National Green Tribunal
Puja Kumar vs Ansal Api on 15 December, 2023
Item No.14 (Court No. 2)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPALBENCH, NEW DELHI
(Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid VC Option)
Original Application No.10/2023
(I.A No. 630/2023)
Puja Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
M/s Ansal API ...Respondent
Date of hearing: 15.12.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Applicant in person
Respondent: Ms. Mukti Om Chaudhry, Adv. for R - 1
Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv. for Lucknow Nagar Nigam
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. for UPPCB (Through VC)
Application under the provisions of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010
ORDER
1. The main grievances in the present application involving substantial questions relating to environment are that (i) Environmental Clearance and NOCs from the concerned authorities have not been obtained by the Project Proponent, (ii) project proponent is carrying on the project without STP, solid waste management programme and drinking water supply, and (iii) project proponent has not developed/is not developing adequate plantation and green belt area as per the development plan.
2. This Tribunal took cognizance in view of the settled law regarding environmental public interest litigation and being empowered by law to take suo-motu cognizance of cases, involving questions relating to environment as held by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha and others, 2021 SSC Online SC
897. Tribunal, vide orders dated 06.01.2023 and 17.05.2023, issued notices to Project Proponent, Municipal Corporation Lucknow and Lucknow Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'LDA') respectively.
3. Reply has been filed by respondent no.1 i.e., project proponent, challenging bona-fides and credentials of applicant and also maintainability of the application inter-alia on the ground of being time barred. Project proponent has also stated that development of township is sprawled in approximately 5000 acres, and the same were handed over to respective owners/applicants in the shape of plots/villas/institutions and commercial units with infrastructural facilities, as stated therein. However, due to the said reply being vague and materially deficient with respect of the aspects of compliance with environmental norms, this Tribunal directed project proponent to file additional reply, mentioning in detail the status of land developed for residential/commercial purposes and status of compliance with EC and consent conditions with special emphasis on the management of solid waste, treatment of sewage, extraction of ground water, maintenance of green belt and CSR activities etc.
4. Additional reply was not been filed by project proponent. On the other hand, project proponent filed I.A. 630/2023 for grant of at least 6 to 9 months for filing of additional reply on the grounds that project proponent has appointed environmental auditors for audit regarding its compliance with environmental laws/stipulations and additional reply will be filed on receipt of the reports.
2
5. Considering I.A. 630/2023, Tribunal observed in its order dated 30.10.2023 that there is no occasion to grant 6 to 9 months' time for filing of additional reply and hence, I.A. 603/2023 is rejected.
6. Referring to the reply submitted by LDA, Tribunal observed that it has limited role and prayed for its deletion from array of the parties. Reply filed by LDA is also vague and evasive. Therefore, LDA was also directed to file additional reply regarding compliance by project proponent, with the conditions of sanctioned construction plan and conditions contained in Urban Development Plan and Guidelines of Town and Country Planning Department.
7. No reply was filed by Municipal Corporation, Lucknow and none had appeared on its behalf. Tribunal directed Municipal Corporation, Lucknow to file Status Report regarding compliance by project proponent with Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other environmental laws as applicable to it.
8. Tribunal gave one months' time to file additional reply by project proponent and LDA and Status Report by Municipal Corporation, Lucknow.
9. Tribunal also made its observation in para 9 of the order dated 30.10.2023, and constituted Joint Committee, comprising Integrated Regional Office, MoEF&CC (Lucknow), CPCB, Lucknow, representative of Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Lucknow (to be nominated by its Director), representative of Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CIMAP) Lucknow (to be nominated by its Director), UPPCB and District Magistrate, Lucknow with direction to submit Report to Tribunal and send copy of the same to project proponent and the concerned 3 authorities within one month. The relevant part of para 9 is reproduced below:
"9. In view of the averments made in the application and vague and evasive replies filed by respondents no. 1 and 3, we also consider it appropriate that a Joint Committee be constituted to verify the factual position and suggest appropriate remedial action. Accordingly, we constitute a Joint Committee comprising of Integrated Regional Office, MoEF & CC (Lucknow), CPCB, Lucknow, representative of Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Lucknow (to be nominated by its Director), representative of Central Institute of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (CIMAP) Lucknow (to be nominated by its Director), UPPCB and District Magistrate, Lucknow and direct the same to meet within two weeks, undertake visits to the site, look into the grievances of the applicant, associate the applicant and representative of the concerned project proponent, verify the factual position regarding (i) status of environmental clearance and NoCs from the concerned authorities and compliance with the conditions thereof by the Project Proponent; (ii) status regarding installation of STP, solid waste management scheme, extraction of groundwater and provision for drinking water supply and (iii) development of greenbelts and adequate plantation in the project area by the Project Proponent and make its recommendations to this Tribunal and the concerned authorities for appropriate remedial action after giving opportunity of being heard to the project proponent. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance...."
10. One and half months have passed but neither Joint Committee has submitted its report nor LDA and project proponent have filed additional reply.
11. A compliance status vide letter dated 14.12.2023 has been filed by Regional Officer, UPPCB, Lucknow. Having gone through the same, we do not find compliance status therein, except that three weeks' further time has been requested to file report of Joint Committee.
12. This situation is highly dis-satisfactory and we have to place our strong disapproval against all the above parties.
13. Learned Counsel, Ms. Mukti Om Chaudhary has appeared on behalf of project proponent and Mr. Mukesh Verma has appeared on behalf of Lucknow Nagar Nigam. They request to grant further time to 4 file additional reply/respective Report. Subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- by each of the above parties, we allow one months' time to file additional reply by project proponent and Lucknow Nagar Nigam and report by Joint Committee by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/OCR Supported PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
14. Despite service of notice and opportunity granted, LDA has neither filed its additional reply nor any body has appeared on its behalf. This conduct on behalf of LDA is objectionable and we highly deprecate the same. We accordingly impose a cost of Rs. 20,000/- upon LDA and grant further one month's time to file additional reply.
15. Costs shall be deposited within three weeks before Ld. Registrar General, National Green Tribunal, New Delhi.
16. List for further consideration on 01.02.2024.
Sudhir Agarwal, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM December 15, 2023 AG 5