dated 26/03/2019 for plot area 1,30,890 sq.mt., Proposed FSI 1,01,131.66 Sq.mt.
And Non FSI is
24,035.22 Total Built
up Area 1,25,166.8
Sq.mt.
m) The petitioner submits that the Hon'ble The MPC Board has
Tribunal and Hon'ble Apex court has issued closure
followed the principle of "Polluter to Pay" i.e. direction and BG of Rs
if it is found that the person causing any 13.23 Lakhs will be
pollution he has to compensate for the loss forfeited as violation
and damage to the environment, however of consent conditions
even if the present respondent even if tries to vide consent dated
salvage and / or camouflage any illegalities 17.4.2022.
now shall not allow him to follow the pay and Pollute the principle,
n) No text
o) The petitioner submits that till (late the Occupancy Certificate Respondent has not received any completion for building I, rand on and occupation certificate which categorically date 20/01/2020 means he cannot allowthe purchaser of flats given by PMRDA. to occupy the premises, so 11u copies of No Developer had objectIon by Gram Panchayat for usage of submitted consent to water, copies of agreement of cleaning Establish dated authorities and garbage management 14/10/2010 and authorities like Swath 1.1,1' shall not allow consent to operate the Respondent to take shelter behind these dated 00/08/2019, agreement as principally the developer has width was valid till erred on sequence and act In to which is date 30/04/2022, nothing but an Illegal act, which shall with application for categorically lead the entire project as illegal. occupancy certificate.
p) It is clear that construction raised at site and This project fails the area of proposed construction Is added under category 8(a) of then the project will fall in 131 category anti the ILIA Notification, therefore, the SEIAA had no authority to 2000 schedule as grant EC dated 26.03.2010 by treating the total Built up Area of project as falling under category B2, the construction Therefore, the EC dated 26.03.2019 was project is 81020.22 beyond the authority of SEIAA and was Sq. Mtrs. as per EC granted under a totally false assumption and granted dated Page 38 of 41 the same is therefore required to be quashed 26/03/2010. and set aside.
Conclusion-
As per the directive of Hon' ble NGT , the joint committee visit has been undertaken along with applicant dated 5.7.2022 and observation have been incorporated in para wise comments with necessary actions taken by respective department. The report is submitted for your kind perusal."
5. From the side of Respondent No. 1/MoEF&CC and for Respondent No. 19/PMC, learned Counsel Mr. Rahul Garg has appeared, though no reply has been filed from their side.
6. From the side of Respondent Nos. 3 & 4/Envt. Deptt. and Respondent No. 5/SEIAA, learned Counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni has appeared and apprised that he does not want to file reply affidavit.
7. From the side of Respondent Nos. 6 & 7/MPCB, learned Counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi has appeared and apprised that reply affidavit has been filed, where-in status of consent granted to the Project Proponent has been mentioned and in this affidavit, almost same facts have been stated, which are already there in the Joint Committee Report, which has been reproduced by us above.
8. From the side of Respondent Nos. 8 & 9/PMRDA, learned Counsel Mr. Sameer Khale has appeared, though no reply affidavit has been filed from their side.
9. From the side of Respondent No. 10/Project Proponent, learned Counsel Mr. Saurabh Sapar has appeared and apprised that reply affidavit has already been filed, where-in he has denied all allegations made against the Project Proponent.
Page 39 of 4110. We have heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as learned Counsel for the other Respondents, who are present today.
11. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 10 has clarified at this stage that already similar matter is pending before the Hon'ble High Court with same reliefs, therefore, this matter should not have been filed by the Applicant before this Tribunal. Moreover, it is also stated by him that the Joint Committee Report indicates that there is no violations noted of any of the EC conditions by the Joint Committee, to which the learned Counsel for the Applicant has resisted by showing us one of the violations, which has been pointed out by him at page no. 586 of the paper book, where-in at serial no. 13 regarding condition no. 5 of EC dated 18.10.2012 has been mentioned but in front of this column, it is stated that "PMRDA may examine the occupancy certificate and confirm condition no. 10 if conditions of EC are violated by Project Proponent".
We find that this appears to be some wrong observation made by the Committee because when we perused the condition no. 10 of EC, it reads "wet garbage should be treated by organic waste converter and treated waste (manure) should be utilized in the existing premises for gardening.
And, no wet garbage will be disposed outside the premises. Local authority should ensure this." The compliance with respect to OWC, the Committee has already observed that the Respondent No. 10 has provided OWC of 900 kg/day capacity for treatment of wet garbage but it is also simultaneously observed that the same operates at very low volume due to less occupancy.
12. The learned Counsel for the Applicant could not show any other violations of the terms & conditions, based on the findings of the Joint Committee Report. We repeatedly tried to enquire from him, as to Page 40 of 41 whether there are any other violations to be pointed out, he could not show the same.
13. In view of above, we find that the Joint Committee has not found any substantial violations to have been made of the terms & conditions of the EC, for which the present application has been filed before us, we disposed of this application accordingly.
14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
15. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM May 01, 2023 Original Application No. 100/2019(WZ) P.Kr Page 41 of 41