National Green Tribunal
Mrs Meenal W/O Abhishek Gupta vs Union Of India on 28 April, 2023
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 06/2021 (WZ)
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Mrs. Meenal W/o Abhishek Gupta
Age:36 years, Occu: Service
R/o: 1702, Tower 8, Blude Ridge,
Hinjewadi Phase-1 Pune Pin: 411 057
Email: [email protected]
2. Mrs. Anita w/o Ravidutt Jadli
Age: 44, Occu: Homemaker,
R/o H-1/1, Anmol Residency, Oppo.
Ambience Hotel, Kaspate Vasti, Wakad,
Pune-4110057
Phone No. 8007865660
Email Id: [email protected]
[email protected]
3. Mrs. Bhavna W/o Rajiv Bhatia
Age: 47, Occu: Homemaker,
R/o: B/26, 3rd floor, Namdeep, 90 feet road,
Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400077
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 99203 00705
.....Applicants
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary, MoEF &CC
Indira Paryavaran Bhavan, Jor Bagh Road,
New Delhi, 110003
Phone No. 011-24695409
Email: [email protected]
2. State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Department of Environment
Mantralaya, Mumbai
Phone: 022-22029388
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]
Page 1 of 33
3. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
Through its CEO
Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 022-26870052
4. Central Ground Water Authority
Through its Member Secretary,
Central Ground Water Authority,
18/11, Jamnagar House, Man Singh Road,
New Delhi-110011.
Email: [email protected]
5. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Maharashtra
Through its Chairman,
Environment Department, Mantralaya Mumbai,
Email: [email protected]
6. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
Through its Chairman,
Kalpataru Point, 3rd and 4th floor,
Opp. PVR Cinema, Sion Circle,
Mumbai-400 022
Phone No. 022-24042418
Email: [email protected]
7. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board,
Through its Pune Regional office,
Jog Centre, 3rd floor, Mumbai Pune Road,
Wakdewadi, Pune-411003
Phone: 020- 25811627
Email: [email protected]
8. International Biotech Park Ltd.
The IL&FS Financial Centre, 6th Floor,
Quadrant "B", Unit 4, G Block, Bandra-
Kurla Complex, Bandra- East
Mumbai-400 051
Phone-022 6747 9999
Email: [email protected]
9. TCG Urban Infrastructure Holdings Ltd.
5th Floor, Metropolitan Building, Bandra-
Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai,
Maharashtra 400051
Phone: +91 022 6726 0522
Email: [email protected]
10. Resident Welfare Association.
The Crown Greens 17A
Plot No. 17, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park
MIDC Phase II, Hinjewadi Pune
Through its Chairman
Mrs. Tejaswitha Kamarshi
Phone: 8956363898
....Respondents
Counsel for Applicants :
Page 2 of 33
Mr. Aditya Pratap, Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC & R-2/ State of Maharashtra
Mr. Kunal Damle, Advocate for R-3/MIDC
Mr. Atul Pathak, Advocate for R-4/CGWA
Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Standing Advocate for R-5/SEIAA & R-6 &7/MPCB & CPCB
Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-8 & 9/PP
Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-10
PRESENT:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 19.04.2023
Pronounced on : 28.04.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. This Application has been filed with the prayers that Respondent No.8/International Biotech Park Ltd. and Respondent No.9/TCG Urban Infrastructure Holdings Ltd. be restrained from carrying out any further development on plot No.17 of the Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, MIDC Phase II, Hinjewadi Pune; the Respondent No.1/ MoEF &CC and Respondent No.2/ Department of Environment Government of Maharashtra be directed to assess environmental damage to be levied from Respondent No.8/International Biotech Park Ltd.(PP) as per the policy framed by the Government of Maharashtra based on MoEF Notification dated 14.03.2017; the Project Proponent (PP) be directed to comply with the mandate of the EC dated 26.11.2012 and Consent to Operate dated 04.09.2018 and restore the environment.
2. The brief facts of this case as submitted by the Applicants, are as follows:
1. The Respondent No.8/ Project Proponent is developing a project by the name "The Crown Green" located at plot No.17, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, MIDC Phase II, Hinjewadi, Pune, Page 3 of 33 which is residential project which has been constructed as a part of the said development of a Biotech Park.
2. The Applicants are the permanent residents of the same residential plots which are constructed by the Respondent No.8/PP. The project in question is Township project and it is a Joint Venture between the Respondent No.3/Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) and Respondent No.9/TCG Urban Infrastructure Holdings Ltd, both had 12 % and 88% shares of each respectively. Upon entering into the Joint Venture agreement dated 12.05.2003 and formation of the Respondent No.8/IBPL(International Biotech Park Limited), Respondent No.3/MIDC(Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.) transferred the project property in favour of Respondent No.8/IBPL. The Respondent No.8/IBPL undertook the construction of the said project and obtained the EC dated 26.11.2012 from the State Environment Impact Assessment Committee (SEIAA). The Respondent No.8/IBPL also obtained the Consent to Establish dated 05.11.2014 and Consent to Operate dated 08.07.2016. The Consent to Operate was once again renewed by order dated 04.09.2018. The Respondent No.8/IBPL also obtained necessary permissions for the construction of the said project which included Commencement Certificate and thereafter completion certificates, etc. The Respondent No.8/PP sold the apartments at the time of the construction and executed the required documents for the sale, i.e. agreement to sell, etc. The Respondent No.8/PP also executed a Deed of Declaration of construction of the project as per the provisions of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970.
3. The Applicants received possession of the apartments (date not mentioned). In October, 2020, the city of Pune witnessed heavy Page 4 of 33 rainfall in which the project in question suffered from a major environmental disaster, the project was badly impacted due to the heavy flooding and waterlogging in its basement which led to also serious waterlogging and electricity outages and even the lifts were not operating for many days. During this period, the Applicants discovered that the Project Proponent had obtained Environment Clearance (EC) and the Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate from the MPCB only on paper, whereas in reality, their terms and conditions were not complied with. Live underground water stream/ spring underneath the basement of the said project, was also noticed, which disclosed threat to structural suitability of the project.
4. Nalla flows along with the boundary and main gate of the said project which, due to the heavy rains, could not carry all the water along its stream and over-flowed, which led to the waterlogging in basement of the project building. The Respondent No.3/MIDC, which is special planning authority seems to have failed in keeping the Nallas clean. But to the over flowing of Nalla, underground water stream/ spring unprecedented situation had occurred for the residents of the building impacting them adversely.
5. The Respondent No.8/IBPL has committed non-compliance of Environmental Clearance (EC) terms and conditions which are as follows:
i. The Environmental Clearance (EC) had provided for the construction of 5 Towers, only three (3) were constructed.
ii. Convenient shopping centre and service apartments have not been constructed.
iii. Clubhouse has not been constructed as per conditions which provided construction of Ground + 2 floors. The Page 5 of 33 clubhouse has been constructed only on the Ground Floor.
iv. Turning radius of 12.5 meters for easy access of the Fire Tender movement from all around the buildings excluding the width for plantation has not been provided.
v. 40m access road has not been provided.
vi. Green Cover has not been provided.
vii. STP is dysfunctional.
viii. Solid Waste Management System is not established.
ix. Rain Water Harvesting System is not established.
x. Solar Water Heating System has not been setup.
6. The MPCB has treated the project as Red Category.
7. As per the provisions of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Apartments Ownership Act, 1970, the Project Proponent had executed a Deed of Declaration as per the provisions of Section 2 of the said Act which included a formation of the Resident Welfare Association (RWA). Resident Welfare Association has not been found as per the Rules. The persons posing as the office bearers of the said Association appear to be acting at the behest of the Project Proponent. The Respondent No.3/MIDC being a shareholder of the Respondent No.8 and also being in-
charge of local development as well as the regulating authority has failed and violated the mandatory conditions of the EC, issued the completion and occupancy certificates to the Project Proponent without ensuring the compliance of the terms and conditions of the EC and consent conditions.
8. The Project Proponent should be levied environmental compensation on the principle of the "Polluter Pays" and "Sustainable Development". Hence, the above prayers have been made.
Page 6 of 33
3. The matter was taken up by our predecessor Bench on 07.06.2021 for the first time and only Joint Expert Committee was directed to be constituted comprising of five members i.e. SEIAA Maharashtra, the Maharashtra State PCB, the CPCB, the IIT Mumbai and a nominee of Ministry of Mines, Government of India, with the direction to submit factual report along with recommendation for remedial action to be furnished within three months and in this respect, they were given liberty to take help from any other expert or organisation.
4. Pursuant to the said direction, the Expert Committee Report submitted its report dated 18.11.2021. The following is the extract of the said report which is being found relevant:
3.0 Observation and findings Based on the preliminary information received from various organisations, and followed by site inspection to assess the various issues mentioned in the aforesaid Hon'ble NGT Order, the observations & findings of the committee are given as below:
3.1 Factual status on total plot area sanctioned built up area ( FSI & Non- FSI area) and mandatory certificates obtained w.r.t.
construction of residential building project vis-a-vis requirement of prior Environmental Clearance under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 and amendments thereof.
Building and construction projects with ≤20000 sqm of built- up area requires prior environmental clearance as per the Notification No. S. O. 1555(E), dated 14th September, 2006 notified under the Environment ( Protection) Act, 1986. Vide Notification No. S. O. 695(E) dated 4th April. 2011, the built up area for the purpose of the Notification has been defined as "The built up or covered area on all the floors put together including basement(s) and other service areas, which are proposed in the building construction projects". Subsequent Notification No. S. O. 3252(E), dated 22nd December, 2014 also defines the built- up area with similar definition (to that as defined vide the said Notification No. S. O. 695 (E) dated 04th April, 2011) as " The term "Built up area" for the purpose of this notification the built up or Page 7 of 33 covered area on all floors put together, including its basement and other service areas, which are proposed in the building or construction projects". Copy of both the said Notification dated 04th April, 2011 and dated 22nd December, 2014 are given at Annexure -III i. MIDC, vide letter dated 29.07.2005, has issued a letter mentioning that total land admeasuring 80.14 acres is allotted to M/s International Biotech park.
ii. MIDC has approved the layout of various plots of M/s international Biotech park, vide letter No. M. I. D. C/ C. P./1379, dated 10.01.2012 where plot No.147 (Zone-C) was reserved for development of residential building project i. e.. The Crown Green- The residential development with allotted area of 21.330 sqm. Hence, the aforesaid residential building project lies in the residential zone MIDC approved layout plan. iii. As per environment clearance application, the total built up area proposed is 77,889.82 sqm, and includes the FSI are of 38,207.33 sqm and Non-FSI area of 39,682.48 sqm. M/s International Biotech park Ltd, Hinjewadi MIDC, Pune has applied for obtaining the prior environment clearance for development of residential building project i. e. The Crown Green- The Residential Development vide application dated 19.01.2011, to SEIAA Maharashtra. Consequently, upon consideration by SEIAA in its 56th, 58th, &60th meetings, the SEIAA Maharashtra granted environment clearance vide letter NO. SEAC 2211/CR-922/TC-2, dated 26.11.2012 to M/s International Biotech Park Ltd., Hinjewadi MIDC, Pune for the development of residential project i.e. The Crown Green- The Residential Development. The copy of the Environment Clearance is given at Annexure- IV.
iv. M/s International Biotech Park Ltd., Hinjewadi MIDC, Pune has constructed the residential building project. The Crown Green- The Residential Development, as per the EC and MIDC approved building plan, commencement Certificate. It is observed that the project proponent has obtained total five revisions in the building plan /Commencement Certificate from MIDC. Details of the MIDC approved building plans/Commencement Certificates and its subsequent revisions are given as follow:
Page 8 of 33
a. Vide MIDC Commencement letter No. EE/IT/Plans/1143/2012, dated 19.03.2012 for FSI of 7629.29 sqm.
b. Vide MIDC Commencement letter No. EE/IT/Plans/2694/2012, dated 20.07.2012 for FSI of 8806.9 sqm.
c. Vide MIDC Commencement letter No. EE/IT/Plans/B05092/2013 dated 04.04.2013 for FSI of 17810.9 sqm.
d. Vide MIDC Commencement letter No. EE/IT/Plans/C26624/2013, dated 25.07.2013 for FSI of 17415.53 sqm.
e. Vide MIDC Commencement letter No. EE/IT/Plans/A09487/2015, dated 08.01.2015 for FSI of 18185.17 sqm.
v. The details of the total construction carried out by M/s International Biotech park Ltd., Hinjewadi MIDC, Pune for the construction of the Crown Green- The Residential Development as per the latest & revised MIDC approved building plan/Commencement certificate, vide MIDC commencement letter No. EE/IT/TB/A09487, dated 08.01.2015 is given below. Also, as per Sr. No. 8 of the aforesaid latest & revised MIDC approved building plan/ Commencement certificate, confirms that the erstwhile granted building approval/commencement certificate stands cancelled as the latest drawings approves shall supersede the previous approvals.
S. Name of Building FSI Area in Non-FSI Total Area No Sqm Area in in Sqm . Sqm 1 Tower T1 (basement, stilt 3,537.11 1,710.8 5,247.96 floor 5 & 1st to 15th floor) 2 Tower T2 (basement, stilt 6,761.14 2,671.9 9,433.07 floor 3 & 1st to 21st floor) 3 Tower T3 (basement, stilt 7,877.40 2,708.6 10,586.0 floor 4 4 & 1st to 19th floor) 4 Fitness Centre 9.53 200.00 209.53 5 Others 0 4,403.8 4,403.89 9 Total 18,185.17 11,695. 29,880. 32 49 Page 9 of 33 vi. It is gathered that the total built-up area proposed is
77,889.82 sqm, includes the FSI area of 38,207.33 sqm and Non-FSI area of 39,682.48 sqm. However, the project proponent as per the latest revised MIDC approved building plan/ Commencement Certificate vide MIDC commencement letter no. EE/IT/TB/A09487, dated 08/01/2015, had constructed the total built up area(as per definition of the aforesaid Notification, dated 04th April 2011) of 29,880.49 sqm against the sanctioned total built-up area of 77,889.82 sqm. It implies that the project proponent has constructed residential project i.e. The Crown Green - The Residential Development within the sanctioned total built- up area of 77,889.82 sqm as granted in the prior environment clearance from SEIAA. Also, as per the information provided and duly verified by MIDC, the said construction of residential project was commenced w.e.f. 01/01/2013. Further, the said total built up area of 29,880.49 sqm has been observed by MIDC in "The Crown Green - The Residential Development" after scrutinizing the building permission drawings, layout drawings and commencement certificates, available with MIDC.
vii. The sixth revised building plan/ Commencement Certificate was granted to the project proponent vide letter MIDC Commencement Letter no. EE/IT/D40010 dated 10/11/2015 for additional construction of (Tower T4 & Tower T5 buildings) of 3,123.89 sqm. Further, seventh revised building plan/ Commencement Certificate was also granted to the project proponent vide letter MIDC Commencement Letter no EE/IT/D-89870 dated. 03/11/2017 for additional construction of 1051.73 sqm. As per the information provided by MIDC, vide e-mail dated 28/09/2021, the project proponent has not initiated any type of construction on the said plot no. 17 within 12 months of sanctioning of the revised building plans/ commencement certificates and the aforesaid permissions were cancelled (as per the condition no. 20 & 18 of the above referred MIDC commencement letters vide dated 10/11/2015 & 03/11/2017). As on date of the committee inspection, it is informed by MIDC that the project proponent has constructed only 29,880.49 sqm against the sanctioned built- up area of 77,889.82 sqm.
Page 10 of 33 viii. The sixth revised building plan/ Commencement Certificate was granted to the project proponent vide letter MIDC Commencement Letter no. EE/IT/D40010 dated 10/11/2015 for additional construction of (Tower T4 & Tower T5 buildings) of 3,123.89 sqm. Further, seventh revised building plan/ Commencement Certificate was also granted to the project proponent vide letter MIDC Commencement Letter no EE/IT/D-89870 dated. 03/11/2017 for additional construction of 1051.73 sqm. As per the information provided by MIDC, vide e-mail dated 28/09/2021, the project proponent has not initiated any type of construction on the said plot no. 17 within 12 months of sanctioning of the revised building plans/ commencement certificates and the aforesaid permissions were cancelled (as per the condition no. 20 & 18 of the above referred MIDC commencement letters vide dated 10/11/2015 & 03/11/2017). As on date of the committee inspection, it is informed by MIDC that the project proponent has constructed only 29,880.49 sqm against the sanctioned built- up area of 77,889.82 sqm.
3.2 Factual status on Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate for the residential building project i. The project proponent had been grated first Consent to Establish by MPCB vide letter no. EIC no. PN-11206-11, dated 10/04/2012, for the total construction built-up area of 39,682.48 sqm, valid for a period up to commissioning of the project or five years, whichever is earlier. ii. Subsequently, the project proponent had been grated amendment in Consent to Establish in orange category for building construction project by MPCB vide letter no. Format/1.0/BO/ROHQ/PN-21479-14/CE/CC, dated 05/11/2014, for the total construction built-up area of 77,889.82 sqm, valid for a period up to commissioning of the unit or 09/04/2017, whichever is earlier.
iii. The project proponent had been grated first Consent to Operate by MPCB vide letter no. Format/1.0/BO/ROHQ/CO/CC, dated 08/07/2016, for the total construction built-up area of 77,889.82 sqm, valid for a period up to 31/01/2018 under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.
iv. Subsequently, the Consent to Operate under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 have been renewed by MPCB from time to time. The chronology of Consent Page 11 of 33 to Operate obtained by the project proponent is as given below:
Consent to Operate no. Consent to Operate Status of under the Water built-up area (Prevention & Control of in sqm Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 Valid from Valid till Format/1.0/BO/ROHQ/CO/C 08/07/2016 31/01/2018 29,954 sqm out C- of total 8889, dated 08/07/2016 sanctioned Format/1.0/BO/ROHQ/CR/C 31/01/2018 31/01/2019 77,889.82 C- sqm 1809000125, dated 04/09/2018 Format/1.0/BO/JD(WPC)/UA 01/02/2019 28/02/2022 N- 070727/CR/CC-
2007000874, dated 13/07/2020 The above reveal that the project proponent has renewed their Consent to Operate under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 from MPCB from time to time and the present Consent to Operate is valid till 28/02/2022. Factual status on non-compliances of environment clearance conditions Sr. Allegations of Present status no. the applicant as mentioned in the Hon'ble NGT Order, dated 07/6/2021
1. Common amenity As per MIDC vide letter no. EE/IT/TB/A-
space - clubhouse 34244/2017, dated 25/01/2017, part has not been Occupancy Certificate has been issued for constructed building viz. clubhouse having total built-up area of 106.63 sqm (free of FSI area of 106.63 sqm) & fitness centre having total built-up area of 209.53 sqm (free of FSI area of 200 sqm). During the committee inspection, it was observed that the common amenity space - clubhouse has been constructed and operational i.e. made accessible to the flat occupants. Please refer Photographs 1 & 2, Annexure-VI.
Page 12 of 33
2. STP is non- As per Schedule-I, terms & conditions at S. no. 1 functional of Consent to Operate granted under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the project proponent has installed the sewage treatment plant (STP) of reported design capacity of 200 KLD for treatment of domestic wastewater. Initially, the STP was operated & maintained by the project proponent i.e. since the issuance of Occupancy Certificate till 26/07/2018. Later, the said installed STP along with other common environmental infrastructure facility viz. organic waste converter, rainwater harvesting pumps and solar system had been handed over to the building association president & committee members w.e.f. 27/07/2018 for regular operation & maintenance. Copy of handing over of aforesaid facilities to the building association president & committee members is given at Annexure-V. Further, as informed by the project proponent that after handing over of the aforesaid facilities, liability on regular operation & maintenance of the aforesaid facilities doesn't lie with the project proponent.
During the committee inspection, it is observed that the STP was found operational. The various unit operations & processes of the STP are; Bar screen → Equalization tank → Activated sludge process → Settling tank → Pressure sand filter → Activated carbon filter → Chlorination → Treated wastewater collection tank → Partly reused in flushing, gardening and discharge to MIDC sewer.
As informed, monthly monitoring of treated wastewater of STP is being carried-out through M/s Ashwamedh Engineers & Consultants, an NABL & E(P)A approved laboratory. During the committee inspection, analysis results of March & April, 2021 was made available and observed that the monitored parameters are within the MPCB prescribed discharge standards. Also, it is observed from the analysis results of MPCB, vide dated 17/03/2020, that all monitored parameters are within the MPCB prescribed standards, except suspended solids. Please refer Photographs 3 & 4, Annexure-VI.
3. Green cover and As per MIDC DCR the project proponent has plantation have not provided 10% of the total plot area i.e. 2,133 sqm been established for development of landscape/ green belt.
Please refer Photographs-5 & 6, Annexure-VI. Page 13 of 33
4. Solar water heaters As per Sr. No. 3 (xxxvi), terms & conditions of have not been Environment Clearance granted by SEIAA vide installed letter no. SEAC 2211/CR-922/TC-2, dated 26/11/2012, states that under energy conservation measures the project proponent has to provide solar panel-based street lights and common solar water heaters system. Also, in the Environment Clearance application, the project proponent had proposed to install solar water heating panels and supply of water to bathrooms within the complex. However, it is observed that only solar panel-based lighting system has been installed in common areas, garden pathways etc.
5. Rainwater As per the Environment Clearance application, harvesting system the project proponent had proposed to install has not been rainwater harvesting system as a water provided conservation measure. The same has been provided. Rainwater is collected through roof drain pipes and downtake pipes, and channelized to 4 nos. of recharge pits of dimensions 4 x 4 x 3m with reported design capacity of 48 m3 each. Please refer Photographs-7 & 8, Annexure-VI.
6. Fire-fighting system The project proponent has obtained the final NOC for the residential building nos. Tower T1, Tower T2, Tower T3 & for other common amenities and it is duly certified by the MIDC vide letter no. MIDC/Fire/B71718, dated 07/06/2016.
The details of fire-fighting system installed in the building are as follows;
- hydrant pump @ 120 HP x 01 no.;
- jockey pump @ 120 HP x 02 nos.;
- sprinkler pump @ 120 HP x 01 no.; and
- dedicated DG set of 2,850 lpm capacity.
Please refer Photograph-9, Annexure-VI.
7. Solid waste As per Sr. No. 3 (x), the terms & conditions of management Environment Clearance granted by SEIAA vide letter no. SEAC 2211/CR-922/TC-2, dated 26/11/2012, the project proponent has installed organic waste converter for processing of wet garbage. As per the commissioning report of M/s Smart Enviro Systems, dated 19/06/2016, organic waste converter (Model:
Smart Xpress-100) has been installed at plot no. 17 of the residential building project. During the committee inspection, the organic waste converter was in found in operation. The manure generated from the organic waste converter is filled in HDPE bags and utilized as a manure Page 14 of 33 for in-house gardening/ green belt development. Please refer Photograph-10, Annexure-VI 3.4 Factual status on underground live water stream beneath the basement of the project and its extraction As per the available records of water supply agreement, requirement of water during the construction stage is 54 m3/day and operation stage (for domestic purpose) is 157.5 m3/day. The fresh water was met through MIDC connection (bearing consumer no. DV032/113HJN/1224) and 171.65 m3/day recycled water is met through the treated wastewater from STP for secondary use viz. flushing, gardening and ancillary activities. Groundwater extraction through borewells have not been reported by MIDC and MPCB officials during their inspection, neither during construction stage nor during operation stage of the said residential project.
Also, as per Clause no. 16 of the approved building plan/ Commencement Certificate, sanctioned vide MIDC Commencement Letter no. EE/IT/Plans/1143/2012, dated 19/03/2012; the project proponent should not construct borewell/ tube well/ dug well without obtaining mandatory permission from the competent authority.
The project proponent has made a water supply agreement with MIDC, dated 14/12/2009 for requesting MIDC pipeline water supply during construction stage @ 54 m3/day and operation stage (for domestic purpose) @ 157.5 m3/day. The project proponent has submitted the month-wise water consumption bills of MIDC w.e.f. September, 2016 (issuance of Occupancy Certificate) to August, 2018. W.e.f. September, 2018; the regular monthly payment of MIDC water bills has been handed over to the building association President & committee members based on the handing over agreement made on 27/07/2018. The month-wise water consumption details of the said residential project w.e.f. September, 2016 (issuance of Occupancy Certificate) to August, 2018 is given in the table below.
Page 15 of 33
Water Billing Date of MIDC MIDC Invoice Water Units
Month Invoice No (m3)
Sep-16 05.10.2016 SI17_00063741 1,182
Oct-16 08.11.2016 SI17_00152875 1,167
Nov-16 06.12.2016 SI17_00221500 1,453
Dec-16 05.01.2017 SI17_00297976 1,559
Jan-17 06.02.2017 SI17_00376127 1,236
Feb-17 07.03.2017 SI17_00458114 1,720
Mar-17 11.04.2017 SI17_00555848 2,390
Apr-17 09.05.2017 SI17_00637624 2,387
May-17 08.06.2017 SI17_00718765 3,192
Jun-17 21.07.2017 SI17_00826219 3,031
Jul-17 10.08.2017 SI17_00874923 5,018
Aug-17 08.09.2017 SI17_00951178 3,935
Sep-17 04.10.2017 SI17_01025816 3,175
Oct-17 03.11.2017 SI17_01104101 3,243
Nov-17 08.12.2017 SI17_01210548 4,351
Dec-17 03.01.2018 SI17_01267561 3,328
Jan-18 06.02.2018 SI17_01362075 2,730
Feb-18 09.03.2018 SI17_01446043 3,403
Mar-18 11.04.2018 SI1900044849 1,907
Apr-18 09.05.2018 SI1900126260 2,802
May-18 06.06.2018 SI1900196094 3,943
Jun-18 04.07.2018 SI1900272280 3,007
Jul-18 08.08.2018 SI1900374045 1,627
Aug-18 06.09.2018 SI1900452526 3,424
From the above records, it is observed that the project proponent has not extracted groundwater during construction and operation stage (domestic activities).
However, it is observed that there is continuous seepage of groundwater from the basement of the project near the stilt floor parking, STP area and near lift lobby of the stilt floor. This is due to the high water table located between 2 - 7m in the area under reference, and as reported from the geo-technical survey report (July, 2011) of the area under reference. Please refer Photographs- 11 & 12, Annexure-VI. However, as per Appendix-II, Form-IA under Sr. no. 2.0 - Water Environment paragraph, Section 2.9, the project proponent has to provide the information on impacts of the proposal on groundwater i.e. tapping of groundwater, details of groundwater table, recharging capacity and approvals obtained from competent authority). The project proponent mentioned that "Use of groundwater is not proposed. During the operation phase, a well-designed rainwater harvesting system to recharge groundwater will be implemented as a part of the project". It is clear Page 16 of 33 from the aforesaid information that the project proponent has not provided/declared the information about the groundwater table of the area under reference in the Form-IA, submitted to SEIAA while obtaining the prior environment clearance. Also, the project proponent submitted that there are no low-lying areas in the project site, that involves alteration of natural drainage systems. It is observed from the geo-technical survey /total station survey report/ contour map the following observations & findings are drawn.
i. There are total 15 bore holes were drilled in the project area and depth of the bore holes vary from 9 to 15m.
ii. As per the bore hole data, depth of the weathered rock varies from 1.5 to 7.50mbelow the surface. Greyish and reddish basalt rock is shown below the weathered rock.
iii. Recovery of the core is shown 6 to 23% in the weathered portion i.e. up to 7.5 m from the surface and below the 7.5 m in basalt formation, recovery of the core is shown from 23 to 93%.
Rock Quality Designation (RQD) is shown 0 to 20% range in the weathered rock portion (0 to 7.5 m) & 13 to 100 in medium to hard portion (above 7.5 m).
iv. As per the bore hole data, the RQD from 0 to 7.5 m from the surface is varies from 0 to 20%, indicates the formation (rock quality) is very poor.
v. As per the excavation and foundation drawing submitted by the project proponent, depth of the foundation is 7.5 m, and it appears that the foundation was done in active groundwater zone (ground water table reported at 2 - 7 m as per the geo-technical survey report of July, 2011) or beyond the reported groundwater table; which might have resulted into seepage of groundwater to the sump (where the water was collected is below the surface level). This shows that proper mechanism to contain the groundwater is not taken by the project proponent.
Page 17 of 33 vi. From the contour map, it was noticed that the elevation difference is almost 8 m. The highest level 103 m is on the western side of the site and lowest level 95 m is at the southern side. The topography is sloping towards the south. During site inspection, seepage of groundwater was observed from the sump which is located at the southern side of the site having lower contour value.
vii. Considering the geology and condition of the soil, gravity drainage method and simple pumping equipment may be used to divert the groundwater.
viii. Further, the existing sump may be relocated based on the contour values, available space and local geology, and the sump should preferably be lined with filter material which has grain size gradations, compatible with filter rules.
The project proponent has constructed a small pit on the corner of the parking ramp and installed a pump @ 3 HP capacity to dewater the groundwater seepage. The dewatered groundwater is channelized to another collection tank where it is frequently pumped to recharge pits, and also discharged outside the premises into MIDC stormwater drains. Hence, the project proponent has not extracted groundwater using pumps, instead dewatering the groundwater and discharging into recharge pits and MIDC drains, outside the premises. Please refer Photographs 13 & 14, Annexure- VI.
The Ministry of Jal Shakti (Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation) (Central Ground Water Authority), vide Notification S.O. 3289(E), dated 24/09/2020 specifies the requirement of a No Objection Certificate from CGWA for new infrastructure projects/ residential buildings which involves dewatering during construction activity and/ or use of ground water for construction activity. However, the said Notification doesn't specify the requirement of NOC from CGWA for dewatering of groundwater during operation phase of a project due to seepage/ high groundwater table. Page 18 of 33 With regard to the episode of flooding as mentioned by the Applicant in the Hon'ble NGT Order (which had occurred on account of pumping of groundwater in the basement area) was substantiated by the project proponent that it was due to intrusion of stormwater, discharged from Infosys campus. The members of association of said residential project, communicated the grievance to the Executive Officer, MIDC vide email communication, dated 14/10/2020 and 19/10/2020 to take the corrective actions. It is submitted by the project proponent during the committee inspection that immediately after the flooding incident happened, the project proponent had taken initiative, at their own cost, to clean all the trenches inside and outside Plot 17, built barriers/ humps at main gate, at basement entrance ramp and at entrance of STP plant. The project proponent also installed additional 110 mm underground drain pipes, repaired the existing pumps, and installed new pumps. Further, submitted that after Oct, 2020, reportedly incident of flooding had not occurred at Plot no. 17.
4.0 Conclusion i. The residential building project i.e. The Crown Green - The Residential Development is developed within the residential zone of MIDC approved layout plan. The project proponent has obtained total five revisions in the building plan/ Commencement Certificate from MIDC, during 2012 to 2015 and constructed as per environment clearance and building plan/ commencement certificates.
ii. As per the Environment Clearance granted by SEIAA, the total built-up area proposed is 77,889.82 sq-m, includes the FSI area of 38,207.33 sq-m and Non- FSI area of 39,682.48 sq-m, out of which the project proponent has constructed only 29,880.49 sq-m and obtained Occupancy Certificate, dated 14/07/2016 & 25/01/2017 for Tower T1, T2 and T3 on plot no. 17 & common amenity area i.e. clubhouse, fitness centre. Page 19 of 33 Also, the project proponent has obtained the final Fire NOC for the said residential project from MIDC. iii. The project proponent has renewed their Consent to Operate under the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, from MPCB, from time to time, and the current Consent toOperate is valid till 28/02/2022. iv. The project proponent has complied with all the environment clearance conditions (such as construction of common amenity space - clubhouse, sewage treatment plant & its operation, maintenance, regular renewal of Consent to Operate, establishment of green cover & plantation, installation of solar panels for lighting, rainwater harvesting system, fire-fighting system and organic waste convertor for management of solid waste) except for installation of common solar water heating system and supply of water to bathrooms in the complex.
v. The project proponent has made a water supply agreement with MIDC and is receiving the water supply through pipeline, utilized mainly during construction stage @ 54 m3/day and operation stage (for domestic purpose) @ 157.5 m3/day. Hence, it indicates that the project proponent has not installed and extracted ground water from borewells.
vi. Continuous seepage of groundwater from the basement of the project near the stilt floor parking, STP area and near lift lobby of the stilt floor was observed and it is due to the high water table located between 2 - 7 m in the area under reference, as reported from the geo- technical survey report (July, 2011). Further, it is evident Page 20 of 33 from the contour map that an elevation difference of almost 8 m was observed. The highest level of 103 m is on the western side of the project site and lowest level of 95 m is at the southern side of project site. It is evident that the topography is sloping towards the southern side of project site. During site inspection, seepage of groundwater was observed from the sump, which is located at the southern side of the project site having lower contour value.
vii. As per Appendix-II, Form-IA under Sr. no. 2.0 - Water Environment paragraph, Section 2.9, the project proponent has not provided/declared the information about the groundwater table and recharge capacity of the area under reference in the Form-IA, submitted to SEIAA while obtaining the prior environment clearance. Further, it is observed from the excavation and foundation drawing of the project under reference that the depth of foundation is 7.5 m, and it appears that the foundation was done in active groundwater zone (ground water table reported at 2 - 7 m as per the geo- technical survey report of July, 2011) or beyond the reported groundwater table; which might have resulted into seepage of groundwater to the sump (where the water was collected is below the surface level). This shows that proper mechanism to contain the groundwater is not taken by the project proponent. 5.0 Recommendations:
i. As per the compliance of environment clearance conditions the project proponent should expedite the installation of common solar water hearing system and supply of hot water to bathrooms. The Project Proponent should submit the compliance of the same Page 21 of 33 along with documentary/ photographic evidence to the Regional office of MoEF&CC with a copy to MPCB. ii. The Project Proponent under the supervision of MIDC, may be directed to carry out a detailed study through a hydrogeologist and structural engineer who are experts in the particular field, preferably from concerned Government Department of from research/ reputed institution (i.e. IIT/NIT/Major Govt Engineering Colleges) to prepare a time bound action plan along with remedial measures which may include:
a. Assessment on groundwater seepage; and b. Effective containment measures and remedial measures for seepage groundwater."
5. By order dated 28.09.2022, the remaining respondents, who were not present on the first date or were not already member of the Committee were directed to be served notices, pursuant to which service affidavit has been submitted by the Applicant, as per which the service of notices is sufficient on all the respondents.
6. The stand of Respondent No.8/International Biotech Park Ltd. and 9/ TCG Urban infrastructure Holdings Ltd, (PP) is as follows:
1. The Respondent No.8/International Biotech Park Ltd and Respondent No-.9/ TCG Urban Infrastructure Holdings Ltd has filed their reply on 31.03.2022. The present Original Application is moved to challenge the EC dated 26.11.2012 which is evident from the pleadings. EC was granted on 26.11.2012, therefore, the same could not have been challenged as more than 9 years lapsed, as per Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, hence this application should be treated as time barred.
The Answering Respondent has constructed Building No.1 consisting of 3 wings ( i.e. Wings T1, T2 & T3). Possession of it has been delivered to the flat purchaser, who has formed an Association of Apartment Owners and that about 36 flat owners (out of a total of 220 flats) have executed Deed of Apartment. Page 22 of 33 The Joint Committee has recommended expediting the installation of Common Solar Water heating System and that a study should be conducted by Hydrogeologist and a Structural Engineer in respect of the assessment of Ground Water Seepage. With regard to these recommendations, the answering Respondent has got the study carried out through a consultant by the name ORB Energy, which, vide their report dated 8th December, 2021, pointed out that the site where the solar water heater needs to be installed, falls under the shadow region and hence that would be deprived of sunlight for most part of the day. Thus, the consultant recommended for not going ahead with the installation of the solar water heaters, which fact was recommended to the committee as well. The Answering Respondent has provided solar panel in accordance with the environmental clearance conditions. With respect to the second recommendation, the answering Respondent engaged a Structural Engineer by the name JW Consultants LLP which has submitted its report dated 18th July, 2020 recommending that there is no danger whatsoever to the structure of the project. The answering Respondent had provided information about the groundwater in Form IA by giving detailed geotechnical report dated July 2011. It is clearly mentioned about the existence of groundwater and after perusal of the said document, EC was granted. The said Environmental Clearance expired on 25th November, 2019.
2. The Respondent No.8/International Biotech Park Ltd and Respondent No-.9/ TCG Urban infrastructure Holdings Ltd have filed their additional reply on 03.02.2023, wherein it is submitted that the answering Respondent had applied for the renewal of „Consent to Operate‟ on 19th February, 2022. The project, as on date has been completed and the Respondent Page 23 of 33 No.3 has also issued the Building completion Certificate to the said project. As regards the future development, it is submitted that the construction would be started for balance undeveloped part of the plot at a later date when the market conditions would be favourable and they would be applying to the respective authorities for necessary permissions at the relevant juncture.
3. There is an underlying water stream in the project, is completely denied. It is stated that there was consistent rains in the year 2020, which clogged storm water drain pipes, which led to the accumulation of water outside the plot and it also entered the basement area of the project. The Respondent No.10 had reported about it to Respondent No.3 through email on 19th October, 2020, thereafter the officials of the Respondent No.3 moved in action and internal survey was conducted.
4. The answering Respondent has constructed the ramps to prevent the water from entering the basement and had also done the water proofing at the site. The maintenance of the common facilities has been handed over by the answering Respondent to Respondent No.10 on 28th July, 2018; hence from that date onwards, the responsibility for maintenance STP lies on the Respondent No.10. It is further mentioned, in order to prevent any untoward incident in case of heavy rainfall, the answering Respondent had intimated the Respondent No.3 vide letters dated 11th May, 2021, 30th March, 2022 and 5th May, 2022 to ensure that the drain pipes were not clogged and remained free for flow of water.
7. The stand of Respondent No.10/Resident Welfare Association is as follows:
1. The Applicants are not residing in the housing complex in question, all these Applicants are defaulters of society with Page 24 of 33 respect to the payment of monthly maintenance charges. Legal notice has been issued to the Applicant No.3 for recovery of the said amount. The private agency called Enviro whizz Services has been engaged for maintaining Sewerage Treatment Plant which is being monitored by the Association. They have denied all the allegations made by the Applicants.
2. The Applicants have submitted objection against the Expert Committee Report by filing affidavit dated 22.09.2022. In this Affidavit the same averments have been reiterated which have been stated by the Applicants in the Original Application.
Besides that, it is also mentioned in it that the Respondent No.10 (RWA) did some patchwork for the STP after the report of incident of flooding in the year 2020. It has spent Rs. 30-40 Lakhs on the said STP. The Project Proponent has reimbursed some of the said amount to the tune of Rs. 13,81,000/- Besides, that a sum of Rs. 7.64 lakhs has been got reimbursed from the insurance company, Bajaj Allianz against the expenses incurred in fixing the damages caused due to the flooding. It is indicated that the reimbursement made by the Project Proponent of the said amount would show that there were structural flaws in the construction. There is a mention of the sump and water collection tank in the basement in the committee report, but it failed to mention that there is another sump near the STP. Sump and tank near the STP are huge and the underground water flow is very heavy in the said tank. The extent of flooding through the said tank is so significant that multiple motors were installed to drain out the water coming from that live stream. It is lastly mentioned that the experts from background of structural engineering and hydrogeology from an institution of eminence should be appointed to investigate project.
Page 25 of 33
8. Additional affidavit dated 14th November, 2022 has been filed by the Applicant where-in it is submitted that the initial CTE which was granted on 10.04.2012, lapsed. No valid Consent to Establish the project has been obtained since 09.04.2017 for 1990 days i.e. for more than five years. As an afterthought, the PP made an application for grant of Consent to Establish (Revalidation)(date of moving application has not been mentioned). The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board issued Show Cause Notice to the Project Proponent dated 08.06.2022, on the following grounds.
i. Project Proponent did not obtain revalidation of Consent to Establish dated 05.11.2014 (The first CTE was dated 10.04.2012 which was extended on 05.11.2014) after 05.11.2019.
ii. Project Proponent has not applied for renewal of Consent to Operate (part) which was valid till 28.02.2022. iii. Project Proponent has not submitted Bank Guarantee (BG) of Rs. 10 Lakhs as per CTO iv. Project Proponent has not submitted sanctioned plan, CC/IOD.
Subsequently the Project Proponent had withdrawn its Application for CTE (Revalidation) and sought a refund of the fees paid. The Maharashtra Pollution Control Board accepted the request for withdrawal but did not insist for answers to be given to the show cause notice issued by it.
At Page No. 828 of the paper book, on which Maharashtra Pollution Control Board‟s Minutes of the Meeting dated 30.06.2022 is annexed, at Serial No.1 in remarks column it is recorded that Project Proponent had submitted reply to SCN on 15th June 2022 and submitted that the project was partly completed and it was handed over to Society. He had applied for renewal of consent. Now PP is not going ahead for further remaining construction hence it preferred to Page 26 of 33 withdraw the application, which request was accepted. The allegation of the applicant is that withdrawal was permitted because the Project Proponent could not give reply to show cause notice. Further, it is mentioned by the Applicant in this affidavit that the last Consent to Operate (Part-III) dated 13.07.2020 was valid till 28.02.2022, thereafter, there was no CTE for this project , therefore there is illegal operation of this project for 203 days.
9. The stand of Respondent No.7/MPCB is as follows:
1. The Respondent No.7/Maharashtra Pollution Control Board has filed their reply on 15.11.2022. The answering Respondent gave first Consent to Establish on 10.04.2022 for total BUA 39,682,.48 sq.mtrs which was valid for a period upto commissioning of the project or five years (appears to be
10.04.2012) , whichever is earlier.
2. Thereafter, the answering Respondent granted amended Consent to Establish on 05.11.2014 for total BUA- 77889.82 sq.mtrs, which was valid for a period up to commissioning of the unit or 09.04.2017, whichever is earlier.
3. The answering Respondent has granted first part Consent to Operate on 08.07.20216 for partly completed BUA- 29,954.0 sq.mtrs out of total BUA of 77,889.82 sq. mtrs., which was valid up to 31.01.2018.
4. The answering Respondent had renewed the Part Consent to Operate till date and details of renewal are mentioned below:
Consent Valid From Valid Till Area
Part Consent to 08.07.2016 31.01.2018 Constructed
Operate (first) BUA 29954
Renewal of Part 31.01.2018 31.01.2019 sq.mtrs out of
C to O dated Total BUA
04.09.2018 77889.82
Page 27 of 33
sq.mtrs.
Renewal of Part 01.02.2019 28.02.2022
C to O dated
13.07.2020
Respondent PP has applied to MPC Board for renewal of Part Consent to Operate and the same is in process.
5. The above table shows us that the allegation of the applicant that the Project Proponent did not have any Consent to Operate after 28.02.2022 appears to be false because it had already moved for the same which was pending consideration before Maharashtra Pollution Control Board. Rest part of the affidavit is nothing but reiteration of the finding / recommendation of the expert committee hence we are not reproducing herein.
10. The stand of Respondent No.4/CGWA is as follows:
1. The Respondent No.4/CGWA has filed their reply on 26.03.2023, but it is submitted before us on 26.03.2022 as per the index. It is submitted that it was obligatory upon the Respondent Project Proponent to obtain No Objection Certificate for ground water extraction in view of CGWA guidelines dated 24.09.2020, which had not been obtained nor any application was moved for the same. Therefore, it is mentioned that the Project Proponent has violated the guidelines issued by the them.
2. When we inquired from the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 as to whether any quantification of the amount has been done at their end regarding illegal extraction of ground water by the Project Proponent, answer was given in the negative but it was assured that the same would be done by them within a week.
Page 28 of 33
3. The above contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 that no permission was taken from them by the Project proponent for extraction of ground water, is found to be in conflict with the Expert Committee Report which says in at page No. 496 of the paper book that the Project Proponent had not extracted ground water during the construction and operation stage.
11. The stand of Respondent No.3/MIDC is as follows:
1. The Respondent No.3/MIDC has filed their reply on27.03.2023 where-in it is submitted that a land was allotted to Respondent No.9/TCG Urban infrastructure Holdings Ltd, at extremely concessional rate. The entire responsibility to design and develop the park is of the Respondent No.9. There is nothing else mentioned in it, found to be relevant for deciding the controversy involved in the present case.
12. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants (Applicant No.3 is present in person before us). He pointed out that the main grievance which he has suffered is that the conditions laid down in the EC have not been complied with by the Respondent No.8/PP. When enquired from him as to which are those specific conditions which have not been complied with by the Project Proponent, he drew our attention to page Nos. 248 to 252 condition No.(ii), (ii), (iv), (xiv), (xxvi), (xxviii), (xxix), (xxx), (xxxi), (xxxvi), (xxxviii), (xliv) and (xlvi) of the paper book.
13. He drew our attention to Page No. 252, condition No. (v) to (viii) of the paper book and it is argued that five times changes were made in the plan of construction, therefore fresh amended EC was required to be obtained on each of these occasions. We are of the view that there is no such provision under law so long as the construction is within the permitted total built up area. When we inquired from the learned counsel for the applicants to show relevant provision in this regard under EIA notification 2006, he could not show anything in this regard. Page 29 of 33
14. He drew our attention to the page No. 243 of the paper book in order to point out that the turning radius is recorded in EC to be 12.5 m which is not met by the Project Proponent.
15. He has drawn our attention to Page Nos. 255 to 271 of the paper book which are photographs of the dysfunctional STP and having drawn attention to them, he urged that these photographs show the STP to be dysfunctional. When we enquired from him as to how can on the basis of photographs, be it held that they were dysfunctional, no proper reply could be given because in our estimation an expert report was required to be brought on record in this regard which is not there.
16. He has drawn our attention to Page No. 271 of the paper book which is photograph of the Solid Waste Management. It also does not prove that the same was not functional by the photograph.
17. Thereafter, he has drawn our attention to Page No. 962 of the paper book which is part of the affidavit of CGWA telling about violation made by the Project Proponent of the CGWA guidelines but we already have recorded above that there is a report on record of the expert committee saying that no water extraction was done by the Project Proponent while constructing the project or thereafter.
18. Regarding the STP being not functional, we find that there are test reports available on record from 31.03.2022, onwards of various dates which are at Pages Nos. 721 to 732 of the paper book which show the value of Total Suspended Solids, BOD and COD to be within limits i.e. below the consented limits which were provided in the consent conditions, therefore the allegation that the STP was not working properly appears to be false allegation. These values were noted regarding STP outlet which is more important for us because from outlet only any pollution is likely to have happened.
19. He has drawn our attention to Page No. 493 of the paper book which is part of the expert committee report and highlighted that the green cover and plantation has not been done because the committee Page 30 of 33 has not looked into the species of the tree planted which was essential. When we enquired as to what kind of trees were supposed to be planted, learned counsel for the applicant could not respond, hence this objection also appears to be unfounded.
20. He has drawn our attention to Page No. 706 of the paper book which is part of the affidavit filed by Respondent No. 10/ Resident Welfare Association and argued that the said Association is not registered under Co-operative Societies Act, hence has no value but we are not in agreement with his argument as the association works otherwise also in number of colonies which seems to be quite functional in the present case because it has maintained STP pursuant to its being handed over by the builder.
21. Thereafter, he has drawn our attention to rejoinder affidavit dated 22.09.2022 and tried to read relevant paragraphs which we have already taken care of earlier above.
22. Learned counsel for the Project Proponent vehemently argued that all the allegations which have been made by the Applicants are baseless because they are not residing in the said colony and had rented out their accommodation to third persons. Besides that, they are defaulters as they are not paying any contribution which is demanded by the Association for up keep of the common facilities such as lift. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the Project Proponent with respect to extraction of ground water and not taking NOC from CGWA that no ground water was extracted by them. Therefore, there was no requirement to obtain NOC, which fact also stands fortified by the Expert Committee Report.
23. With Respect to the water seepage which is stated to be there by the Applicants, it is argued by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 & 9 that this was one- off occurrence which happened once only in 2022, when heavy rains took place, which flooded the area with water. Since thereafter no such kind of heavy rains have been there and that Page 31 of 33 appropriate steps have already been taken at their end by making a ramp and doing water proofing.
24. In our estimation also, after having heard both the sides including the Resident Welfare Association, we are of the view that no violation is found to be there with respect to the terms and conditions of the EC or Consent to Operate but the chief concern appears to be that of water getting collected when there are heavy rains in the basement of the project. That problem is required to be resolved, for which we would propose following steps to be taken.
25. Accordingly, we dispose off this application with the following directions :
1. MIDC should undertake cleaning of Nallas/storm water drain before every monsoon and subsequently every fortnight till monsoon lasts.
2. The Resident Welfare Association shall pursue application for renewal of Consent to Operate to ensure that there is no gap in CTO and also ensure maintenance of STP so as to meet consent conditions
3. Since Builder/Project Proponent has handed over the project, we are of the view that it is now the responsibility of the Resident Welfare Association to take care of maintenance of all common facilities of the project in question.
4. We may also note here that the Project Proponent shall fulfil its commitment to build club house with ground + 2 floors when the entire project, as originally envisaged, is completed by it. We are convinced that as of now since only partial construction has taken place, the act of the Proponent to construct only ground floor appears to be reasonable.
Page 32 of 33
5. No order as to costs.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM April 28, 2023.
Original Application No. 06/2021 Sachin J.
Page 33 of 33