Telangana High Court
Prof. P.L. Vishweshwar Rao vs Union Of India on 17 July, 2020
Author: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan
Bench: Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, B.Vijaysen Reddy
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 155 OF 2020
ORDER:(Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) The petitioners have filed the present Public Interest Litigation challenging the continuation of the demolition of the present Secretariat buildings by the respondents, in order to construct a new Secretariat building in the same campus.
Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following contentions:-
Firstly, on an earlier occasion, the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 was challenged in a series of writ petitions filed before this Court, namely W.P. (PIL) Nos. 136, 142 and 145 of 2016 and in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 66 and 71 of 2019. By the said decision, the Cabinet had decided to demolish the present Secretariat buildings and to construct a new Secretariat. While arguing in the said writ petitions, the State had taken a categorical stand that the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 is only an interim decision of the Cabinet, and not a final one. Accordingly, the learned Advocate General had pleaded that there were two options which were under consideration of the Cabinet, either to modify and renovate the standing structures in the Secretariat campus, or to demolish the standing buildings and to raise a new construction in order to build an iconic secretariat complete with latest technology and modern architecture. Therefore, the learned Advocate General had pleaded that it is too early in the day for the petitioners to challenge an interim decision claiming that it is, indeed, a final decision of the Cabinet. Now, the learned counsel submits that 2 without having a final decision of the Cabinet, the demolition process has commenced from July 07, 2020 and is presently continuing.
Secondly, the demolition work has been stayed by this Court by its order dated 10.07.2020. Therefore, as of today, there is no demolition activity going on in the secretariat campus.
Thirdly, relying on the Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 ('the Rules of 2016', for short), the learned counsel contends that under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016, a waste generator, who generates 20 tons or more in one day, or 300 tons per project in a month, is required to submit a waste management plan before the appropriate authority, before commencing the demolition. However, in the present case, no such management plan has been submitted and no such approval has been sought from the appropriate authority. Therefore, the demolition, which has commenced on July 07, 2020, violates the Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016.
Fourthly, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 ('the Act', for short) the Central Government had issued the notification dated 14.09.2006. The said notification not only makes it mandatory that prior to the commencement of a construction, or "preparation of a land", Environmental Clearance ('EC') has to be sought from the regulatory authority, but also prescribes an elaborate procedure before the Environmental Clearance Certificate ('ECC') can be issued by the regulatory authority. Relying on Para 2 and Para 6 of the said Notification, the learned counsel has strenuously pleaded that ECC is required after the identification of the prospective site, but before the land can be prepared, or the 3 construction can be commenced. According to the learned counsel, since certain buildings already stand in the Secretariat campus, the demolition of these buildings would fall within the words "preparation of land". After all, the buildings are being demolished only in order to "prepare the land" for the next set of new construction of the Secretariat as envisaged by the respondents.
Fifthly, relying on the case of S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India, (a Full Bench decision of the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench at New Delhi decided on 01.09.2015), the learned counsel has pleaded that the learned Tribunal has already opined that both the Act, and the Notification, 2006 are mandatory in nature. Therefore, before any construction can be raised, or a land can be prepared, a prior ECC is mandatory. In order to further buttress this plea, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to certain paras of the judgment, which shall be referred to hereinafter.
Sixthly, Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 empowers the National Authority to recommend certain guidelines for the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster. The learned counsel has further relied on Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 in order to plead that the demolition of the buildings is polluting the air quality in the area. According to the learned counsel, since fresh air, fresh water and non-pollutant environment is a fundamental right of the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the demolition of the secretariat is violating Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 4
Lastly, considering the fact that Hyderabad is presently caught in the grip of Covid-19 pandemic, the learned counsel pleads that the demolition of the secretariat merely aggravates the pandemic. Therefore, this Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the demolition to be stopped forthwith.
On the other hand, Mr. B.S. Prasad, the learned Advocate General, submits that due to the pandemic, a Cabinet meeting could not be convened. However, on 30.06.2020, by circulation, the issue with regard to the construction of a new Secretariat was circulated to the Cabinet Ministers. And the Cabinet has unanimously decided that, indeed, the present Secretariat needs to be demolished, and a state of the art iconic secretariat building needs to be constructed. In order to buttress this plea, the learned Advocate General has submitted a copy of the said decision before this Court for its perusal. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submits that a final decision has certainly been taken by the Cabinet for demolition of the present Secretariat, and construction of a new Secretariat in the same campus.
Secondly, aware of the requirement of the Rules of 2016, the Principal Secretary (T, R&B) Department had not only informed the Engineer-in-chief, R&B Buildings informing him about the Cabinet decision, but had also directed him to take the necessary action in the matter. Therefore, the R&B Department had requested the Commissioner, GHMC to grant necessary approval for the waste management plan submitted along with the letter relating to the demolition and disposal of the debris. Subsequently, on 04.07.2020, by taking the waste management plan into consideration, the permission was granted by the Commissioner of 5 GHMC. Therefore, according to the learned Advocate General, the permission required from the local authority under Rules of 2016 has duly been granted. Since the permission was granted under the Rules of 2016, on 04.07.2020, the demolition process began on 07.07.2020.
Thirdly, neither Para 2, nor Para 6 of the Notification, 2006 deal with the demolition of buildings. The said paras deal only with the "construction work", and "preparation of land". These two phrases, namely "construction work" and "preparation of land" are vis-à-vis Item Nos.1 to 7 of the Schedule attached to the Notification, 2006. However, building/construction project/area development project and townships fall within item No. 8. These words do not relate to Item No. 8. Hence, there is no requirement under Notification, 2006 that a prior ECC is required before commencing the demolition. In order to buttress this plea, the learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 16.07.2020 issued by the State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority ('SEIAA'), the regulatory authority under the Notification, 2006, whereby even the regulatory authority has clearly stated that "demolition does not fall within the words "preparation of land"." Therefore, prior to demolishing a standing structure, no EC is needed.
Fourthly, according to the learned Advocate General an ECC would be needed only before commencing the construction of the new Secretariat. He gives an undertaking that before commencing the construction of the new Secretariat, the Government shall follow the requirement of Notification, 2006 and shall seek the ECC from the regulatory authority.
6
Fifthly, Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act is merely an enabling provision empowering the National Authority i.e. the National Disaster Management Authority, constituted under sub- section(1) of Section 3, to issue guidelines for the minimum standard of relief to be provided to persons or a class of persons affected by disaster. However, there is no guideline provided by the National Authority which prohibits the demolition of a building. Therefore, there is no violation of Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Sixthly, even Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is merely an enabling provision empowering the State to take certain decisions and to issue certain directions and to prescribe certain temporary regulations to be observed by the public or class of persons in order to prevent the outbreak of epidemic disease, or the spread thereof. However, there is no guideline, or a policy decision taken by the State, so far, which would prevent demolition of a building. Therefore, the demolition of the present Secretariat building is not in violation of Section 2 of the Epidemic Disease Act, 1897.
Lastly, the learned Advocate General fairly concedes that Article 21 of the Constitution of India does include the right of the people to fresh air, fresh water, and clean environment. However, he submits that all precautions are being taken by the State to ensure that the air quality of the area does not deteriorate, and does not adversely affect the health of the people. Moreover, keenly aware of the Covid-19 pandemic, the State is taking every step to control and to eradicate Covid-19 pandemic not only in Hyderabad, but also throughout the State. Therefore, the learned 7 Advocate General submits that the State is well aware of its Constitutional and Statutory duties. But nonetheless, since a number of reports have clearly pointed out the deficiencies in the present Secretariat buildings, the Cabinet is of the opinion that the present Secretariat buildings need to be demolished so that a modern Secretariat can be built in its place. Hence, the learned Advocate General has supported the action of the respondents in demolishing the Secretariat buildings.
On 15.07.2020, while hearing the present writ petition, this court had noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Advocate General have taken too opposite stands with regard to the interpretation of the words "preparation of land". While Mr. Prabhakar Chikkudu, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even demolition activity would fall within the words "preparation of land", the learned Advocate General counter- argued that demolition is not part of "preparation of land". According to him, the preparation of land means the commencement of the construction which would naturally begin with the laying of the foundation of the building. Since neither of the learned counsel could present any case law where the words "preparation of land" have been discussed, and interpreted, this Court asked Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, to seek a clarification from the Ministry of Forest and Climate Change with regard to their interpretation of the words "preparation of land", and with regard to whether there was any legal requirement of having an ECC prior to commencement of a demolition or not?
8
Mr. Rajeshwar Rao informs this Court that on 17.07.2020, the Ministry of Environment has addressed a letter with regard to the issues raised by this Court wherein it has clearly stated that "a logical reading and interpretation of the provisions indicate that stand alone building activity does not require prior environmental clearance under the EIA Notification 2006." (Emphasis added). Therefore, Mr. Rajeshwar Rao has supported the interpretation placed by the learned Advocate General before this court.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record submitted by all the parties, and considered the case law submitted by the learned counsel.
Admittedly, in the previous litigation, namely W.P. (PIL) Nos. 136, 142 and 145 of 2016 and in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 66 and 71 of 2019, the learned Advocate General had taken the stand that the Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 was an interim decision as the Cabinet was considering two possibilities, whether to renovate and modify the already standing structures at the Secretariat, or to demolish the same and to construct a new Secretariat. The challenge to the earlier Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019 was decided by this Court by its judgment dated 29.06.2020.
The learned Advocate General has submitted the proceedings of the Council of Ministers approved in circulation, namely Resolution No. 173/2020. A bare perusal of the same clearly reveals that the Cabinet has unanimously resolved to demolish all the existing structures of the Secretariat and to construct a new one. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in fact, there is no final decision of the Cabinet 9 is belied by the record itself. Hence, the said contention is unacceptable.
Under the provisions of Sections and 25 of the Act, on 29.03.2016, the Rules of 2016 were promulgated. Rule 3 (e) of the Rules of 2016 defines the word "demolition" as meaning - breaking down or tearing down buildings and other structures either manually or using mechanical force (by various equipment) or by implosion using explosives.
Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016 is as under:-
4. Duties of the waste generator.-- (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) Waste generators who generate more than 20 tons or more in one day or 300 tons per project in a month shall segregate the waste into four streams such as concrete, soil, steel, wood and plastics, bricks and mortar and shall submit waste management plan and get appropriate approvals from the local authority before starting construction or demolition or remodeling work and keep the concerned authorities informed regarding the relevant activities from the planning stage to the implementation stage and this should be on project to project basis.
(4) xxx (5) xxx A bare perusal of Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016, the Rule emphasized by the learned counsel, clearly reveals that it is the duty of the waste generator to submit a waste management plan, and to get the approval from the local authority.
Although the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently pleaded that prior to commencing the demolition on 07.07.2020, no such waste management plan was ever submitted to the local authority, and no such permission was ever granted by the local authority, the learned Advocate General has submitted a series of letters in his counter which belie the said contention. 10
A bare perusal of the counter clearly reveals that on 30.06.2020, the Principal Secretary to the Government, Transport, Roads & Buildings Department had informed the Engineer-in- chief, R&B of the decision taken "to demolish all the existing structures of the Telangana State Secretariat at Hyderabad". And had also directed the Engineer-in-Chief "to take necessary action in the matter." Consequently, on 30.06.2020, the Engineer-in-Chief had informed the Commissioner, GHMC not only with regard to the demolition of the proposed buildings, but also with regard to the construction and demolition waste management plan. The same was submitted for the perusal of the Commissioner, GHMC, the local authority. Moreover, by letter, dated 04.07.2020, the Commissioner, GHMC had issued an order thereby giving the necessary permission for undertaking the demolition of the existing buildings as per the plan submitted by the Engineer-in-Chief. Hence, a bare perusal of these documents clearly reveals that not just the construction and demolition waste management plan was submitted to the local authority, but most importantly, the permission required under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016 was also granted by the local authority on 04.07.2020. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the requirements of Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016 have not been complied with by the respondents. Hence, the said contention is unsustainable.
On 14.09.2006, while invoking its power under sub-section (1) and Clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act, read with Clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, a notification was issued which 11 prescribed not only the requirement of having a prior EC, but also prescribed an elaborate procedure for seeking and for granting the ECC.
Para 2 and Para 6 of the Notification, 2006 are as under:-
2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:
(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;
(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, After expansion or modernization;
(iii) xxx
6. Application for Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):-
An application seeking prior environmental clearance in all cases shall be made in the prescribed Form 1 annexed herewith and Supplementary Form 1A, if applicable, as given in Appendix II, after the identification of prospective site(s) for the project and/or activities to which the application relates, before commencing any construction activity, or preparation of land, at the site by the applicant. The applicant shall furnish, along with the application, a copy of the pre- feasibility project report except that, in case of construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule) in addition to Form 1 and the Supplementary Form 1A, a copy of the conceptual plan shall be provided, instead of the pre-feasibility report.
A bare perusal of Para 2 of the Notification, 2006 clearly reveals that the following projects or activities require an EC from the concerned regulatory authority. According to Para 3 of the Notification, 2006, the SEIAA is the regulatory authority for the 12 State. It is for this regulatory authority to issue an ECC before any construction, or preparation of land by the project management.
Para 6 imposes a duty to submit an application seeking prior EC after identification of prospective sites for the project, and/or activities to which the application relates and "before commencing any construction activity or preparation of land".
Therefore, the issue before this Court is whether the demolition of an existing building would fall within the words "preparation of land", or not? The words "preparation of land"
have not been defined, either in the Act, or in the Notification, 2006. Moreover, even in the case of S.P. Muthuraman (supra), the learned Tribunal has not interpreted the said words.
Since two contradictory contentions were being raised, one by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the other by the learned Advocate General, with regard to the extent of the words "preparation of land", this Court thought it proper to seek the interpretation from the Central Ministry, and from the regulatory Authority of the State. Mr. Rajeshwar Rao, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, has submitted the letter issued by the Central Ministry. It is reproduced as under:-
File No.3-52/2020-IA.III Government of India Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change IA (Infra-2) Division Indira Parvayavaran Bhawan Jorbagh Road, New Delhi - 110 003 Telefax: 24695331, E-mail: [email protected] Date: 17th July, 2020 To, Shri Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI) 2-3-70/65, 1st Floor Anantha Ram Nagar, 13 Amberpet-13, Hyderabad. Telangana Mob. 9948094769, 8247064124 Subject: WP (PIL) 155 of 2020 before Hon'ble High Court Telangana at Hyderabad (PL Vishweshwar Rao & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.) - Reg.
Sir, In this above cited subject matter, I have been directed to refer to your e-mail dated 15th July, 2020 wherein a clarification to the Ministry has been raised that reads as, "In terms of Para 2 and 6 of EIA Notification, 2006, whether prior environment clearance is required or not, for demolition of the existing Telangana Secretariat Building with an area of more than 7 lac. sq. mtrs."
2. In the subject context, the stated provisions of the EIA Notification, 2006 have been examined. A logical reading and interpretation of the provisions indicate that a standalone building demolition activity does not require prior environment clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. At the same time, however, such demolition activities are guided by the Ministry's Construction and Demolition Waste Management Rules, 2016 notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 vide notification GSR 445(E) dated 29.03.2016.
This issues (sic) with the approval of Competent Authority.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
(Shard) Scientist-E A bare perusal of the letter clearly reveals that the issue placed before the Central Ministry was whether a demolition of an existing building would fall within the provisions of Notification, 2006 or not? The answer to this query is that "a stand alone building demolition activity does not require prior environmental clearance under the Notification, 2006." The only rider placed by the Central Ministry is that the provisions of Rules of 2016 need to be followed. Therefore, the only requirement of law is that a permission needs to be sought from the local authority under Rule 14 4(3) of the Rules of 2016. But there is no requirement that a prior ECC needs to be sought from the regulatory authority under Para 6 of Notification, 2006.
Even the letter written by the SEIAA, the regulatory authority, dated 16.07.2020 clearly reveals as under:-
In this regard, it is stated that the term "preparation of land" as appearing in Para 2 of the Notification does not include the act of demolition of the existing structures. The said term is not relatable to the construction Activity for the Projects/Activity as mentioned vide Item 8 of the Schedule to the Notification. The same is relatable to other projects from Item 1 to 7 where there may be a requirement of obtaining the Environmental Clearance from the time the land is prepared for the specific activity. Therefore, in the considered opinion of SEIAA (State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority), T.S., the activity of demolition of the Secretariat buildings taken up by the Government of Telangana does not come within the purview of "Preparation of Land" as mentioned in the Para 2 & Para 6 of the Notification and as such requires no Environmental Clearances at this stage as this activity is already covered under the construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Management Rules, 2016, under which the local authority concerned is empowered to grant necessary permissions."
The only rider, this letter, attaches is that "however, Environmental Clearance is necessary to be obtained before the actual commencement of construction work/activity i.e., excavation for foundation."
Thus, it is obvious from both the letters issued by the Central Ministry, and by the SEIAA, the State regulatory authority, that no EC is required while demolishing a building, as demolition is covered by the Rules of 2016. Hence, the only requirement prior to demolition is a permission to be granted by the local authority under Rule 4(3) of the Rules of 2016. However, an EC would be required before commencing the construction work i.e., excavation of foundation. Therefore, the contention raised by the 15 learned counsel for the petitioner that a prior EC is required before beginning the demolition is clearly untenable.
Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 is as under:-
12. Guidelines for minimum standards of relief.--
The National Authority shall recommend guidelines for the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster, which shall include,-- (i) the minimum requirements to be provided in the relief camps in relation to shelter, food, drinking water, medical cover and sanitation; (ii) the special provisions to be made for widows and orphans; (iii) ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life as also assistance on account of damage to houses and for restoration of means of livelihood; (iv) such other relief as may be necessary.
A bare perusal of the said provision clearly reveals that it is an enabling provision which bestows a power upon the National Authority, as constituted under Section 3, to issue guidelines for the minimum standards of relief to be provided to persons affected by disaster. It is further goes on to even indicate the classes of people for whom the guidelines need to be issued such as providing relief camps in relation to shelter, food, drinking water, medical cover and sanitation with regard to widows and orphans; with regard to ex gratia assistance on account of loss of life and such other reliefs, as may be necessary. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed any guidelines issued by the National Authority, which would debar the respondents from demolishing any building. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in claiming that the provisions of Section 12 of the Disaster Management Act are being violated.
Similarly, Section 2 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 is as under:-
16
2. Power to take special measures and prescribe regulations as to dangerous epidemic disease.--(1) When at any time the State Government is satisfied that the State or any part thereof is visited by, or threatened with, an outbreak of any dangerous epidemic disease, the State Government, if it thinks that the ordinary provisions of the law for the time being in force are insufficient for the purpose, may take, or require or empower any person to take, such measures and, by public notice, prescribe such temporary regulations to be observed by the public or by any person or class of persons as it shall deem necessary to prevent the outbreak of such disease or the spread thereof, and may determine in what manner and by whom any expenses incurred (including compensation if any) shall be defrayed.
(2) xxx This, too, is an enabling provision bestowing ample powers on the State Government to take the necessary actions and to prohibit certain activities in order to prevent the outbreak of any epidemic disease. However, the learned counsel has not shown any policy decision of the State Government which would prohibit the demolition of buildings.
The learned counsel has heavily relied on the case of S.P. Muthuraman (supra). The facts of that case are that that according to the applicant therein, under the Notification, 2006 a prior EC had to be obtained before any construction work or preparation of land could be undertaken by the project management. In pursuance of Notification, 2006, an Office Memorandum, dated 16.11.2010 was issued mandating the consideration of the proposals involving violation of the Act of 1986 and the Notification, 2006. However, subsequently, by Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2012, the previous Office Memorandum, dated 16.11.2010 was suspended. In fact, according to the Office Memorandum, dated 12.12.2012, and the subsequent Office Memorandum, dated 27.06.2013 it was 17 permissible for the regulatory authority to consider the case of construction/preparation of land even subsequent to the commencement of the construction, or the preparation of land. The applicant had challenged the legality of Office Memorandum, dated 12.12.2012, and Office Memorandum, dated 27.06.2013 before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the issue before the learned Tribunal was whether the requirement under the Act, and Notification, 2006 which required a prior ECC to be issued, could be set aside, or could be deviated from, by an Office Memorandum. It is in this background that the learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the provisions of the Act and the paragraphs of the Notification, 2006 are mandatory in nature. Therefore, even before raising a construction, or preparation of land, an ECC is required to be had from the regulatory authority. Therefore, the learned Tribunal clearly observed that "the law does not visualize such examination post- commencement and upon completion of the project, in relation to the covered projects and activities", covered under the Notification, 2006.
The learned Tribunal further observed as under:-
116. In light of the above stated principles, now, we may examine the provisions of the Act of 1986 and the Notification of 2006. The Act of 1986 has been enacted for the protection and improvement of environment and the prevention of hazard to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property. In light of the fact that the Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to decent and clean environment, any of the provisions of the Act of 1986, in relation thereof, are a mandate of the Legislation. They do not provide discretion to A person to obey or not to obey the law and does not in any way permit dilution of the prescribed standards which are required to be adhered to by the person, who wishes to carry on any project or activity of any nature in the notified areas.
The Notification of 2006 has been enacted to carry on the object and purpose of Act of 1986 effectively. The Notification as already noticed, applies not only to new 18 projects but also to projects which propose to expand or even modernize the existing projects and are required to strictly comply with the environment standards prescribed under the Act of 1986 and the notification of 2006. We have also noticed above that the expression 'prior' appears as many as 40 times in the Notification of 2006. The expression 'shall' appears in all the relevant clauses where the Project Proponent is required to make the application and follow the prescribed procedure to obtain the Environmental Clearance prior to the commencement of any constructions work or preparation of land, except for securing the land. The observation made by the learned Tribunal cannot be doubted. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India people do have the fundamental right to have a decent and clean environment. However, Article 21 of the Constitution of India further states that a procedure has to be established by law before life of personal liberty can adversely be affected. While keeping in mind that the fundamental right to a clean environment does exist, that Notification, 2006, and Rules of 2016 have been promulgated. Therefore, the question, in the present case, would be whether the requirements of Notification, 2006, and Rules of 2016 have been violated or not? As discussed hereinabove, under Notification, 2006 there is no requirement of having a prior EC before beginning a demolition. It is only under the Rules of 2016 - a procedure established by law - that a permission is required from the local authority with regard to the demolition waste management plan. Since the permission has already been granted by the GHMC, as mentioned hereinabove, obviously the procedure established by law has been followed. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners is unjustified in claiming that the fundamental right of having fresh air under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated by the State.
19
Moreover, the petitioners have not placed any evidence whatsoever to establish the fact that after the demolition activities have commenced, the air quality in the area has deteriorated drastically. Hence, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the fundamental right of the people under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being violated is a misplaced argument.
For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ _________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J 17.07.2020 Tsr 20 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 155 OF 2020 (Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan) Dated: 17-07-2020 Tsr