National Green Tribunal
Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs Union Of India Through Secretary Moef ... on 19 May, 2021
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 04 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 33/2019 (WZ)
(I.A. No. 31/2019 (WZ)
Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 19.05.2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Advocate
ORDER
1. Grievance in this application is against illegal construction of Xrbia Hinjewadi Township by respondents 16 & 17, M/s. Xrbia Developers Limited and M/s. Xrbia Hinjewadi Developers Private Limited, the project proponent (PP), at survey Numbers 36, 38/2, 38/3, 39, 40/1d, 42, 56, 57 of village - Dattawadi (Nere) and 52, 53, 54 of village -Kesarsai, Taluka - Mulshi and District - Pune, in violation of EIA Notification, 2006 and other environment enactments.
2. According to the applicant, the PP was granted Environmental Clearance (EC) on 27.12.2006 in terms of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 for construction of proposed township "Silicon City" at village Dattawadi, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, Maharashtra. However the project proponent did not proceed with the said project and applied for 1 fresh EC to the SEIAA for a different project titled 'Megacity Hinjewadi' township of village Dattawadi and Kasarsai, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune by Eiffel Developers Pvt. Ltd. The same was considered by the SEAC on 25th to 28th September, 2012 as follows:-
"The case was discussed on the basis of the presentation made by the proponent for TOR. SEAC deliberated the issue and noted that as per EIA Notification, 2006 Para 7, stage 2, scoping is excluded for activities listed as category B in the item 8 of the schedule. PP is advised to follow model TOR available on the website for EIA and approach the SEAC for the appraisal.
Preliminary observations are as follows: -
1. Submit an explanatory note on plot history and details about area added/excluded from the project for which EC was granted in 2006.
2. PP to include the construction of greenhouse in the project area calculations.
3. Submit consent for total water requirement from a competent authority.
4. Submit the proposal for water supply from source to site also indicating the water treatment etc.
5. Submit details of water balance for zero liquid discharge proposed for the project.
6. Considering the topography, PP should restrict cutting of hills to retain native vegetation on the hill slope of plot. Every effort has to be made to plant native species.
7. This is a special township project. Location clearance for the entire area involved is required. Submit the clearance from competent authority.
8. Compliance with all stipulations for Special Township to be furnished.
9. A large scale lay out plan superimposed on contour map to be submitted indicating the "no development zones", road network etc."
3. Thereafter, the project proponent filed application for EC on January, 2013 which was considered in the meeting of SEAC on 12.03.2013 but no EC has been granted. However, the project proponent has already raised construction of 29 out of 41 buildings and constructed 3120 flats apart from the other constructions without EC, Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, in violation of law, including the condition number 6 of EC dated 27.12.2006 and the 2 statutory requirements under Notification dated 14.09.2006, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
4. Since there are statutory authorities under obligation to look into the violation of mandatory provisions, including absence of prior EC before commencement of the project, we consider it appropriate to require, in the first instance, the said statutory regulators to look into the matter. For this purpose, we constitute a joint Committee comprising CPCB, SEIAA, Maharashtra, State PCB, Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (PMRDA) and District Magistrate, Pune. The State PCB will be the nodal agency for compliance and coordination. The joint Committee may look into the grievance in the application in exercise of their statutory power, following due process of law and take remedial action. The Committee may take its decision as far as possible within three months. The Committee will be at liberty to visit the site and involve any other expert if necessary. It is also made clear that the statutory regulators may, if violations are found take preventive and remedial action including recovery and assessment of compensation.
5. Since by above order, we are not adjudicating upon the matter and only requiring the statutory authorities to look into the matter and to take action, in accordance with the applicable norms, we do not find it necessary at this stage to issue notice to the respondents. It is made clear that the project proponent will be duly heard by the statutory regulators, before taking adverse action.
6. The applicant may furnish a set of papers to the CPCB, SEIAA, Maharashtra, State PCB, Pune Metropolitan Regional Development 3 Authority (PMRDA) and District Magistrate, Pune to facilitate compliance of the above order.
The application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the CPCB, SEIAA, Maharashtra, State PCB, Pune Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (PMRDA) and District Magistrate, Pune by e-mail for compliance.
In view of order in the main matter, I.A. No. 31/2019 also stands disposed of.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM M. Sathyanarayanan, JM Brijesh Sethi, JM Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM May 19, 2021 Original Application No. 33/2019 (WZ) (I.A. No. 31/2019 (WZ) A 4