National Green Tribunal
Manorama Sharma & Anr vs Tdi Infrastructure Ltd on 15 July, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
_______________________________________________
Original Application No. 764/2018
(M.A. No. 20/2022)
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Kissan Udey Samiti
Through its President and Authorized Signatory,
Having its registered office at Village-Nangal Kalan,
Tehsil & District-Sonepat-131023
Haryana
...Applicant
Versus
1. The State of Haryana
Through its Chief Secretary
4th Floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat,
Sector-1, Chandigarh
2. Haryana Pollution Control Board
Through its Chairman,
C-11, Sector-6
Panchcula-134109
Haryana
3. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd
UG Floor, Vandana Building
11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place,
New Delhi-110001.
And A-Block, TDI City Kundli,
Sonipat, Haryana
4. The Town & Country Planning Department
Through its Director General,
Situated at SCO 71-75, Sector-17-C,
Chandigarh- 160017
5. Haryana Urban Development Authority
Through its Chief Administrator,
C-6, Sector 6,
Panchkula-134109, Haryana
6. Union of India
Ministry of Environment & Forest
Through its Secretary,
Room No. A408, Agni Block,
Indira Paryavaran Bhawan,
Jorbagh Road, New Delhi-110003
...Respondent(s)
WITH
Original Application No. 155/2020
(I.A. No. 35/2022)
1
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Dr. (Mrs.) Manorama Sharma
2. Sh. Sandeep Sachin
Both R/o KP 22, Maurya Enclave,
Pitampura, New Delhi-110034
...Applicants
Versus
1. TDI Infrastructure Limited
10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110001
2. Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana
Nagar Yojna Bhawan, Block A, Plot No.3, Sector 18A,
Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160018
3. Haryana State Pollution Control Board
C11, Sector 6, Panchkula, Haryana-134109
...Respondent(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s):
Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Advocate for Applicant in OA 764/2018
Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for Applicant in OA 155/2020
Counsel for Respondent(s):
Mr. Anil Grover, Senior Advocate (AAG) with Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for
State of Haryana & HSPCB
Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Advocate for CPCB
Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Advocate for M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
Mr. A.R. Takkar and Ms. Unnati Anand, Advocates for M/s. Parker Estate
Development Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushav Towers)
Mr. Sushant Dahiya, Advocate for M/s Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt.
Ltd.
PRESENT:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Reserved on: 01st April, 2022
Pronounced on: 15th July, 2022
SYNOPSIS
Documents Para no Page no
OA No. 764/2018
Brief Facts 1-5 3-9
Order dated 16.10.2018 6-7 9-11
MA 142/2019 8-9 11
MA 175/2019 10 11
Letter dated 19.06.2019 by Chief Secretary, Government of 11-12 11-12
Haryana filed vide letter dated 06.11.2018
2
Report dated 16.07.2019 by joint Committee pursuant to 13-15 12-33
Tribunal's order dated 14.06.2019
Letter dated 28.08.2019 by Chief Secretary, Haryana pursuant to 16 33-34
order dated 06.05.2019
Status Report dated 22.10.2019 by Regional Officer, HSPCB 17 34-36
Sonipat
Order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Tribunal (For restoration of 18-19 36-37
OA 764/2018)
Joint Committee Report dated 21.02.2020 by CPCB pursuant to 20-21 40-47
Tribunal's order dated 23.10.2019
Status Report dated 30.09.2020 by Regional Officer, HSPCB 22 47-49
MA 24/2021 30 51
Status report dated 21.06.2021 filed by Regional Officer, HSPCB, 31 51-53
Sonipat in MA 175/2019
MA 20/2022 dated 21.12.2021 filed on 11.03.2022 by applicant 32 53
OA 155/2020
Brief Facts 33-36 53-58
Compliance report dated 20.01.2021 filed by CPCB 37 58-60
IA 86/2021 filed by applicants 38-43 60-67
Notices to PPs/developers 44-46 67-68
IA 121/2021 by applicants 47 69
Order dated 28.09.2021 48-49 69
IA 35/2022 dated 10.02.2022 filed on 14.02.2022 by respondent 50 70-72
1
Objections dated 10.02.2022 filed on 14.02.2022 by M/s. TDI 51-53 73-75
Infrastructure Ltd. to the compliance report dated 21.01.2021 and
order dated 28.09.2021 passed by Tribunal in OA 155/2020
Reply/Status Report dated 31.03.2022 submitted by TCPD 54-55 75-81
Haryana in OA 764/2018
Argument 56-59 81-82
Joint Committee report/affidavit dated 12.04.2022 filed on the 60 82-84
same date through CPCB referring to Tribunal's order dated
28.09.2021 in OA 764/2018
Affidavit dated 04.04.2022 filed on 05.04.2022 by M/s. TDI 61 84-85
Infrastructure Ltd. in OA 155/2020
Written Submissions dated 16.04.2022 vide letter of the same 62 85-91
date filed by applicants in OA 155/2020
Written submissions dated 16.04.2022 filed on 16.04.2022 by 63-69 91-98
M/s. Parkar Estate Development Pvt. Ltd in OA 764/2018
Brief Note/Written Submissions/Objections filed vide letter dated 70 99-114
16.04.2022 by M/s. Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. in OA 764/2018
Additional written submissions dated 18.04.2022 filed on 72 115-116
18.04.2022 by applicants in OA 155/2020
ISSUES 73 116
ISSUE I 74-129 116-149
M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. 77-92 117-127
M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. 93-119 127-140
M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. 120-123 140-148
M/s. Narang Construction Pvt. Ltd. 124-127 148-149
ISSUE II 130-134 149-151
ISSUE III 135-219 151-192
Operative part 220-221 192-195
JUDGMENT
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. Original Application 764/2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'OA I') has been filed by Kisan Udey Samiti (hereinafter referred to as 'KUS'), a 3 registered society formed to consider welfare of residents of State of Haryana. All the members of KUS are villagers and residents of the area surrounding village Nangal Kalan, Tehsil and District Sonipat, Haryana. OA I has been filed under Section 14, 15 and 18(1) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act, 2010'), complaining about dumping of untreated sewage and release of polluted waste water in open and surrounding area of village Nangal Kalan, encroaching illegally upon agricultural canal by residents of the project developed by M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (respondent 3) registered office at 11, Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi at Sector 58 to Sector 64, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana. Applicant has impleaded State of Haryana through Chief Secretary (respondent 1), Haryana State Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'HSPCB') i.e. respondent 2; Town and Country Planning Department (hereinafter referred to as 'TCPD Haryana') through its Director General, Chandigarh (respondent 4); Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'HUDA') (respondent 5) and Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as 'MoEF&CC') i.e. respondent 6 who are the Statutory Authorities as also the respective Governments, responsible for protection and regulation of environmental norms and laws in the area in question.
2. The facts stated in OA I, in brief, are that several private developers namely TDI Infrastructure Ltd., M/s. Ansal API and M/s. Parkar Residency etc. have constructed various residential group housing complexes like TDI Kingsbury Apartments, TDI My Floor-I and II, TDI Tuscan City, Lake Drive Apartment, Lake Groove, Ansal Sunshine County, Ansal Sushant City, Ansal Roman Court, Max Heights, Parkar Residency, Ansal Highway Plaza, Parkar Mall, Rodeo Drive, Emperor Squire, TDI club, TDI Mall, Grand Squire etc. at Sector 58 to Sector 64, Kundli, Sonepat Hayrana 4 wherein approximately 14,000 to 15,000 people are residing; there is no appropriate infrastructure and sanitation facility for disposal of sewage and other waste water/material in all the said apartments and housing complexes; sewage and other waste from these apartments/complexes are being collected in tanks and safety tanks, using tractors, tankers and trucks, being poured/spread in open land of the surrounding area of village Nangal Kalan (in support of above assertions, some photographs are filed as annexure A-3); approximately five lakhs liters of sanitary waste/water is being poured in open land every day; this has caused severe pollution in the area damaging and degrading air, water and soil; surrounding area of village Nangal Kalan has got converted into cesspools and filth menacing public health; dirty and filthy sewage and untreated waste water having obnoxious smell are being released in surrounded area; residents of village Nangal Kalan have to face most obnoxious smell which has created an intolerable situation for habitation; the people like applicant find it difficult to live and stay in their respective houses and the above pollution is also causing health hazardous; in the lawless locale, mosquitoes find a stagnated pool of stench so hospitable for breeding and flourishing that any pandemic can spread in the area of village Nangal Kalan at any point of time but respondents have turned a blind eye towards this hellish conditions of inhabitants of the area; applicant filed a complaint dated 24.04.2018 to Chief Minister of Haryana and also forwarded copy to MoEF&CC and HSPCB along with narration of detailed facts accompanied by photographs but no effective action has been taken; the area was surveyed on 24.07.2018 by officials of HSPCB who caught red handed various tankers discharging sewerage waste in open area but no effective action was taken against violators/offenders; applicants again met Officer on Special Duty (Grievance) to Chief Minister of Haryana and also apprised him about survey conducted on 24.07.2018 but nothing 5 further has resulted in the matter; MoEF&CC forwarded complaint to HSPCB through CPCB giving direction to take appropriate action and submit action taken report within 15 days yet HSPCB has not responded and no action has been taken; another survey was conducted on 11.06.2018 in TDI Kingsberry Group Housing Apartments and non- compliances reported during the said inspection are:
"(i) You were found discharging the untreated effluent through Tankers.
(ii) Blowers of STP were found opened for Repair.
(iii) Filter press attached with STP is not in use which evident that STP is not functional.
(iv) Solid waste generated from group Housing is disposed off without segregation through unauthorized person at unknown place."
3. The conduct of Statutory Regulators is contrary to Statutory obligations laid upon them by Environmental enactments and this is breaching fundamental rights of villagers and inhabitants i.e., right to live in clean atmosphere; due to illegal movement of tankers for transporting untreated pollutants, traffic has gone up and number of accidents have also increased wherein sometimes people have died; one such incident of accident was reported in daily newspaper, 'Punjab Kesari' (e-paper) wherein one Sahil Gupta aged about 22 years died; First Information Report (FIR) was also registered about the said incident (collectively the newspaper report and FIR copies are filed as Annexure A-9); the act and conduct of respondents 3 and 4 are in violation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act, 1974'), Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Air Act, 1981') and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'EP Act, 1986'); Respondents 1 and 2 are responsible for taking appropriate action but they have also failed to do so, therefore, dereliction of duty on their part also is causing unchecked pollution in the area; Director, TCPD Haryana in its letter dated 6 23.01.2008 admitted that unless a sewage plant is constructed, no residential colony should be allowed to be developed in the area; Copy of letter is annexed as annexure A-10 which is a part Completion Certificate issued under Rule 16 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'HDRUA Rules, 1976') to M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its associates in respect of development carried out at a plot in Sector 58 measuring 109.5 acres on the following conditions:
"i) The internal services provided in the part residential colony namely "TDI City" at Kundli Sonepat have been got checked and reported at site and are operational/functional. The services include water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, roads, street lighting and horticultures.
ii) The services will be laid by the colonizer upto alignment of proposed external services of town for connection with the disposal arrangement. All the link connection with the HUDA system will be done by the colonizer at his own cost with the prior approval of the competent authority. In case pumping is required the same will be done by the colonizer at its own cost.
iii) That the colonizer will be sole responsible for the disposal of sewerage and storm water of their colony till such time the external services are provided by the HUDA/State Govt. as per its scheme. The storm water of the colony shall be disposed of in the drain no. 8 for which colonizer will be responsible for all time to come.
iv) That the colonizer will be responsible that the roof top rain harvesting system shall be maintained by the colonizer properly and kept operational all the time.
v) That in case some additional structures are required to be constructed and decided by HUDA at a later stage, the same will be binding upon the colonizers.
vi) That the level of external services will be to the extent of external development charges recorded by HUDA.
vii) The plans supplied bearing drawing No. PL-01, PL-02 and PL-03 dated Nov 2005 and supplied vide this office memo dated 11.8.2006 shown on the proposal and services there-in has been considered to be correct for the purposes of services only.
viii) The copies of the plans on which services are marked are duly signed by XEN, HUDA, Dvn, Sonipat, SE, HUDA Circle, Rohtak, XEN HUDA (HQ) Panchkula and CE, HUDA, Panchkula.7
ix) That you shall maintain the internal service to the satisfaction of the Director till the colony is handed over to the Govt./HUDA after granting final completion certificate.
x) An undertaking to the effect that you shall pay the enhanced external development charges and any amount which shall become due on account of interest for the delayed payment on installment, if any, noticed in reconciliation/auditing accounts.
xi) That you shall comply with the direction regarding execution of development works if any required in relation to planning and development of the area adjacent to and surrounding the commercial colony.
xii) That the back guarantee furnished by you at the time of grant of said licenses on account of internal development works will be got revalidated till the final completion of the colony is granted.
xiii) That the department will retain 25% back guarantee of the total cost of construction of community buildings in the areas and the same will only be released after the completion of construction of community buildings.
xiv) That you will submit the certificate to DTCP Haryana within 90 days of full and final completion of the project form a chartered accountant that a minimum of 20% in case of EWS/LID plots and 25% plots of "No Profit No Loss" category have been allotted as per conditions of bilateral agreement.
xv) That in case come additional structure, services, facilitates are required by DTCP/HUDA at later stage, the same would be binding upon you.
xvi) That this part completion certificate is without prejudice to the final decision on the transfer/lease/construction of community buildings.
xvii) That you will get these licenses renewed till such time final completion certificate of the colony is granted to you by the DTCP.
xviii) That this part completion certificate is only in respect of the services mentioned herein and the final completion certificate in respect of the total areas including the area mentioned in this certificate would be granted after all the obligations/liabilities case upon you through the agreements and Act & Rules are discharged to the satisfaction of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. In the event of failure of the licencee to do so, this partial completion certificate would be deemed to have been cancelled at any time. You shall also abide by all the directions/instructions of DTCP and provisions of Act No. 8 of 1975 and Rules framed there under. You shall continue to maintain the services as per the provisions of Act and Rules."8
4. The above conditions have not been complied with and authorities have not taken any action; the licenses were issued by TCPD Haryana for development without ensuring effective steps for prevention of pollution by treatment of domestic and other effluents and management of solid waste etc.; permitting a developer to create third party rights by selling its property under partial Completion Certificates is nothing but an exercise on the part of Statutory Authorities for encouraging developers/violators to disregard statutory provisions relating to environment and, therefore, all the authorities including developer in causing pollution are liable for taking appropriate action including recommendation of compensation.
5. KUS/Applicant has prayed for a direction to respondents to maintain surrounding area of Nangal Kalan free from any contamination or pollution, to take appropriate measures to prevent air, water and soil pollution in the area and restore natural state of agricultural canal of village Nangal Kalan. A further direction has been requested to be issued to respondent 3 to ensure and take appropriate action to prevent air, water and soil pollution and respondents 1, 4 and 5 be directed to stop issue of completion or part completion certificate to private builders without ensuring compliance of the conditions relating to observance of environmental norms.
6. Order dated 16.10.2018: OA I was considered by Tribunal on 16.10.2018. It was found that basic complaint related to management of solid waste by respondent 3, issue regarding management of solid waste and compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'SWM Rules, 2016') was already under consideration of Tribunal in OA 606/2018, In re: Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other environmental issues, wherein an order was passed on 20.08.2018 directing for enforcement and compliance 9 of SWM Rules, 2016 and an oversight Committee was constituted. Tribunal noted that pursuant to the above order, Committee headed by former Chief Secretary, and having representatives of State Government and CPCB was available at Chandigarh, hence, OA was disposed of relegating applicant to approach the said Committee who will co-ordinate and over-see compliance of SWM Rules, 2016 in accordance with law and submit report. The order dated 16.10.2018 is reproduced as under:
"1. The issue raised in this application is compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. According to the applicant, there is no proper sanitation system and sewage is illegally dumped. Buildings have been constructed in Sectors 58 to 64, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana without any Sewage Treatment Plant. The waste is being dumped illegally as depicted in photographs.
2. Vide order dated 20.08.2018 in Original Application No. 606/2018, the Tribunal has directed enforcement of its earlier directions for compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and also constituted Oversight Committees. For the area in question, a regional Committee is available at Chandigarh and is headed by a former Chief Secretary, with the representatives of the State Governments and the Central Pollution Control Board.
3. Accordingly, we relegate the applicant to the said Committee. The Committee will co-ordinate the matter and oversee the compliance of the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 in accordance with law and if necessary, send a report to the Tribunal in terms of order dated 20.08.2018.
4. In view of above, the application is disposed of."
7. Applicant, thereafter, sent representation dated 14.10.2018 to Chairman, Regional Monitoring Committee (Solid Waste Management) North Region Chandigarh and endorsed a copy to Tribunal. The letter was placed before Tribunal for consideration on 05.12.2018 whereupon Tribunal passed following order and disposed of the said application:
"Letter dated 14.11.2018, which has been put up for consideration, is reiteration of the issue earlier considered by this Tribunal on 16.10.2018 relegating the applicant to approaching the Regional Monitoring Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 20.08.2018 in Original Application No. 606/2018, Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, for monitoring the compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The applicant, is thus, at liberty to approach the said Committee so that the Committee can have the matter examined in accordance with law.10
The application is disposed of."
MA 142/2019 in OA I:
8. MA 142/2019 was filed by applicant under Section 18 read with 14, 15, 16 and 17 of NGT Act, 2010 pointing out that pursuant to Tribunal's order, repeatedly applicant approached various authorities but no effective action has been taken and builders are violating environmental norms unabatedly in which even officials of Statutory Regulators are in collusion. Grievance was also raised by applicant by representation dated 11.02.2019 addressed to State of Haryana through Chief Secretary, HSPCB and Regional Monitoring Committee but nothing has been done.
9. MA was considered by Tribunal on 06.05.2019 and it directed Chief Secretary, State of Haryana to submit status of compliance report of enforcement of SWMH Rules, 2016 and Sewage Management in the context of OA I. MA 175/2019 in OA I:
10. Applicant filed another MA 175/2019 pointing out that inspection made by joint Committee constituted by Additional Chief Secretary found that there was no proper system to discharge solid waste, yet construction is going on causing soil and water pollution and such construction must be stopped.
Letter dated 19.06.2019 by Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana filed vide letter dated 06.11.2018 in OA I (page 143)
11. Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana sent a letter dated 19.06.2019 informing that a meeting was convened by Additional Chief Secretary, Environment Department of Haryana with administrative Secretaries of TCPD Haryana, Urban Local Bodies in Haryana and HSPCB. After a detailed discussion, a Committee was constituted under 11 Chairmanship of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sonipat with members from HSVP, ULBD and HSPCB. The said Committee was directed to conduct survey in the concerned areas, get deficiencies and lapses assessed properly and propose an action plan for completing the same with a specific time along with interim measures to deal with the present situation. Chief Secretary, however prayed for four weeks' time to have the report of the said Committee.
12. After expiry of four weeks, another letter dated 05.07.2019 was submitted by Chief Secretary, Haryana to Tribunal requesting for grant of two weeks more for submission of report of the Committee. Report dated 16.07.2019 by joint Committee pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 14.06.2019 (page 149) in OA I
13. Committee submitted report dated 16.07.2019 and the same was placed before Tribunal by Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana vide letter dated 28.08.2019. Committee inspected various construction projects in Sector 58 to Sector 64, Kundli, Sonipat comprising following builders/developers:
(i) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Kingsberry Apartments)
(ii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (My Floor 2 project)
(iii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Tuscan City project)
(iv) M/s. TDI Realcon Pvt. Ltd. (Group Housing Colony at village Patla, Kundli, Sonipat)
(v) M/s. Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (sunshine Country Group housing project)
(vi) M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushav Towers)
(vii) M/s. Parkar Estate Development Pvt. Ltd.
(viii) M/s. JBB Everest Pvt. Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat 12
(ix) M/s. Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd., Sector-62 project
(x) M/s. Affordable Group Housing by Max Heights Promoters Pvt, Ltd. Sector-61, Sonipat.
14. The findings and description given by Committee in respect of above projects are reproduced as under:
Brief description above the TDI Infrastructure Ltd.:
In this connection, it is submitted that as per record of this office Environment Clearance was granted to M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for Sector- 58, 59, 60 & 64, Kundli Sonipat vide No. J- 12011/14/2006-IA III dated 14.11.2007 and after that the name of Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd., was changed to TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., on 22.12.2006 through the Ministry of Company affairs Govt. of India and then the name of TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., was again changed to TDI Infrastructure Ltd., on 05.02.2008 through the Ministry of Company affairs Govt. of India. As per record of this office the Environment Clearance has not been transferred in the name of TDI Infrastructure Ltd., through Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Govt. of India. The Environment Clearance was granted for development and construction of township which will include facilities like hospital and health care, primary and high schools, club and recreational facilities, shopping mall and multiplex etc. Total 900 flats for general sale and 158 EWS flats will be constructed. The plot area is 50, 72, 000 sq. m. The total built up area as indicated is 39,000 sq.m. Total water requirement will be 1044 m3/day and 835 m3/day of waste water will be generated which will be disposed off in HUDA sewer. CTE was earlier granted for sector 58, 59, 60 & 64 to M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd vide No HSPCB/TAC/2012/6959 dated 06.03.2012 for waste water generation of 835 KLD and with condition that Solid Waste generated shall be properly collected and segregated scientifically and will be disposed off as per MSW Rules by using vermiculture composting method etc. The Environment Clearance & CTE granted is not viable as single Environment Clearance and CTE has been granted for the sectors 58, 59, 60 & 64 as these sectors are at a distant. No detail about the different projects falling in these sectors have been mentioned in Environment Clearance and CTE. As per CTO application the proposed date of commissioning of the project is 01.09.2013 and Consent to Operate was applied on the name of M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., TDI Mall, TDI City, Kundli, Sonipat and was granted by HSPCB from 19.05.2014 to 31.03.2015 (copy enclosed) and thereafter CTO was again granted from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017 by HSPCB (copy enclosed) and then again CTO was granted from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2019 (copy enclosed) on the same name.
The unit i.e. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. has obtained Environment Clearance for expansion at Sector-58, 59, 60, 61, 63 & 64, Sonipat vide no. 21-62/2016-IA-III dated 04.09.2017. The total water demand of the project has been estimated as 28632 13 KLD and the same will be met by HUDA supply/Ground Water. The total waste water generation will be 18925 KLD waste water generated from the complex shall be treated in Modular Sewage Treatment Plants of total capacity 16300 KLD shall be installed for plotted area community & Amenities area, STP of 100 KLD installed & modular STPs having total capacity- 600 KLD shall be installed for Commercial areas, STP of 500 KLD already installed and it will be further enhanced to 650 KLD for Group Housing-I (11.46 Acres), 2 No. of STPs of 500 KLD and 660 KLD resp. already installed for Group Housing-II (18.43 Acres), 2 no. of STP of 720 KLD & 510 KLD respectively already installed which will be further enhanced to total capacity 1300 KLD for Group Housing-III (22.86 Acres), STP of 350 KLD shall be 186 installed for Group Housing-IV (7.0 Acres), STP of 720 KLD already installed and it will be further enhanced to 850 KLD for independent Group Housing-I (14.07 Acres), STP of 150 KLD installed & STP having total Capacity 750 KLD shall be installed for independent Group Housing-II (14.288 Acre), STP of 600 KLD shall be installed for Independent Group Housing-III (10.14 Acres). About 9322 KLD excess treated water will be given to Tanker water supplier for construction purpose. As per discussion with the Town & Country Planning Department, the detail of TDI Projects with respect to Acre as mentioned in the Environment Clearance is as under:-
1. 11.46 Acre Group Housing -I (Kingsbury-I) Sector-61
2. 18.43 Acre Group Housing-II (Kingsbury-II) Sector-61
3. 22.86 Acre Group Housing-III (Tuscan City) Sector-58
4. 7.0 Acre Group Housing-IV Sector-
(Not Constructed)
5. 14.07 Acre Independent Group Housing-I Sector-61 (Kingsbury-III)
6. 14.288 Acre Independent Group Housing-II Sector-60 (My Floor-II)
7. 10.14 Acre Independent Group Housing-III (Not Sector-
Constructed) The Environment Clearance granted is not viable as single Environment Clearance has been granted for the sectors 58, 59, 60, 61, 63 & 64 as these sectors are at distant and other projects are also falling in these sectors. No detail about the different projects falling in these sectors have been mentioned in Environment Clearance. It seems that information from the local level was not gathered while granting the Environment Clearance.
The project wise detail related to TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is as under:
1. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, (For TDI Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road, Sonipat-
The project is situated in Sec-61, Kundli, Sonipat. The Kingsburry Apartments are divided into three parts (i.e., Kingsburry- I, Kingsburry-II and Kingsburry-III). Earlier, Environmental Clearance 14 dated 14.11.2007 as well as CTE dated 6.3.2012 was obtained for Sector-58, 59, 60 & 64. As Kingsburry Group Housing falls in Sector-61 and no prior Environmental Clearance & CTE was obtained for Sector-61. It was inspected by the team on dated 18.06.2019. As per record of this office, unit has not obtained CTE for expansion after obtaining Environmental Clearance for expansion dated 4.9.2017 which includes Sector-61 in the Environmental Clearance for expansion dated 4.9.2017. During survey, it was found that Kingsburry projects are in operation from around 2014 and part occupation was granted from 2012 to 2017. It clearly shows that these projects have been constructed without obtaining Environmental Clearance and without CTE/CTO from HSPCB. From the above, it is clear that unit comprising of Kingsburry Apartments, Sector-61 is running illegally. As per report submitted by the M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. The Kingsburry Apartments have 2999 Flats out of which 2050 flats are occupied. There are 22 residential blocks in the entire project There are 04 STP's of capacity 510 KLD each, have been installed for treatment of domestic effluent/ liquid waste. The detail of STP's is as under:
Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 2050.
Estimated total No. of residents: - 2050*4= 8200. Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 8200*135= 1107 KLD
1. Detail of STP installed at Block V: - The capacity of the STP installed is 510 KLD. This STP covers the blocks Y, V, K, W, S having approx 700 flats. The deficiencies observed during sampling are as under: -
I. No oil and grease trap has been provided. II. The flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP. III. No dosing for growth of bacteria is being done. IV. Logbook is not being maintained. V. The flow meter at the outlet of STP is lying abandoned.
The samples of effluent from inlet and outlet of STP of V Block have been collected and sent to Haryana State Pollution Control Board laboratory at Panchkula for analysis. As per analysis report No. 880 dated 02.07.2019, the parameters of Outlet of STP are exceeding the prescribed limits of the Board (copy enclosed).
2. Detail of STP installed at Block D: - The capacity of the STP installed is 510 KLD. This STP covers the blocks A, B, C, D, and T having approx 700 flats. Almost 70% flats are occupied. The deficiencies observed during inspection are as under: -
I. The estimated effluent generation is 270 KLD. The STP is lying abandoned and untreated effluent is being discharged either through tanker in 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla or on open land near village Nangal for percolation.
3. Detail of STP installed at Block Z: - The capacity of the STP installed is 510 KLD. This STP covers the blocks E, Z, L, G, F and R having approx 800 flats. Almost 70% flats are occupied. The deficiencies observed during inspection are as under: -15
I. The estimated effluent generation is 297 KLD. The STP is lying abandoned and untreated effluent is being discharged either through tanker in 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla or on open land near village Nangal for percolation.
4. Detail of STP installed at Block K: - The capacity of the STP installed is 510 KLD. This STP covers the blocks K, J, H and EWS-1 & 2 having approx 650 flats. Almost 65% flats are occupied. The deficiencies observed during inspection are as under: -
I. The estimated effluent generation is 228 KLD. The STP is lying abandoned and untreated effluent is being discharged either through tanker in 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla or on open land near village Nangal for percolation.
Action required by HSPCB:
Prosecution action alongwith imposition of Environmental Compensation as per HSPCB orders dated 29.4.2019 is required.
Action Taken By HSPCB till date: - In reference to CM Window complaint CMOFF/N/2018/046026 dated 01.05.2018 regarding illegal discharge of Domestic effluent on open land near village Nanga, the legal sample from the outlet of STP was collected on dated 23.05.2018 and as per A/R No. 5038 dated 04.09.2018 parameters were found exceeding the prescribed standards for discharge on Land. Accordingly Show cause notice for prosecution was issued to the unit vide letter No. 2807 dated 17.09.2018. But the reply submitted by the unit was not satisfactory. Therefore, this office recommended the case for the approval of the prosecution against M/s TDI infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., to Head Office vide letter No. HSPCB/SR/2018/3232 dated 31.10.2018 as per the provisions of Water Act 1974 and sanction of prosecution has been issued against M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., (For TDI Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road, Sonipat vide letter No. HSPCB/HQ/SNP/2019/94 dated 02.05.2019.
The same has been filed in the Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra. Also this office has recommended for imposition of Environmental compensation of Rs. 87.00 Lacs on M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., (For TDI Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road, Sonipat vide this office letter No. HSPCB/SR/2019/889 dated 15.05.2019 and letter No. HSPCB/SR/2019/960 dated 24.05.2019. Short Term Action Plan:
i. The domestic effluent generated should be disposed off through GPS enabled tankers to 7.5 MLD STP REGC, Patla and manifest be prepared regarding the tankers sent and received.
ii. The logbook should be maintained in the project site having detail of tankers alongwith capacity, date & time sent to STP (7.5 MLD) and same logbook be also maintained by the HSVP.
iii. Special staff having representatives of Town & Country Planning Department, HSPCB, Municipal Corporation, HSVP be deputed for daily monitoring of the tankers carrying untreated effluent which are being sent to STP Patla.16
iv. The project owner will ensure that there should be no leakage/spillage of untreated effluent while carrying the untreated effluent from project to 7.5 MLD STP.
v. No occupation certificate/new allotment be granted by the Town & Country Planning Department and project owner respectively till permanent resolution.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The project owner will upgrade the presently existing STPs to meet the standards prescribed norms by the Board and will submit adequacy report regarding the same from the reputed institute within 3 months.
ii. The magnetic flow meter at the inlet & outlet of each STP be installed.
iii. The Continuous Online Effluent Monitoring System (COEMS) be installed on each STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
iv. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
v. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non-complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD), Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonepat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private 17 Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
2. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, Sector-60, Sonipat-
The project inspected by the team on dated 19.06.2019. Environmental Clearance for expansion project has been granted for Sector- 58,59,60,61,63 & 64 dated 04.09.2017 and earlier Environment Clearance was granted to M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for Sector- 58, 59, 60 & 64, Kundli Sonipat vide No. J- 12011/14/2006-IA III dated 14.11.2007. CTE was granted for Sector 58, 59, 60 & 64 dated 06.03.2012. The occupation certificate was issued by the Town & Country Planning Department on 28.08.2017. The unit has not obtained CTO from the Pollution Control Board as per this office record and is running without obtaining valid consent to operate of the Pollution Control Board and is violating the provision of EP Act,1986, Water Act, 1974 & Air Act, 1981. There are 540 flats as per report submitted by M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. in the above said project out of which 274 No. flats are occupied. The deficiencies observed during inspection are as under: -
Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 274.
Estimated total No. of residents: - 274*4= 1096. Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 1096*135= 148 KLD Detail of STP installed: - The estimated effluent generation is 148 KLD. The unit has provided STP at site. The capacity of STP could not be established as STP was lying abandoned and no record was available at site for ascertaining the capacity. The STP is lying abandoned. The domestic effluent generated is being collected in the cemented collection tank and is being discharged through tankers on open land for percolation near village Nangal. The sample of effluent has been collected from the collection tank and sent to Haryana State Pollution Control Board Laboratory at Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 895 dated 02.07.2019(copy enclosed), the parameters are exceeding the prescribed limit of the Board.
Action required by HSPCB:
Prosecution action along with imposition of Environmental Compensation as per HSPCB orders dated 29.4.2019 is required.
Action Taken by HSPCB till date:
The Show Cause notice for prosecution has been issued to the unit along with provision of Environmental compensation vide HSPCB letter No. 166-67 dated 25.06.2019. The Environmental compensation on M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., My Floor 2, Sector-60, Sonipat is being imposed as per HSPCB order dated 29.04.2019.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. The domestic effluent generated should be disposed off through GPS enabled tankers to 7.5 MLD STP REGC, Patla and manifest be prepared regarding the tankers sent and received.18
ii. The logbook should be maintained in the project site having detail of tankers alongwith capacity, date & time sent to STP (7.5 MLD) and same logbook be also maintained by the HSVP.
iii. Special staff having representatives of Town & Country Planning Department, HSPCB, Municipal Corporation, HSVP be deputed for daily monitoring of the tankers carrying untreated effluent which are being sent to STP Patla.
iv. The project owner will ensure that there should be no leakage/spillage of untreated effluent while carrying the untreated effluent from project to 7.5 MLD STP.
v. No occupation certificate/new allotment be granted by the Town & Country Planning Department and project owner respectively till permanent resolution.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The project owner will make the presently existing STP functional to meet the norms prescribed by the Board and will submit adequacy report regarding the same from the reputed institute within 3 months.
ii. The magnetic flow meter at the inlet & outlet of each STP be installed.
iii. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
iv. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
v. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non-complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.19
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD), Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
3. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan City, Sector-58, Sonipat-
The project inspected by the team on dated 20.06.2019. Environmental Clearance for expansion project has been granted for Sector- 58,59,60,61,63 & 64 dated 04.09.2017 and earlier Environment Clearance was granted to M/s Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for Sector- 58, 59, 60 & 64, Kundli Sonipat vide No. J- 12011/14/2006-IA III dated 14.11.2007. CTE was granted for Sector 58, 59, 60 & 64 dated 06.03.2012. The occupation certificate has not been issued by the Town Country Planning Department till date. The unit has not obtained CTO from the Pollution Control Board as per this office record and is running without obtaining valid consent to operate of the Pollution Control Board and is violating the provision of EP Act,1986, Water Act, 1974 & Air Act, 1981. There are 615 flats as per report submitted by M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. in the above said project out of which 234 No. flats are occupied. The deficiencies observed during inspection are as under: -
Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 234.Estimated total No. of residents: - 234*4= 936
Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 936*135= 127 KLD Detail of STP installed: - The estimated effluent generation is 127 KLD. The unit has not provided STP at site. The domestic effluent generated is being collected in the cemented collection tank and is being discharged through tankers on open land for percolation near viilage Nangal. The sample of effluent has been collected from the collection tank and sent to Haryana State Pollution Control Board Laboratory at Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 896 dated 03.07.2019 (copy enclosed), the parameters are exceeding the prescribed limits of the Board.
Action required by HSPCB:
Prosecution action along with imposition of Environmental Compensation as per HSPCB orders dated 29.4.2019 is required.
Action Taken By HSPCB till date:-
The Show Cause notice for prosecution has been issued to the unit along with provision of Environmental compensation vide HSPCB letter No. 1170-1171 dated 25.06.2019. The Environmental compensation on M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Tuscan City, Sector-60, Sonipat is being imposed as per HSPCB order dated 29.04.2019.
Short Term Action Plan:20
i. The domestic effluent generated should be disposed off through GPS enabled tankers to 7.5 MLD STP REGC, Patla and manifest be prepared regarding the tankers sent and received.
ii. The logbook should be maintained in the project site having detail of tankers alongwith capacity, date & time sent to STP (7.5 MLD) and same logbook be also maintained by the HSVP.
iii. Special staff having representatives of Town & Country Planning Department, HSPCB, Municipal Corporation, HSVP be deputed for daily monitoring of the tankers carrying untreated effluent which are being sent to STP Patla.
iv. The project owner will ensure that there should be no leakage/spillage of untreated effluent while carrying the untreated effluent from project to 7.5 MLD STP.
v. No occupation certificate/new allotment be granted by the Town & Country Planning Department and project owner respectively till permanent resolution.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The project owner will install the structurally adequate STP to meet the norms prescribed by the Board within 3 months.
ii. The magnetic flow meter at the inlet & outlet of each STP be installed.
iii. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
iv. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
v. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non-complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for 21 segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD), Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
4. M/s TDI Realcon Pvt. Ltd, Group Hosing Colony at Village Patla, Sec-64, Kundli, Sonipat-
a) Compliance of Liquid Waste Management / Domestic Effluent -
The unit inspected by the team on dated 19.06.2019. The unit has obtained CTE from HSPCB vide 329962317SONCTE3783070 dated 17.10.2019 valid upto 23.12.2020 as per record of the office.
The project is under construction phase. The 75% of the project is almost complete and 25% is under construction. At present there is no occupancy in the project at site.
Detail of STP installed: - There are no resident occupying in the premises and hence no effluent is being generated. Action Taken By HSPCB till date: - No action is required from HSPCB.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. The Town and Country Planning Department will not issue occupation certificate and project owner will not offer possession till the owner of the project obtain Consent to Operate from HSPCB.
ii. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet & outlet of STP.
iii. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
iv. The project owner will submit structural adequacy report of STP from the reputed institute before commissioning.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.22
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
At present there is no occupancy at site and hence no solid waste is being generated.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. After occupancy, Separate wet and dry bins will be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD) , Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
5. M/s Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. (Sunshine Country Group Housing), Village Badkhalsa, Distt. Sonipat-
The project was inspected by the team on dated 18.06.2019. The occupation certificate has been issued by the Town Country Planning Department on 31.01.2011 & 31.08.2012. There are almost 613 flats in the group housing, out of which almost 429 flats are occupied. The project has obtained CTO from HSPCB vide No. 2827416SONCTO2653686 dated 31.03.2016 which is valid up to 31.03.2021 (copy enclosed).
Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 429.
Estimated total No. of residents: - 429*4= 1716 Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 1716*135= 232 KLD Detail of STP installed: - The capacity of the STP installed is 500 KLD. The deficiencies observed during sampling are as under: -
i. The Logbook is not being maintained properly as energy meter reading and chemical consumption is not recorded in the logbook.
ii. The samples of effluent from inlet and outlet of STP have been collected and sent to Haryana State Pollution Control Board laboratory at Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 881 dated 02.07.2019 (copy enclosed) received from the Board's Lab Panchkula, the parameters are found within the prescribed limits.23
iii. The treated effluent is being used for horticulture purpose and unused effluent is being sent to 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla.
Action Taken By HSPCB till date: Show Cause Notice has been issued to the unit for not properly maintaining the Logbook for STP vide letter No. 1553-54 dated 17.07.2019.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. The domestic effluent generated should be disposed off through GPS enabled tankers to 7.5 MLD STP REGC, Patla and manifest be prepared regarding the tankers sent and received.
ii. The logbook should be maintained in the project site having detail of tankers alongwith capacity, date & time sent to STP (7.5 MLD) and same logbook be also maintained by the HSVP.
iii. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet of STP.
iv. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD), Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of 24 Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
6. M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
The said project is housing project and was inspected by the team on 19.06.2019. The occupation certificate has been issued by the Town Country Planning Department on 01.02.2018. The Clearance Environment was granted to the unit vide No 21- 855/2007-IA.III dated 12.06.2008, which stands expired. The unit has also not obtained CTE/CTO from HSPCB and hence running illegally. The project has 16 towers with 08 towers under construction and remaining construction completed. There are 375 flats are to be constructed, out of which almost 200 flats are at possession stage. Almost 50 flats have been occupied by the residents.
Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 50.
Estimated total No. of residents: - 50*4= 200Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 200*135= 27 KLD Detail of STP installed: - At present, unit has installed the STP of capacity 660 KLD in the premises. Almost 27 KLD effluent is being generated, which is being sent to STP of capacity 660 KLD. The deficiencies observed during sampling are as under: -
I. The flow meter has not been provided at the inlet & outlet of STP.
II. Logbook is not being maintained.
The samples of effluent from outlet of STP has been collected by the team and sent to Laboratory, HSPCB, Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 893 dated 02.07.2019 (copy enclosed), the parameters are within limit prescribed the Board. The treated effluent is used for Horticulture within the premises of the project.
Action Taken By HSPCB till date: - Show cause notice for prosecution has already been issued vide HSPCB letter No. 999-1000 dated 10.06.2019 (copy enclosed) for not obtaining consent to establish and consent to operate from HSPCB. The action is being initiated against the project as per the provisions of Water Act, 1974 E.P Act, 1986 and other Environmental laws.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet & outlet of STP.
ii. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
Long Term Action Plan:25
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD) , Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
7. M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
The said project is housing project and was inspected by the team on 19.06.2019. The occupation certificate has been issued by the Town Country Planning Department on 25.01.2012 & 27.01.2013. The project has 342 flats out of which almost 270 flats are occupied. The project had earlier obtained CTE/CTO from HSPCB but at present the project is not having valid CTO from HSPCB and hence running illegally.
Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 270.
Estimated total No. of residents: - 270*4= 1080 Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 1080*135= 146 KLD 26 Detail of STP installed: - The STP of capacity almost 250 KLD as per statement of representative of project proponent, has been installed in the premises. At present almost 146 KLD effluent is being generated, which is being sent to STP of capacity 250 KLD. The deficiencies observed during sampling are as under: -
I. The flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP.
II. Logbook is not being maintained properly.
III. The flow meter at the outlet of STP is non-functional.
IV. On physical verification, it seems that the STP installed by the unit is not structurally adequate as per pollution load and needs to be ascertained from the reputed institute regarding structural adequacy.
The samples of effluent from outlet of STP has been collected by the team and sent to Laboratory, HSPCB, Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 894 dated 02.07.2019 (copy enclosed), the parameters are exceeding the prescribed limits the Board. Some part of treated/untreated effluent is being used for Horticulture within the premises and rest is being sent to 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla.
Action Taken By HSPCB till date: - Show cause notice for prosecution has already been issued vide HSPCB letter No. 1065-66 dated 13.06.2019 (copy enclosed) for not obtaining consent to operate from HSPCB. The action shall be initiated against the project as per the provisions of Water Act, 1974 E.P Act, 1986 and other Environmental laws. The Show Cause notice for prosecution has been issued to the unit along with provision of Environmental compensation vide HSPCB letter No. 1555-1556 dated 17.07.2019 as per analysis report No. 894 dated 02.07.2019 (copy enclosed), the parameters are exceeding the prescribed limits the Board.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. The logbook should be maintained in the project site having detail of tankers alongwith capacity, date & time sent to STP (7.5 MLD) and same logbook be also maintained by the HSVP.
ii. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet of STP.
iii. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
iv. The project owner will submit structural adequacy report of STP from the reputed institute within 3 months.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.27
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non-complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD), Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
8. M/s JBB Everest Pvt. Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
The project is a group housing project and inspected by the team on 19.06.2019. The occupation certificate has been issued by the Town Country Planning Department on Jan, 2018. There are almost 570 flats in the premises. Unit has installed 250 KLD STP for treatment of domestic effluent. There are no occupants in the premises till date. Unit has obtained Environment Clearance dated 09.5.2008 from MOEF and obtained CTE from HSPCB vide Letter No. 2008/TAC-A/1002 dated 11.03.2008 (copy enclosed) which was valid for two years and now stands expired.
Detail of STP installed: - The STP of capacity almost 250 KLD as per statement of representative of project proponent, has been installed in the premises. There are no resident occupying the premises and hence no effluent is being generated. Short Term Action Plan:
i. The Town and Country Planning Department will not issue occupation certificate and project owner will not offer possession till the owner of the project obtain Consent to Operate from HSPCB.28
ii. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet & outlet of STP.
iii. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
iv. The project owner will submit structural adequacy report of STP from the reputed institute before commissioning.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
At present there is no occupancy at site and hence no solid waste is being generated.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. After occupancy, Separate wet and dry bins will be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD) , Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
9. M/s Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height), Sector-62, Kundli, Sonipat-
The said project is housing project and was inspected by the team on 20.06.2019. The occupation certificate has been issued by the Town Country Planning Department on 06.09.2013. The project has 634 flats out of which almost 320 flats are occupied. The unit had obtained CTE from HSPCB but not obtained consent to operate from HSPCB.
29 Waste Water Balance: - Total No. of flats are occupied as per report of representative of Project= 320.
Estimated total No. of residents: - 320*4= 1280 Estimated discharge per person: - 135 liter per day. Estimated discharge of the project per day: - 1280*135= 173 KLD Detail of STP installed: - The STP of capacity 400 KLD has been installed in the premises. At present almost 173 KLD effluent is being generated, which is being sent to STP of capacity 400 KLD for treatment. The deficiencies observed during sampling are as under: -
I. The flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP. II. Logbook is not being maintained properly.
The samples of effluent from outlet of STP has been collected by the team and sent to Laboratory, HSPCB, Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 897 dated 03.07.2019 (copy enclosed), the parameters are within the prescribed limits of the Board. The treated effluent is being used for Horticulture within the premises of the project.
Action Taken By HSPCB till date: Show cause notice for prosecution has already been issued vide HSPCB letter No. 1055-56 dated 13.06.2019 (copy enclosed) for not obtaining consent to operate from HSPCB. The prosecution action is being initiated against the project as per the provisions of Water Act, 1974 E.P Act, 1986 and other Environmental laws.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet of STP.
ii. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016. Short Term Action Plan:
30
i. Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD), Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
10. M/s Affordable Group Housing by Maxheights Promoters Pvt. Ltd., Village Nangal kalan Sector 61 Sonipat -
The project is a group housing project and inspected by the team on 20.06.2019. The occupation certificate has been issued by the Town Country Planning Department on 06.03.2019. There are almost 818 flats in the premises. The unit has obtained Environment Clearance vide SEIAA/HR/2018/33 dated 11.01.2018. Unit has installed 600 KLD STP for treatment of domestic effluent. There are no occupants in the premises till date. Unit has obtained Consent to Establish from HSPCB vide No. 329962318SONCTE5001518 dated 14.05.2018 valid upto 10.01.2025 as per record.
Detail of STP installed: - The STP of capacity almost 600 KLD as per statement of representative of project proponent, has been installed in the premises. There are no resident occupying the premises and hence no effluent is being generated. Short Term Action Plan:
i. The Town and Country Planning Department will not issue occupation certificate and project owner will not offer possession till the owner of the project obtain Consent to Operate from HSPCB.
ii. The unit will install Magnetic Flow Meter at the inlet & outlet of STP.
iii. The unit will maintain proper logbook for STP for record of energy, chemical consumption & flow meter reading.
iv. The project owner will submit structural adequacy report of STP from the reputed institute before commissioning.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The Online Continuous Effluent Monitoring System (OCEMS) be installed on STP, so that continuous monitoring be carried out by the Department.31
ii. The treated effluent from STP shall be recycled/ re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. Excess treated effluent shall be supplied through Tanker for construction purposes till the laying of sewerage system in the area is completed.
iii. The HSVP Department should expedite the work of laying of sewerage system in the area in question and should also expedite the installation work of STP proposed at village Aterna of capacity 15 MLD.
b) Compliance of Solid Waste Rules-
At present there is no occupancy at site and hence no solid waste is being generated.
Short Term Action Plan:
i. After occupancy, Separate wet and dry bins will be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Solid waste shall be segregated into wet garbage and inert materials. Wet garbage shall be composted in Organic Waste Converter. Adequate space shall be provided for solid waste management within the premises which will include area for segregation, composting. The inert waste group housing project will be sent to dumping site.
Long Term Action Plan:
i. The integrated Solid Waste Management Facility (500TPD) , Sonipat Cluster at Village Murthal, District Sonipat, Haryana of Municipal Corporation Sonipat is being developed at Village- Murthal by M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited which is to be completed by July 2020. Then agreement would be made with M/s JBM Environment Management Private Limited for scientific disposal of Municipal Solid Waste for compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
15. Committee also made certain suggestions in report dated 16.07.2019 as under:
"Suggestions of the Committee-
1. The committee is of the view that the tankers discharging the effluent to 7.5 MLD, RGEC, Patla should be GPS enabled and be ensured that all the untreated effluent should be sent to 7.5 MLD STP from all the stake holders as per the directions of regional monitoring committee order dated 18.12.2018 in reference to the OA. No. 764/2018 and no untreated effluent be dumped on open land for percolation.
2. The incharge of STP of 7.5 MLD should maintain the record of quantity of effluent being received from individual stake holder, so that defaulting stake holder could be penalized for not sending the effluent into STP in the form of Environmental Compensation order No. 6043-50 dated 29.04.2019 and under the provision of Water Act.
1974 & Air Act, 1981.
3. The concerned department should ensure that the solid waste be disposed off at the site developed by the Municipal Corporation, 32 Sonipat for the scientific disposal as per Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016.
4. The Town and Country Planning Department should not issue completion and occupation to the violators.
5. The committee also opinion that no license should be issued in the area in question till the complete sewerage system be provided by the HSVP and till the completion of work of proposed STP by HSVP.
6. The impact on health of the people be assessed by the Health Department."
Letter dated 28.08.2019 by Chief Secretary, Haryana pursuant to order dated 06.05.2019 (page 146) in OA I
16. Chief Secretary, Haryana in its report and letter dated 28.08.2019 stated that after receipt of recommendations of above Committee, following directions have been issued:
"(i) TCP Department shall ensure that all tankers discharging the effluent to the STP of 7.5 MLD capacity be fitted with GPS and a monitoring cell be established by HSVP at District Head Quarters to monitor the movement and regular discharge from all stakeholder units. HSVP shall also ensure maintaining the logbook of its STP to which the effluent is sent and reconcile with its movement records.
(ii) District Administration shall review the matter every fortnight and ensure that no effluent is discharged on land/dumped illegally. HSPCB shall take legal steps against the violators and send a monthly report in this regard to Environment Department.
(iii) ULB Department and Municipal Corporation of Sonepat shall ensure the compliance of Solid Waste Management, 2016 in the district and Deputy Commissioner shall review the progress in his fortnightly review, as directed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 606/2018.
(iv) TCP Department shall not issue any Occupation/Completion Certificate to the upcoming/completed Projects, till the infrastructure and sewer systems are completely in place. Also, no further license/Consent To Operate shall also be issued by the Departments/Board concerned till the completion of all infrastructure facilities.
(v) TCP Department has been directed to issue a Public Notice in this regard, if necessary.
(vi) The Health Department has been directed to conduct a study to assess the possible adverse impact of the illegal discharge/pollution on the health of local residents.
(vii) TCP Department has also been directed to expedite and ensure timely completion of the laying of sewer lines and establishment of 33 the proposed STP (with a capacity of 15 MLD) so that the issue is solved scientifically and permanently."
Status Report dated 22.10.2019 by Regional Officer, HSPCB Sonipat in OA I
17. Regional Officer, HSPCB Sonipat also submitted status report of action taken vide letter dated 22.10.2019 and the relevant extract of the report reads as under:
"2. That action has been taken by Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) against the construction projects found violating with the provisions of Environmental Laws.
3. That out of total 10 no. projects, 04 No. of construction projects were found complying and remaining 06 No of construction projects were found violating the Environmental Laws for which total interim Environmental compensation of Rs.
1,32,62,500/- has been imposed on the violators. Moreover the Environmental compensation on the projects mentioned below has also been referred to Head office, as per order of Hon'ble NGT passed in O.A 1038/2018 considering the violation for the past five years. Also, prosecution action has also been initiated against the violators. The detail of action taken is given in table overleaf-
Sr Situated Project Status of Status of
No in Sector Prosecution imposition of
environmental
compensation
1 Sector-61 M/s TDI Infrastructure Prosecution has Environmental
Ltd, (For TDI Kingsburry been filed in the Compensation
Apartments), G.T. Road, special amounting to Rs.
Sonipat. Environment court 46,50,000/- has
Kurukshetra. been imposed by
HSPCB.
2 Sector-61 M/s TDI Infrastructure Recommended for Environmental
Ltd, My Floor 2, Sector- sanction of Compensation
60, Sonipat- prosecution to amounting to Rs.
Head office 27,37,500/- has
HSPCB. been imposed by
HSPCB.
3 Sector-58 M/s TDI Infrastructure Recommended for Environmental
Ltd, Tuscan City, Sector- sanction of Compensation
58, Sonipat- prosecution to amounting to Rs.
Head office 27,00,000/- has
HSPCB. been recommended
to Head office for
imposition
4 Sector-61 M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Recommended for Environmental
Ltd. (Ushay Towers), sanction of Compensation
Sector-61, Kundli, prosecution to amounting to Rs.
Sonipat- Head office 6,37,500/- has
HSPCB. been imposed by
HSPCB.
5 Sector-61 M/s Parker Estate Recommended for Environmental
Development Pvt. Ltd., sanction of Compensation
Sector-61, Kundli, prosecution to amounting to Rs.
Sonipat. Head office 27.37,500/- has
HSPCB. been imposed by
HSPCB.
34
6 Sector-62 M/s Narang Recommended for --
Constructions & sanction of
Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max prosecution to
Height), Sector-62, Head office
Kundli, Sonipat- HSPCB.
4. That the construction project mentioned in the above said table from sr no. 1,2,4 and 5 have installed their own STP for treatment of domestic effluent but the same are not in adequate condition to achieve the desired results for which action has already been initiated by HSPCB by Imposing Environment Compensation and prosecution action against the projects. These construction projects are in process of up-gradation of their STPs and will be upgraded by 30.11.2019 as per undertaking submitted by these projects. The project mentioned at sr. no. 3 of the above table will complete the installation work of STP be 15.02.2020 whereas the project mentioned at sr no. 6 have installed STP and is found complying with the norms. For the time being these construction projects are transporting their effluent for treatment through tankers to 7.5 MLD STP installed by HSVP.
5. That as per report of HSVP for transportation of effluent to 7.5 MLD STP, the area from sector 58 to 64 where the projects as mentioned in the table above is to be linked with the existing 7.5 MLD sewerage treatment plant in Rajiv Gandhi Education City Sonipat for which a D.I pipeline of appx 1.6 Km is to be laid by HSVP. The work has been started on 20.09.2019 and would be completed within a period of two months upto 30.11.2019. The time bound & action plan as submitted by HSVP is as under:
Sr. Description of Work Action plan/
No Likely date
of completion
1 Making temporary management of sewerage
system for taking effluent of Sector- 58 to 64, U/E, Sonipat to the existing 7.5 MLD STP in RGEC
a) Laying of RCC NP4 pipes sewer line 900mm x 25.10.2019 100mm i/d pipe lines in left out pockets.
b) Construction of RCC manholes 28.10.2019
c) Construction of Pump chamber & Sump Well 05.11.2019
d) Laying of DI 200mm i/d rising main from 10.11.2019
proposed sump well to 7.50 MLD STP in RGEC.
e) Fitting of motor & machinery in Pump Chamber 15.11.2019
f) Taking electric connection for running of 25.11.2019
machinery
g) Making the complete scheme operational 30.11.2019
6. That in compliance of Hon'ble National Green Tribunal order dated 06.05.2019 in the said matter, the Environment Department, Govt. of Haryana has issued directions vide its order dated 20.09.2019 to the different departments i.e Town Country Planning Department, Urban Local Bodies department, Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradihkaran, Haryana State Pollution Control Board, District Administration, Sonipat. The copy of orders is annexed as Annexure-A. Directions have been issued to Urban and Local Body Department (ULB), Sonipat for ensuring the compliance of Solid Waste management Rules,2016. 35 Action taken report from ULD Department, Sonipat is awaited in this regard.
7. That Principal Secretary, Town and Country Planning Department Haryana has also held meeting with the different departments on 04.09.2019 where it has been decided that District Town Planner (DTP), Sonipat will ensure the management of the solid waste generated in the colonizer area of sector 58 to 64, Sonipat shall be taken care by the Urban Local Bodies Department and solid waste shall be dumped at the nearby existing dumping yard site. Proceeding of meeting dated 04.09.2019 is attached as Annexure-B. Action taken report from DTP, Sonipat is awaited in this regard.
8. That the construction projects M/s TDI City and M/s Ansal Group has made agreement with service provider i.e. Proprietor Sandeep Kumar, village Rasoi, Sonipat and M/s Star Facilities Management Ltd, Ansal Sushant City, Sonipat, Haryana respectively for collection and disposal of solid waste on payment basis. The service providers collect the solid waste from the group housing complex located in these construction projects and presently dispose in landfill site.
9. That as per information submitted by the Municipal Corporation, Sonipat action plan for establishment of 'Waste to Energy Plant' has been initiated. It has been submitted on behalf of Corporation that Municipal Corporation, Sonipat has already allotted the work in the name of "Development of Integrated Solid Waste Management Project for the Collection, Transportation, Processing and Disposal in Sonipat cluster (Sonipat, Panipat, Gannaur and Samalkha ULB's) to M/s JBM Environment Management Pvt. Ltd., 8 MW electricity will be generated from processing of this waste. The inert/remaining waste will be disposed off in scientific manner after completion of the project. Regular meeting in this regard is held by Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat has directed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 606/2018. The Integrated Solid Waste Management Project for the Collection, Transportation, Processing and Disposal in Sonipat cluster will be completed by 31.12.2020 as submitted by Municipal Corporation, Sonipat."
Order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Tribunal (For restoration of OA I)
18. MA 142/2019 and 175/2019, both were considered on 23.10.2019. Finding that the grievance of applicant is persistent and not being attended, matter require consideration on merit, Tribunal restored OA 764/2018 to the original file for consideration on merits and disposed MA 142/2019 accordingly. The order passed on 23.10.2019 reads as under:
"M.A. No. 142/2019 36
For the reasons mentioned in the application and in the light of order passed on the last date i.e. 06.05.2019, we restore O.A. No. 764/2018 to its original file for consideration on merits.
M.A. No. 142/2019 is disposed of."
19. After restoring OA I to the original file, Tribunal considered the above reports and passed a detailed order dated 23.10.2019. It observed that serious violations were caused by developers and environmental laws were flouted, no effective action was taken by Statutory Regulators, the turn- over of the projects was hundreds of crores but no environmental compensation was determined on the principle of 'polluters pay' and it shows failure on the part of Statutory Regulators for compliance of Statutory obligations and duties. Recording its serious concern in the manner things had proceeded on the part of proponents/violators and ineffective, inactive and unconcerned attitude of Statutory Regulators, Tribunal determined interim compensation in respect of six proponents and issued some further directions. The relevant extract from para 5 to 13 of the order dated 23.10.2019 is reproduced as under:
"5. From the above report, violations of Environment laws by the units in question can be briefly summed up as follows:
a) No prior Environmental Clearance & CTE was obtained
b) The projects have been constructed without obtaining Environmental Clearance and without CTE/CTO from HSPCB.
c) In terms of STP, the deficiencies observed during sampling relates to absence of flow meter at the inlet of STPs, non-
maintenance of log book, the outlet of STPs are exceeding the prescribed limits of board, etc.
d) Untreated effluents from STPs are being discharged either through tanker or on open land near village Nagal for percolation.
e) The units are non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection segregation and disposal of solid waste exists.
6. Fourth report has been filed on 22.10.2019 by the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) to the effect that total amount of Rs. 1.32 crore has been levied as environmental compensation and temporary arrangement was being made for management of sewage system. Further compensation is yet to be assessed.
7. The period of violations is 2 years or more. The turnover of the projects is in hundreds of crores. The deficiencies are in the 37 knowledge of the project proponents who are in regular business. During inspections noted above, project proponents have become further aware of the shortcomings. Though Environment is priceless, quantum of Environment Compensation has to be adequate to restore the environment and must have deterrent aspect so that such violations are not profitable. No lenient attitude can be shown nor can such matters be unduly prolonged.
8. Legal position in this regard is settled. In Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted "Polluter Pays" principle by stating that the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also the cost of restoring the environmental degradation. Remediation of the damaged environment is part of the process of "Sustainable Development" and as such polluter is liable to pay the cost to the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology. The Precautionary Principle and the Polluter Pays Principle have been accepted as part of the law of the land. Measure of compensation must be correlated to the magnitude and capacity of the enterprise because such compensation must have a deterrent effect. It was further observed on the basis of principle laid down in M.C. Mehta and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors.,2 that a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky exposure to human life is strictly liable for injury suffered by another person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on part of the managers of such undertaking. Pollution cannot be allowed to be profitable activity. The environment is priceless. Intentional violations have to be visited with more stringent damages than accidental or unintended. We have taken into account the principles for determining quantum of damages laid down, inter-alia, in Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India (2013) 4 SCC 575 : ¶ 47, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. UOI & Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 1 : ¶ 1, Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 3 SCC 212 : ¶ 67, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. UOI , (1996) 5 SCC 647 : ¶ 11 to 13, M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997) 1 SCC 388 :
¶ 10 , Public Trust Doctrine, ¶ 24, M.C. Mehta v. UOI & Ors., W.P (C) No. 13029/1985 order dated 24.10.2017, MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481 : ¶ 99, 100, Vadodra Municipal Corporation v. Purshottam v. Murjani & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 14 : ¶ 17 and M. C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India (1987) 1 SCC 395 : ¶ 32.
9. In the light of above settled principles, the action taken by the SPCB does not match the facts found in the inspection report dated 16.07.2019 filed by a joint Committee comprising of officers of the State Government. The violations, noted above, are of very serious nature and possibility of collusion of the officers of the State is not ruled out in permitting such violations and in failing to take requisite actions. The compensation assessed being grossly inadequate and disproportionate and the action of the SPCB being too slow shows the SPCB lacks necessary sensitivity for enforcing the rule of law or there is collusion at some level to cover up the illegality.1
(1996) 5 SCC 647 2 (1987) 1 SCC 395 :
38
10. We accordingly direct the Chief Secretary, Haryana to consider referring the matter to vigilance or otherwise to ascertain intentional and collusive violation of law. The Chief Secretary may also oversee remedial action for speedy enforcement of environmental norms in the interest of health of the inhabitants.
11. Further, we find it necessary to constitute a joint Committee comprising representatives of CPCB, MoEF&CC and IIT Delhi to suggest realistic compensation to be recovered, apart from other actions to be taken. The Committee will be assisted by the SPCB Haryana. The CPCB will be the nodal agency.
12. Pending further consideration, in the light of above findings in the inspection report, we are prima facie of the opinion that interim compensation as follows needs to be recovered:
Sl. Name of the Units Interim
No. Compensation
1. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, (For TDI Rs. 10 Crores
Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road,
Sonipat-
2. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, Rs. 2.5 Crores
Sector-60, Sonipat.
3. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan City, Rs. 2.5 Crores
Sector-58, Sonipat-
4. M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Rs. 2.5 Crores
Towers), Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
5. M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 2.5 Crores
Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat.
6. M/s Narang Constructions & Financiers Rs. 2.5 Crores
Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height), Sector-62, Kundli,
Sonipat.
13. The amount may be recovered by the State PCB and spent for restoration of the environment. The interim compensation will abide by final determination of compensation by the SPCB after following due procedure, including hearing the affected parties, in the light of the report of the joint Committee constituted as above. The Committee may give its report within three months by e-mail at judicial-
[email protected] and a copy thereof may also be provided to the State PCB and the Project Proponents so the Project Proponents will have the opportunity to contest the same before the State PCB or in any other proceedings. We have not considered necessary to hear the Project Proponents at this stage in view of patent violations at this stage shown by an independent inspection report and also in view of the fact that they will have sufficient opportunity after an expert report is available. We find adequate material for forming prima facie opinion about the quantum of Interim Compensation to be recovered." 39 Joint Committee Report dated 21.02.2020 by CPCB pursuant to Tribunal's order dated 23.10.2019 in OA I
20. Pursuant to order dated 23.10.2019, a report dated 21.02.2020 was submitted by joint Committee through CPCB vide letter dated 22.02.2020 wherein it gives details of assessment of environmental compensation in respect of six proponents whereupon interim compensation was imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 23.10.2019. Relevant extract of the report from para 2 to 2.2.3 is reproduced as under:
"2. COMPLIANCE TO NGT DIRECTIONS 2.1. Constitution of Joint Committee In compliance with directions of Hon'ble NGT, CPCB vide letter dated 15.11.2019 requested MoEF&CC, IIT Delhi and SPCB Haryana to nominate officials from their organization as member of the Joint Committee. Copy of letter is enclosed at Annexure-I. As per the nominations received, following are the members of the Joint Committee constituted on the matter:
1. Professor Sagnik Dey, IIT Delhi
2. Sh. Bhupender Chahal, Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board
3. Smt Divya Sinha, Additional Director, Central Pollution Control Board It may be noted that no nomination was received from MoEF&CC 2.2 Assessment of Environment Compensation i. First meeting of the committee was held on 21.11.2019, in which committee members decided to seek assistance from Haryana Sehari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and District Town Planning Department for providing detailed information related to Occupancy Certificate, Environment Clearance required for assessment of violation. HSPCB was requested to provide details of the Consents issued to the concerned builders.
It was further decided that the document "Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental Compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund" shall be used for assessment of Environmental Compensation. Copy of Minutes is attached at Annexure- II.
ii. Second meeting of the committee was held on 17.01.2019, Documents pertaining to six housing societies were examined and the following violations were identified based on report of Haryana SPCB:
a. All six housing societies were found to be non-complying with respect to provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016;40
b. Of the six, only 01 housing society has valid Consent to operate (CTO) from Haryana SPCB; however, the STP was found to be non-complying on the date of inspection i.e. 16.7.2019.
c. Accordingly, committee decided that date from which violation shall be considered on following criteria:
Date of issue of CTO, if available Date of issue of Occupancy Certificate/Date on which case is filed, whichever is earlier In case neither CTO nor Occupancy Certificate available, then violation be considered from date on which Occupancy certificate has been applied for.
Details of issue of OC, CTO including Environment Clearance (on the basis of which date of Violation is considered is given in Table 1 Table 1: Details of OC, CTO on the basis of which date of Violation is assumed.
S. Name of the Date of Last Date of Date of Date from
No. Unit issue of date issue of Occupation which
EC of valid OC Certificate violation
Application
CTO shall be
considered
1 M/ s TDI 14.11.2017 CTO not 25.02.2012 N.A 25.2.2012
Infrastructure obtained
Ltd, (For TDI
Kingsbury
Apartments),
G. T. Road,
Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI 04.09.2007 CTO not 28/08/2017 N.A 28.8.17
Infrastructure and obtained
Ltd, My Floor 14.11.2017
2, Sector-60,
Sonipat-
3 M/s TDI 04.09.2017 CTO not OC Rejected 09/05/2014 9.5.14
Infrastructure obtained
Ltd, Tuscan
City, Sector -
58, Sonipat
4 M/s CMD 12.06.2008 CTO not 01/02/2018 N.A 1.2.18
Built-Tech Pvt. obtained
Ltd. (Ushay
Towers),
Sector -61,
Kundli,
Sonipat
41
5 M/s Parker 01.08.2007 13/08/2 N.A N.A 13.8.17
Estate 017
Development
Pvt. Ltd.,
Sector -61,
Kundli,
Sonipat.
6 M/s Narang 31.03.2007 CTO not 30/03/2017 N.A 30.3.17
Constructions obtained
& Financiers
Pvt. Ltd. (Max
Height),
Sector 62,
Kundli,
Sonipat.
2.2.1 Assessment of Environment Compensation with respect to Sewage Management Committee has carried out assessment to calculate revised Environmental Compensation as per given "Methodology for assessing, of environmental compensation and Action Plan to utilize the fund". The policy can be adopted based on following non compliances-
i. Discharge in violation of Consent, conditions mainly prescribed standards/Consent limit.
ii. Non-compliance of provision of Solid Waste Management Rules Details of Environment compensation imposed are given below:
Environmental Compensation= P.I x N x R x S x LF Where, EC = Environmental Compensation P. I= Pollution Index = 59 for Orange Category (consent by HSPCB)# R = Factor in rupees = 500 S= Factor for scale of operation=Scale of the Unit:Large, 1.5 for Large L.F = location Factor = 1.25 for Sonipat and nearby area, Environmental Compensation for One-day violation = 59 x 0l x 500 x 1.5 x 1.25 = Rs 55,312 per day #: The committee has decided to levy EC based on highest value of PI (59) and R (500) to ensure deterrent effect on the builders Environment Compensation for each housing society is assessed while considering the period of violation from the date of OC/CTO/OC-application and same is summarized in Table 2 Table 2: Environmental Compensation for each unit on the basis of violation duration S. Name of Banquet Date EC levied No of Total no Considered up to Date Days Environment for Violation of Compensation assessment Judgement (in Rs) 42 1 M/s TDI 25.02.2012 21/11/2019 2826 15,63,13,125 Infrastructure Ltd, (For TDI Kingsbury Apartments), G. T. Road, Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI 28/08/2017 21/11/2019 815 4,50,79,687.5 Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, Sector-
60, Sonipat-
3 M/s TDI 09/05/2014 21/11/2019 2022 11,18,41,875 Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan City, Sector -58, Sonipat-
4 M/s CMD Built-Tech 01/02/2018 21/11/2019 658 3,63,95,625 Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector -61, Kundli, Sonipat-
5 M/s Parker Estate 13/08/2017 21/11/2019 830 4,59,09,375 Development Pvt.
Ltd., Sector -61, Kundli, Sonipat.
6 M/s Narang 30/03/2017 21/11/2019 966 5,34,31,875 Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd.
(Max Height), Sector -
62, Kundli, Sonipat.
2.2.2 Assessment of Environmental Compensation for non-
compliance of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 As per the report of Haryana. SPCB, all units are non-complying with provisions of SWM Rules and no facility for collection, segregation and disposal of Solid Waste exists. (Reference Hon'ble NGT Directions dated 23.10.2019; Para No. 5e; Page No. 17) As per Environment Compensation policy, following formula is adopted for non-compliance with provisions of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016;
EC = Capital Cost Factor × Marginal Average Cost for Waste Management × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) × Number of days violation took place + Environmental Externality × N Where; Waste Quantity in tons per day (TPD) N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Simplifying;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = 2.4(Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) +0.02 (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) 43 × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N; In order to calculate Environmental Externality, rate of Environment Externality for improper Municipal Solid Waste Management is estimated as per following criteria;
(TPD) Marginal Cost Minimum and
of Maximum value of
Environmental Environmental
Externality (Rs. Externality
per ton per day) recommended by the
Committee (Lacs Rs.
Per Day)
Up to 200 15 Min. 0.01, Max. 0.05
As per above criteria, minimum value of Environmental Externality recommended by the Committee should not be more than Rs 5000 per day and not less than Rs 1000 per day. In present case, rate of Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality is Rs 15 per ton per day and in all such case, as per solid waste generation (in TPD) cost of externality is not more than Rs 1000 per day. Therefore, minimum value of Environmental Externality considered as Rs 1,000 per day for all 06 cases.
As per criteria mentioned in policy, waste generation for Class-I cities is 0.400 Kg per capita, thereby, solid waste generation is estimated for 4 person/household and 0.400 kg/ person; Solid Waste Generation=No. of Households×4×0.400 Kg/person Environment Compensation for each housing society is assessed while considering the period of violation from the date of OC/CTO/OC-application and same is summarized in Table 3 Table 3: Environmental Compensation for each unit on the basis of Solid Waste S. Name of Date EC levied No of No of Solid EC no Banquet Considered up to Date Days persons Waste (in Rs) for of generated Violation Judgement (in TPD) assessment 1 M/s TDI 25.02.2012 21/11/2019 2826 2050*4 3.280 2,85,95,040 Infrastructure =8200 Ltd, (For TDI Kingsbury Apartments), G. T. Road, Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI 28/08/2017 21/11/2019 815 274*4 0.438 11,77,104
Infrastructure =1096
Ltd, My Floor
2, Sector-60,
Sonipat-
44
3 M/s TDI 09/05/2014 21/11/2019 2022 234*4 0.374 23,60,966.4
Infrastructure =936
Ltd, Tuscan
City,
Sector -58,
Sonipat-
4 M/s CMD Built- 01/02/2018 21/11/2019 658 50*4 0.08 1,77,120
Tech Pvt. Ltd. =200
(Ushay
Towers),
Sector-61,
Kundli,
Sonipat-
5 M/s Parker 13/08/2017 21/11/2019 830 270*4 0.432 11,79,360
Estate =1080
Development
Pvt. Ltd.,
Sector - Kundli,
Sonipat.
6 M/s Narang 30/03/2017 21/11/2019 966 320*4 0.512 16,06,656
Constructions & =1280
Financiers Pvt.
Ltd. (Max
Height),
Sector - Kundli,
Sonipat
2.2.3 Total Environmental Compensation
Based on calculation made in table 2 and 3, total EC estimated is mentioned in table 4.
Table 4: Total Environmental Compensation for each unit S. Name of No of EC for Solid Waste Total no Banquet Days Violation non- Environmental (in Rs) compliance Compensation 1 M/s TDI 2826 15,63,13,125 EC 2,85,95,040 (in Rs) 18,49,08,165 Infrastructure (in Rs) Ltd, (For TDI Kingsbury Apartments), G. T. Road, Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI 815 4,50,79,687.5 11,77,104 4,62,56,792 Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, Sector-60, Sonipat-
3 M/s TDI 2022 11,18,41,875 23,60,966.4 11,42,02,841 Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan City, Sector -
58, Sonipat-
45 4 M/s CMD Built- 658 3,63,95,625 1,77,120 3,65,72,745 Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector
-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
5 M/s Parker 830 4,59,09,375 11,79,360 4,70,88,735 Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Sector
-61, Kundli, Sonipat.
6 M/s Narang 966 5,34,31,875 16,06,656 5,50,38,531 Constructions & Financiers Pvt.
Ltd.
(Max Height), Sector -
62, Kundli, Sonipat.
21. The above Committee also recorded its conclusion in para 3 as under:
"3. CONCLUSION In addition to the assessment carried out by Joint Committee, EC on 06 Housing Societies as listed in table 4 above, following observations were made:
i. Basic infrastructure for common facilities including Sewage management (collection, treatment and disposal of sewage) and solid waste management (collection, processing and Disposal), for the specified area should be planned/developed by the concerned local authorities (in this case Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran, (HSVP) formerly Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) before awarding license to builders for development of individual housing societies in the area by the concerned authorities (in this case Town and Country Planning, Haryana).
ii. However, in present case, Town and Country Planning Haryana has approved Change of Land Use and awarded license for development of individual housing societies to builders before planning & development of basic infrastructure for common facilities including Sewage and solid waste management by HSVP. Adequate infrastructure required for common facilities for sewage and solid waste for the area is yet to be developed for the area.
iii. It was also noted that it is difficult to develop these common facilities once the housing societies come up as the land required for development of these facilities has not been earmarked/procured.46
iv. In absence of sewerage system, both treated/untreated sewage from housing societies is being discharged in adjoining areas.
v. As per conditions of Environment Clearance, housing societies have to treat sewage up to tertiary level and utilize in landscaping, gardening, toilet flushing, cooling tower etc. and remaining treated wastewater may discharge to final disposal system.
vi. CTO issued by SPCB has stipulated compliance of all EC Conditions, however specific conditions regarding the level of treatment, extent of reuse of treated water, discharge standards and mode of disposal of treated water is to be included.
vii. Town and Country Planning Haryana has granted Occupancy Certificate (OC) prior to issuance of Consent to Operate (CTO) by the SPCB.
viii. All the Housing Societies shall ensure reuse of treated sewage as per CPHEEO guidelines for point use. Standards is attached at Annexure-III. Excess treated sewage shall discharge to HSVP sewerage network.
In view of the above, Committee has opined that responsibilities of discharge of untreated sewage and improper Solid Waste management shall also be vested with the following authorities:
i. Town and Country Planning Haryana for granting license to builders prior to development of infrastructure related to sewerage system and granting OC before issuance of CTO;
ii. HSVP for development of basic infrastructure for sewage and solid waste management of the area."
Status Report dated 30.09.2020 by Regional Officer, HSPCB in OA I
22. Status report was also filed by Regional Officer, HSPCB, Sonipat vide letter dated 30.09.2020 and relevant extract thereof, from para 2 to 9 reads as under:
"2. That the Joint Committee as constituted by Hon'ble NGT hold meetings on 21.11.2019 and 17.01.2020 with reference to the meetings Methodology for assessing Environment Compensation and Action Plan to utilized the fund. Documents pertaining to the violating 06 Housing Societies were procured and Environment Compensation as mentioned in the table below is calculated and submitted to Hon'ble NGT on 22.02.2020.
S. Name and address of the Project Environmental
No. found violating during inspection Compensation
by the Committee Recommended by
Joint Committee
47
1. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (For TDI 18,49,08,165/-
Kingsburry Apartment), G.T. Road,
Sonepat
2. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., My Floor 2, 1,62,56,792/-
Sector - 60, Sonepat
3. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Tuscan 11,42,02,841/-
City, Sector - 58, Sonepat
4. M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay 3,65,72,745/-
Towers), Sector - 61, Kundli, Sonepat
5. M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. 4,70,88,735/-
Ltd., Sector - 61 Kundli, Sonepat
6. M/s Narang Construction & Financiers 5,50,38,551/-
Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height), Sector - 62, Kundli, Sonipat
3. That prosecution action against all the Builders as mentioned in above table has been taken by filing complaint in Special Environment Court, Kurukshetra.
4. That no occupation/completion certificate and fresh CTO is being issued in sector 58 to 64 by Town Country Planning Department and HSPCB.
5. That Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) submitted the time bound action plan for laying of sewer line to the existing 7.5 MLD STP at village RGC, Pattla. The work of laying of sewage line has been completed as informed vide letter dated 19.06.2020. The HSVP has issued letter to each colonizer operating in sector 58 to 64 for connection of sewage pipe line laid down by HSVP. Copy of letter dated 16.06.2020 issued by the HSVP is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/1. Sanction to 6 projects for sewer connection has been issued by HSVP as per report submitted dated 30.09.2020. The report is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/2.
6. That Town Country Planning, Department has floated DNIT for installation of new STP with capacity 15 MLD. The Construction of 15 MLD STP (Phase-I) near village Aterna for sector 58 to 04 Urban Estate Sonipat amounting to Rs. 32 Crore has been started and the work would likely to be completed by 31.12.2020 as informed by HSVP vide letter dated 19.06.2020.
7. That these Protect proponents have not submitted Environment Compensation as imposed by Hon'ble NGT therefore letter dated 20.03.2020 has been send to Deputy Commissioner, Sonipat for recovery of Environment Compensation. Accordingly, Summon were issued by Tehsildar, Rai asking to deposit the Environment Compensation on 31.08.2020 as imposed by Hon'ble NGT.
8. That 02 projects i.e. M/s Parker Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Pardeshi Developers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s CMK M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd) tiled Civil Appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The order dated 11.09.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/3. One Project M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. approached the High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (Civil). Copy of order dated 22.09.2020 is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/4.48
9. The projects as mentioned in above said table have submitted representation for the Compensation as imposed by Joint Committee constituted by Hon'ble NGT. The project proponents have been directed to submit interim compensation as imposed by Hon'ble NGT."
23. It appears that in the meantime, one developer M/s. Parker Estate Developer Pvt. Ltd. approached Supreme Court, filed Civil Appeal Diary No. 17702/2020, M/s. Parkar Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kissan Udey Samiti & Ors. assailing order dated 23.10.2019 passed by Tribunal in OA I i.e., OA 764/2018, on the ground that Tribunal did not give any opportunity to the said developer. Supreme Court passed order on 11.09.2020 in the above appeal which reads as under:
"Permission to file appeal is granted.
Delay condoned.
While finding certain violations that were committed by the appellant, Haryana State Pollution Control Board imposed interim environmental compensation of Rs.27,37,500 on the appellant in C.A. Diary No.17702/2020.
It is submitted by Mr. Sumeer Sodhi that the appellant in C.A. Diary No.18310/2020 has deposited the interim compensation amount of Rs.6,37,500/- imposed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board.
In O.A.No.764 of 2018, Kissan Udey Samiti sought for remedial action for violation of environmental norms from the defaulters for not providing proper sanitisation and sewage system in constructing buildings in Sectors 58-64 at Kundli District, Sonepat. The National Green Tribunal ('the Tribunal') sought a report from the Chief Secretary of Haryana. The recommendations made by the Committee constituted by the State of Haryana was placed before the Tribunal. After perusing the report, the Tribunal imposed 2.5 crores as interim compensation.
The interim compensation was made subject to final determination of the compensation to be fixed by the State Pollution Control Board after hearing the Project Proponents. It is clear from the order passed by the Tribunal that appellants were not heard. Issue notice returnable after eight weeks on the condition that the appellant(s) shall deposit 50% of the interim compensation imposed on them before the Tribunal, with the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks.
However, the appellants shall appear before the State Pollution Control Board as directed by the Tribunal. The State Pollution Control Board shall give an opportunity to the appellants before passing a final order without being influenced by the interim compensation imposed by the Tribunal.49
The recovery proceedings are stayed for a period of 8 weeks within which the amount of 50% of the interim compensation shall be deposited. In default, the recovery proceedings shall revive."
24. We find reference of the above order of Supreme Court in HSPCB's status report dated 30.09.2020.
25. Later appeal filed by M/s. Parker Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd., (supra) was registered as Civil Appeal No. 3177/2020.
26. M/s. Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. also filed appeal against order dated 23.10.2019, registered as Civil Appeal No. 3478/2020 and presently both are pending. On 17.05.2022, while disposing IA 31938/2020 in Civil Appeal No. 3478/2020, Supreme Court passed following order:
"I.A. No. 31938 of 2020 IN C.A. NO. 3478 OF 2020 Learned counsel appearing for the State, submits that no coercive steps shall be taken for a period of four weeks after the judgment of the National Green Tribunal is pronounced.
I.A. stands disposed of."
27. Status report submitted by HSPCB also pointed out that M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. has filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5906/2020, TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Kissan Udey Samiti & Ors. in Delhi High Court but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.09.2020 with permission to file appeal in Supreme Court. Order of Delhi High Court reads as under:
"This hearing has been held by video conferencing.
The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to challenge the order impugned before the Supreme Court in form of an appeal.
The petition alongwith pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for."
28. Noticing the above facts, Tribunal deferred proceedings to await further action pursuant to order of Supreme Court. However, on MA 50 175/2019, it permitted applicant to serve a copy thereof to the concerned authorities and concerned authorities were directed to consider the said application and submit factual and action taken report. Para 6 of the order dated 01.10.2020 reads as under:
"6. In view of the above, we defer the proceeding to await further action in the matter in pursuance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
M.A. No. 175/2019 has been filed by the applicant for stopping illegal construction and launching prosecution. The applicant may serve a copy of the application on the concerned authorities. The said application may be first considered by the State PCB in coordination with other concerned Authorities of the State of Haryana and a factual and action taken report filed before the next date by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF.
29. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Court, after withdrawal of writ petition from Delhi High, filed Civil Appeal (Diary) No. 20418/2020 assailing Tribunal's order dated 23.10.2019 passed in OA 764/2018 and on 13.10.2020, Supreme Court entertaining the said appeal, passed following order and connected the same to Civil Appeal No. 3177/2020:
"Delay condoned.
Issue notice.
List along with C.A. No. 3177/2020."
30. MA 24/2021: In Tribunal, matter thereafter was adjourned on various dates. Applicant filed MA 24/2021 stating that the builder namely Pardesi Developer and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is going ahead with large scale of construction without obtaining any sanction of site plan and without following due process of law, causing huge pollution in the area of Sector 58 to Sector 64 and despite complaints lodged by applicant vide letters dated 13.02.2020 and 22.09.2020, no action by concerned authorities including HSPCB has been taken. The act and conduct of builder are in violation of Air Act 1981, Water Act 1974 and EP Act 1986, therefore, appropriate action be taken against the said builder. 51 Status report dated 21.06.2021 filed by Regional Officer, HSPCB, Sonipat in MA 175/2019 in OA I
31. In the status report dated 21.06.2021, para 3 reads as under:
"3. That said application was sent to District Town Planner, Sonipat vide this letter no. HSPCB/SR/2021/5877 dated 15.03.2021. The District Town Planner vide letter no. ST/DTP-P/2021/2876 dated 18.03.2021 has informed that the site as mentioned in the complaint was jointly inspected by the team of District Town Planner, Sonipat and Regional Officer, Haryana State Pollution Control Board with complainant Sh. Omkar (Kissan Uday Samiti, Village Nangal Kalan, Sonipat, Haryana) and other five members of Kissan Uday Samiti on 24.06.2020. Total seven sites visited by the team with complainant where construction activities were in progress. As per report of District Town Planner, Sonipat the construction sites are part of license granted area and the building plan of all these sites stands approved by the department. The details of these are given in table below:
Sr. Name of License No. Total Site Remarks
No License area addres
in s
acres
1. M/s Parilok 46 of 2019/05.03.2019 6.20 Sector- DDJAY
Real Estate acres 63,
Pvt. Ltd. Village
Patla &
Nangal
2. J.S. Nroad 48 of 2019/05.03.2019 11.30 Sector- DDJAY
Casting Pvt. acres 64,
Ltd. Nangal
Kalan
3. TDI Mansion 93 of 2019/14.08.2019 10.0187 Sector- DDJAY
Pvt. Ltd. acres 63,
Village
Patla
&
Nangal
4. Pushprattan 47 of 2019/05.03.2019 5.6375 Sector- DDJAY
Development acres 63,
Pvt. Ltd. Village
Nangal
Kalan
5. M/s Navjyoti 79 of 2008/01.04.2008 21 Sector- Residential
Oversas Pvt. acres 61, Group
Ltd. Nangal Housing
Kalan Colony
6. M/s P.S. 74 of 2008 10.837 Sector- Residential
Realtors Pvt. 5 acres 64, Group
Ltd. Village Housing
Patla Colony
&
Nangal
7. M/s TDI 183-228 of 2004 123.04 Sector- Plotted
Infrastructure acres 59, Colony
Ltd. Nangal
(Formerly Kalan
known as
Intime
52
Promerts Pvt.
Ltd.) under
construction
building at
Plot no. E-
166, E-208,
209, E-42, F-
58.
MA 20/2022 dated 21.12.2021 filed on 11.03.2022 by applicant in OA I:
32. The applicant has filed this MA praying that heavy cost be imposed on Government bodies and private companies for violation of directions issued by this Tribunal vide order dated 23.10.2019 and 28.09.2021. OA 155/2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'OA II')
33. OA II has been filed on 31.07.2020 by two applicants namely Dr. (Mrs.) Manorama Sharma and Mr. Sandeep Sachin under Sections 14, 15 and 18 of NGT Act, 2010 complaining about illegal activities of M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (hereinafter refereed to 'PP in OA - II') in execution of its integrated township project namely 'TDI City Kundli', District Sonipat, Haryana in utter violation of environmental laws and norms with collusion of the officials of TCPD Haryana and HSPCB.
34. Facts in brief stated in OA II are that PP (TDS Infrastructure Ltd) in OA II (earlier known as Intime Promotors Pvt. Ltd.) is a real estate developer/builder company. The integral residential housing township project namely TDI City Kundli was launched in 2005 by PP in OA II. The project is spread over an area of 1200 acres comprising residential plots of various sizes ranging from 250 sq. yards to 1000 sq. yards and apartments namely Kingsburry, Tuscan City, My Floors etc. which are all part of the integrated township project i.e., TDI City Kundli. Applicants bought plots in the above project in 2005 from PP in OA II. However, PP in OA II violated laws and enactments, terms and conditions of licenses/part completion certificates etc., executed sale deeds fraudulently through 53 misrepresentation and suppression of facts without providing basis essential infrastructure which included sewage Treatment Plant, Solid Waste Management System, Water and Electric supply provisions, parks and horticulture etc. In effect, PP in OA II abdicated all responsibilities, more so, those related to preservation and protection of environment for personal gain, disregarding statutory responsibility of protection of environment and in fact it proceeded at the cost of degrading precious environment. On account of the above facts, various complaints were lodged and Economic Offence Wing of Delhi Police has registered more than 20 FIRs under various provisions of IPC against PP in OA II which included a complaint/report of applicants also.
35. The issue relating to violation of environmental laws raised by PP in OA II was also subject matter of consideration before Tribunal in OA 764/2018 i.e., OA I wherein various orders were passed. However, in OA II, Applicants pin pointed deficiencies/role of respondents separately, as under:
"1. Respondent No. 1 - TDI Infrastructure Limited A. The respondent No 1 undertook and assured to develop the area into an integrated township, with all modern amenities and complete the project within thirty six months and offer possession immediately thereafter. But even after 15 years the area is uninhabitable being devoid of basic amenities.
B. Respondent No 1 intentionally violated various laws and enactments in collusion with respondent No.2 and 3. Some of the violations are i. Selling of plots without obtaining the necessary approvals/licenses from state Government. ii. Collecting external development charges even before obtaining the license and at a rate much higher than the rate fixed by state Government iii. Offered possession before getting the completion certificate iv. Obtained completion certificate through misrepresentation of facts, in connivance with respondent No. 2 and 3 without making provisions for STP of required capacity, Solid Waste Management system, Electric & Water supply, developed Parks, Horticulture and Green areas.54
v. Forced plot buyers to get sale deed executed by misrepresentation of facts, pertaining to existence of basic amenities.
vi. Violated the terms & conditions of licenses/renewed licenses/part completion certificates and section 3(3) of HUDA Act resulting in direct financial losses to state exchequer, purely for personal gains and more profits.
C. Respondent No. 1 was fully aware that absence of STP of required capacity, Solid Waste Management System, provisions of Water & Electric Supply, Green areas, Parks and Horticulture etc. would violate the Environment Laws, but to make his business more profitable, respondent No 1 decided not to provide basic infrastructure, in spite of collecting external development charges & also maintenance charges for these facilities from the applicants, where as in reality these facilities do not exist even today.
2. Role of Respondent No.2 Directorate of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) Haryana A. Respondent No. 2 is responsible for ensuring proper development of the township, with adherence to all relevant laws and enactments, terms & conditions of licenses, renewed licenses and part completion Certificates.
B. Respondent No 2 had issued several licenses to respondent No.1 during the period 2004 till 2006, and in spite of the fact that till date respondent No.1 has not fulfilled the terms and conditions specified in the various licenses issued to him by respondent No 2, the licenses issued have been extended/renewed repeatedly by respondent No. 2.
C. Respondent No 2 issued three part completion certificates. These are:
i. SDP-2007/1772 dated 31 Jan 2008 of 109.5 acres, for part of blocks A B and C ii. CC - 70 - JE (BR) - 2013 / 57692 dated 18th Nov 2013 of 415 acres for part of blocks A,B,C, D and part of Blocks E,F,G,H,J,K, and L iii. CC - 70 - PA ( SN ) - 2017 / 23751 dated 22.09.2017 for 403 acres for remaining part of blocks A, B and group Housing, and E, F, H, I, J,K and L The part completion certificate no. CC - 70 - JE (BR) - 2013/57692 dt 18th Nov 2013, states that:-
"It is hereby certified that the required development works on the residential plotted colony at Sonipat comprising of License mentioned above for 415 acres as indicated on the enclosed layout plan duly signed by me read in conjunction with the following terms and conditions have been completed to my satisfaction. The development works are Water Supply, Sewerage, Storm Water, Drainage, Roads, Horticulture and Electrification."55
Where as in reality development works listed above does not exist, even today.
(Copy of part completion certificate has been annexed as Annexure3) However, in the year 2016 i.e. three years later, in a dispute before NCDRC between the respondent no 1 builder and a plot buyer, a conflicting claims were made by both parties with respect to development of the project. The Hon'ble Commission was finally pleased to appoint a retd. Judicial officer to personally visit the site and find the truth. The said Court Commissioner, personally visited the site and prepared a detailed report which unraveled shocking facts about the illegal claims of the respondent no.1 with respect to basic developments in the project. The Ld Commissioner has explicitly mentioned in his report dated 2nd Feb 2016 submitted before the Hon'ble Commission, that K block looks like an abandoned piece of land resembling a jungle with no basic amenities that are required for habitation. The report of Court Commissioner was accepted by NCDRC. On the basis of this report Hon'ble NCDRC held that the plots in K block are neither developed nor habitable.
(Court Commissioner's Report has been annexed as Annexure 4) (NCDRC Order in CC 246 of 2010 is annexed as Annexure 5) D. With the above, it is apparent that respondent No.1 has obtained the part completion certificate from respondent No.2 through unfair means and respondent No.2 was aware that by adopting such practices the respondent No.1 is violating the various laws and acts, including the Environmental norms.
E. The three part completion certificates issued were conditional and it is stated in the part completion certificate that "This completion certificate shall be void ab initio, if any of the conditions mentioned above are not complied with". Respondent No 1 has not fulfilled any of the conditions mentioned in the part completion certificate and as per the terms of the part completion certificate, respondent No 2, should have cancelled the part completion certificates. Where as in reality, respondent No. 2 has not taken any action against respondent No 1 for not fulfilling the conditions of part completion certificates. F. Violation of section 3(3) of HUDA Act by respondent No 1 causing direct financial loss to the state Government, has also been ignored by respondent No. 2 G. Also in the past, the respondent No 2 had issued licenses/part completion certificates to developers/builders without ensuring provision of basic essential services such as Sewerage Management System etc., impacting the environment by gross violation of Environment Laws. Haryana Lokayukta's report on another project known as Malibu Town is a testimony of this fact. 56 H. Lokayukta Haryana's Report dated 25th Nov 2019, in Complaint No. 319 of 2011 and 169 of 2014, where in it was alleged that the respondent No, 2 along with other departments of Haryana Government, knowingly and intentionally abused their position by favoring license to M/s Malibu Estates Pvt Ltd and caused undue harm and inculcate loss to property buyers and state exchequer. In this matter the colonizers violated the provisions of relevant Acts and rules and also the conditions of the licenses and have not completed the development works in the colony as per approved layout plan, including water and electric supply, laying of sewerage and storm water drainage, water harvesting system and sewage treatment plants, roads, parks & horticulture, community buildings etc. I. From the Lokayukta's report it is evident that respondent No 2 has been responsible and guilty of actionable negligence, in action, mal administration and non-adherence of rules and regulations. As such they did not rein in the violators / builders to protect the interest of property buyers because of apparent close nexus between them and colonizers.
It was recommended by the Hon'ble Lokayukta to conduct a discreet enquiry in the matter by forming SIT to investigate the role of respondent No. 2.
(Copy of Haryana lokayukta's report under section 17(2) of the Haryana lokayukta act 2002 has been annexed as Annexure 6)
3. Role of Respondent 3 Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) A. The respondent No.3 is responsible to ensure prevention & protection of the environment and also ensure the compliance & adherence to various Environmental Laws. Respondent No.3 issued a "no objection certificate" to respondent No.1, without verifying and ensuring the existence of proper sanitation and sewage system, STP of required capacity, solid waste management system, presence of septic tanks, provision of water & electric supply and development of green areas, parks and horticulture.
B. As per para 4 of National Green Tribunal order dated 23 Oct 2019 in case of Kissan Udey Samiti V/s State of Haryana & Ors it is established that respondent No 3 granted a single environmental clearance for the sectors 58,59,60,61,63 and 64 in which residential plotted colony is located. These sectors are located far away from each other. Projects of other developers are also going on, in these sectors. Agricultural activities are also taking place in these sectors. Hence issuance of single license has no significance. C. The project "TDI City Kundli" is not complying with sanitation and sewage system norms, no existence of proper STP of required capacity, violation of SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by respondent No 1. The respondent No.1 has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which will be generated from the plotted households and is thus, non- complying under provision of Solid Waste (Management and Handling) rules, 2016.
57 D. It is pertinent to mention, that in application number 764/2018, in case of Kisan Udey Samiti V/s State of Haryana & Ors, the Hon'ble Tribunal has imposed an interim compensation of Rs 15 Cr. on respondent No 1 because of violation of environmental norms on account of not providing proper sanitation and sewage system for residential apartments, developed by respondent No 1. In spite of the above penalty imposed, respondent No 3 has not taken any specific action against respondent no. 1, which would act as a deterrent for further committing such acts."
36. OA II was registered on 31.07.2020 and came up for consideration before Tribunal on 01.10.2020. Tribunal found that since applicants in OA II have also referred to orders passed in OA I, consequently, directed the Committee constituted by Tribunal in OA I vide order dated 23.10.2019 to look into the grievances and complaints raised by applicants and submit a joint report within two months. Para 2 of the order reads as under:
"Vide order dated 06.05.2019, after referring to the earlier proceedings, this Tribunal sought a report from the Chief Secretary of Haryana about the status of compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 (SWM Rules) and compliance to Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 in terms of sewage management."
Compliance report dated 20.01.2021 filed by CPCB in OA II (page 188)
37. Pursuant to order dated 01.10.2020 passed in OA II, compliance report dated 20.01.2021 was submitted by joint Committee through CPCB. The observations and recommendations recorded in the said report reads as under:
"3.0 Observations During the inspection by joint committee on 07.01.2021, following observations are made:
1. M/s TDI Infrastructure Limited has set-up residential plotted colony in sector 58,59,60,61 and 64 of Sonipat, Haryana.
2. Basic minimum infrastructure i.e. internal roads, open space, public parks, streetlights, public health services including water supply & Sewerage Treatment Plant, electricity, etc. are not functional at site.
3. Plot of applicant was inspected and it is observed that no Electricity supply, Water supply, Sewerage connectivity or STP exist at site. Approach road to plot is also damaged at multiple locations.
4. No mechanism of proper collection and segregation observed at site. Compost arrangement for biodegradable waste was not provided at site.58
5. An unauthorized disposal of sewerage water in nearby plotted area was observed. An unauthorized tractor carrying tankers (without any registration numbers) was found disposing sewerage wastewater at nearby plotted area. An undesirable smell and stagnant water has been observed at these areas.
6. Project Proponent is supplying water to township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA.
7. Project Proponent has not submitted adequacy reports of captive STP under township and not provided proper sludge collection system.
8. Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.
9. It is also evident from the report of District Town and Country Department, Sonipat provided by applicant that M/s TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has breached the conditions of the license and condition of part completion certificates granted by the Department and not able to upkeep the minimum infrastructure (Copy attached at Annexure-III)
10. Violation of Environment Clearance Conditions:
Compliance status of EC condition is attached at Annexure-IV. Observation of Joint committee with respect to violations of EC conditions are summarized below.
a. Project Proponent has not constructed decentralized tertiary level STP for 100 percent treatment of grey water and reuse as per EC conditions.
b. No solar, wind or renewable energy source has been observed at project site.
c. No CFLs/LEDs has been observed at street lights some d. Project Proponent has also not provided details of area covered & species planted under green belt and area covered under green belt is looking inadequate.
e. Project Proponent has not provided corporate social responsibility plan, details of environmental management cell, year wise details of year wise fund earmarked/utilized towards environmental protection, not submitted six monthly compliance reports regularly.
f. Project Proponent has not provided copy of environmental statement of form-V, link of company website where copy of EC along with SMCRs has been uploaded. PP has also not submitted the six monthly compliance reports regularly. g. Project Proponent has not provided details/copy of agreement with recycler to handle/dispose hazardous waste (waste oil from DG sets) and STP sludge, plastic waste, e-waste and biomedical waste etc. generated at project site.
h. Project Proponent has not provided copy of NOC from civil aviation department, forest department, fire department, chief controller of explosives department, CGWA and Consent to Operate from HSPCB.
4.0 Recommendation:
Recommendation of Joint Committee based on the inspection, documents provided by applicant and respondents are follows:
1. Project Proponent to comply with all EC conditions and seek approval from CGWA for use of bore well.59
2. Project Proponent to comply with provision of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and ensure proper collection, segregation, and treatment of biodegradable waste in compost as per EC conditions.
3. Project Proponent to ensure that no treated/untreated sewage is being disposed into vacant plots.
4. Local State administration to keep vigil on unauthorized vehicles/tractor tankers being used for discharge of pollutants, so that no unauthorized discharge be made on land/river disposals.
5. Project proponent to ensure basic infrastructure facilities are in operation i.e. internal roads, open space, public parks, streetlights, public health services including water supply & Sewerage Treatment Plant, electricity before allowing construction activity in residential plots.
6. The grey water should be treated-up to tertiary level in decentralized STP and treated water should be reused for cooling, flushing landscaping as per Environment Clearance conditions.
7. Following points were earlier mentioned in report of Joint Committee in the matter of 0.A No 764/2018 and need to be recommend for present case:
a. Haryana Sehari Vikas Pradhikaran (HUDA) to provide sewer connectivity to units at the earliest. Only authorized vehicles having vehicle registration number to be used for transportation of sewage to STP as interim arrangement. b. Town and Planning department and Haryana Sehari Vikas Pradhikaran to issue Change in Land Use/License only after ensuring necessary basic infrastructure development (Water Supply, Sewerage network, Road) in the area. c. Concerned agencies to issue Occupancy certificate after ensuring development of infrastructure as per environmental clearance conditions.
d. If a project proponent has applied for part CTO, he should be granted permission on remaining part only after ensuring valid Consent to Operate from SPCB.
e. HSVP to ensure completion of construction of Sewage Treatment Plant and sewerage network work (as per EC conditions) by Project Proponent before issuing Occupation Certificate or any other permission."
IA 86/2021 filed by applicants in OA II
38. Applicants filed IA 86/2021 with a request to take on record certain additional documents which basically followed the observations recorded when applicants accompanied joint Committee for inspection on the site on 07.01.2021. Summary of the observations of the aforesaid inspection were noted by applicants in para 2 of IA as under:
Sl# Summary
1. No prior CTO/CTE was obtained for plotted residential colony from SPCB.
60
2. No prior Environmental Clearance was obtained for Plotted Residential Colony.
EC for the development of plotted residential colony "TDI City"
in sector 58, 59, 60, 63 & 64 was obtained in Sept 2017, by that time the licenses were renewed multiple times, Part Completion Certificates were issued and sale deed was executed in most of the cases (including the applicants)
3. A single Environmental Clearance was granted for sectors 58, 59, 60, 61, 63 & 64. These sectors are at a distant and other project including agricultural land are also falling in these sectors.
4. As it is an expansion project, Environment Clearance for hospitals, health care, primary & high schools, clubs & recreational facilities, shopping malls & multiplexes etc. was issued in Nov 2017. In spite of violations of Environmental norms in the EC issued in 2007, another EC (for plotted residential colony) was issued in 2017, by MoEF & CC.
5. Unauthorized disposal of sewerage waste water: In plotted residential area a tractor (without registration number plate) carrying a tanker was caught red handed, disposing sewerage waste water, in residential plotted area. Undesirable smell and stagnant water was also observed at this site.
This is a repeat offence which has been continuing by respondent 1, even after 17 months of being held responsible by the Hon'ble Tribunal.
6. As per EC issued in 2017, STP of 16300 KL/D was required for residential plotted area- STP of required capacity does not exist at site.
7. RWH pits and Storm Water Drainage System have not been provided in several blocks of plotted colony. (Ref point no. 9 on Page no. 12 of Jt Committee report)
8. PP showed RWH pits in the apartment complex- My Floor II and those were found to be clogged with mud and stagnant water. RWH pits were not shown to the Jt. Committee anywhere in the plotted colony, RWH pits do not exist in K block, which was selected at random by the Jt. Committee.
9. Solid/ plastic and Construction waste was found littered all around in the various blocks of entire residential plotted colony. There is no provision of Solid Waste Management System at site.
10. Broken, un-metaled, dusty roads were observed at various locations causing air pollution.
11. Inter connected sewerage system does not exist in the entire plotted residential colony, hence sewerage system is not operational.
(Ref point No. 7 page No. 12 of Jt. Committee Report)
12. Permanent Sewerage Connection not obtained from HSVP till date.
(Ref point No. 8 page No. 12 of Jt. Committee Report)
13. Water Supply lines not provided in all the blocks (Ref point No. 5 page No. 12 of Jt. Committee Report)
14. Parks & Horticulture not developed (Ref point No. 4 page No. 12 of Jt. Committee Report) 61
15. Power requirement for the project is 118167KVA, for which a separate electric substation is required. No such electric substation exists in the entire project. Further no transformers, feeder pillars were see in the various blocks, including K block.
39. Some other observations are given in detail from para 3 to 9 as under:
"3. Disposal of sewage waste water on vacant plots: During the site Visit, joint committee members apprehended an unauthorized tractor carrying a tanker without any registration number disposing sewerage waste water for percolation, in the vacant residential plots of TDI City Kundli. Undesirable smell and stagnant water was also observed at the site, where sewerage waste water was being disposed.
On questioning by the team, the tractor driver confirmed that the sewage waste water has been brought for disposal, from TUSCAN City - A nearby residential apartment complex located within the integrated Township "TDI City Kundli".
The relevant photographs of Tractor and the vacant residential plot where the sewage was being dumped have been attached.
4. In Kissan Udey Samiti Case (OA No. 764/2018), the sewage disposal from residential apartments (namely Kingsbury, My Floor 2 and Tuscan City) was being done in agricultural fields for which total Environmental Compensation of Rs 49.5 C was imposed. The Environmental Compensation of Rs 49.5 Cr has not acted as a deterrent against violation of Environmental norms and neither has respondent no. 1 taken any corrective actions as per the directions of Hon'ble Tribunal. Dumping of sewage waste water is still continuing unabated by respondent No. 1, even after 18 months of being held responsible by the Hon'ble Tribunal, only the location has changed from agricultural fields earlier to vacant residential plots within the town ship "TDI City Kundlf".
5. The Jt. Committee team further passing through blocks A, B, C, D, F, G, H, I and J finally reached K Block (selected randomly), travelling through kacha, semi pucca and broken dusty roads, where following observations were made a. There was no electricity supply, water supply and inter connected sewerage system, b. No STP, RWH pits in the residential plotted area were shown. c. Approach road was broken/damaged/dusty and did not exist, at multiple locations, d. Solid, Plastic & Construction waste was found littered all around.
e. None of the Electric poles had Electric fixtures/CFL's and solar panels etc. f. There were no developed parks, horticulture and plantations. Only wild bushes were seen growing everywhere including on damaged/broken roads 62
6. Sewerage Treatment Plant (STP) and RWH pits: From Annexure IV (Compliance to EC Conditions) attached with Jt. Committee report, it follows that STP of 16300 KLD was required for the covered under EC issued in 2017. The STP of the required capacity for plotted colony was not shown by the representatives of Respondent 1. For showing the operational RWH pits and STP, representatives of respondent 1, took the team members to an apartment complex named "My Floors 11", which is also an integral part of the project "TDI CITY Kundli"
where a. RWH pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water b. Discharge/Output from STP was giving a foul smell when checked by the Jt. Committee team members, c. STP did not have the sludge collection mechanism and froth on the water surface in the main treatment tank was also not found. It is doubtful if any chemical was being added in the tank for proper treatment.
d. This application (OA 155/2020) was filed to examine the violations of environmental norms in the plotted part of the integrated township "TDI City Kundli" and not the residential apartments. By showing the operational RWH pits and STP of an apartment project, it gets established that the RWH pits and STP facility for the plotted colony does not exist, or else the project proponents would have shown the operational RWH pits and STP in the plotted part of the township.
7. Lack of interconnected Sewerage System & Water Supply pipelines: From the report submitted by DTP Sonipat, it is evident that part of the land of the township is not in the possession of Respondent No.1.and Respondent 1 has sold the residential plots on the land, which till date is not owned by him. Interconnected sewerage system, water pipeline, storm water drainage system, inter connected pipelines to STP, interconnected pipelines from STP for horticulture and washing purposes cannot be laid, unless the entire land is in possession of the colonizer.
Thus in some blocks sewer system may have been provided, but since the same is not interconnected, hence it is not operational.
8. Solid Waste Management: From Annexure IV (Compliance to EC Conditions) attached with Jt. Committee report, it follows that estimated solid waste generation against the EC issued in 2017 is 76733 kgs/d. No mechanism to manage the referred quantity of solid waste generated was visible or shown to the Joint Committee by the representatives of Respondent 1
9. Power Requirement - 118167 KVA: From Annexure IV (Compliance to EC Conditions) attached with Jt. Committee report, it follows that Power requirement against the EC issued in 2017 is l18167 KVA. For power requirement of 118167 KVA, a separate electric substation is required for distribution. No such electric substation has been constructed/set up. Further no transformers, feeder pillars etc. were seen in the various blocks."
63
40. Applicants stated that inspection shows that there is gross violation of environmental laws, non-availability of basic amenities in the form of operational inter-connected sewerage system, STP of required capacity, provisions of solid waste management system, water pipelines, electric connectivity, park and horticulture and other requisites for sustainable development for habitation. Due to non-availability of the above facilities and violation of environmental laws, a logical inference/action would be:
"a. Construction work cannot be initiated at site. b. Even if the construction work is initiated, the residents cannot live there since there is no operational sewerage system, STP, provision of Electricity & water supply and waste sewage water is being disposed openly in vacant residential plots at different locations. Living in unhygienic conditions without proper sewerage & Solid Waste Management system will cause serious health concerns for entire community.
c. If at all the plot buyers decide to live there, then in the absence of Sewage & Solid waste management system, both treated/untreated sewage waste along with solid waste, will be discharged in adjoining areas. Hence the residents too will become polluters as they would be forced to violate the Environmental laws.
d. Moreover, basic common amenities such as sewerage & solid waste management system, electric and water supply lines should be planned and developed in advance before the award of Part Completion Certificates."
41. Applicant further commented upon the role of the authorities and Regulators resulting in non-compliance of environmental laws on the part of PP in OA II and said:
"B. ROLE OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS
11.Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change: From Annexure IV (Compliance to EC Conditions) attached with Jt. Committee report, it follows that the following two Environmental Clearances were issued by MoEF&CC vide:
a. Letter no. J-12011/14/2006 dated 14.11.2007. In this EC, PP had proposed to build up hospital, health care, primary and high schools, club and recreational facilities, shopping mall and multiplex etc. b. Letter no. 2162/2016-IA.III dated 04.09.2017: In this EC, PP had proposed that the project will comprise of general plots, EWS, Community center, commercial area, dwelling units, EWS units, Servant units etc. From the above it follows that, for residential plotted part of the township, EC obtained in 2017 is applicable. Further it also follows that:64
a) Respondent No. 1 applied for EC in Feb 2017 and was granted EC in Sept 2017. Thus the entire residential plotted township was developed without prior Environmental Clearance
b) Even though there were violations of environmental norms by Respondent 1 in earlier EC issued in 2007, yet another EC was issued in 2017 by the MoEF & CC for plotted area.
c) A single EC was issued to the Respondent 1 by MoEF&CC for the residential plotted part of the integrated township, extending from Sector 58, 59, 60, 61, 63 and 64. In between there are other projects, villages, gram panchayat land & agricultural land.
d) Respondent 1 had advertised the launching of this project repeatedly in several local & national dailies and also through large hoardings at prominent places, in Delhi and Haryana including Chandigarh. These advertisements would have made the responsible officers aware of the project. Hence the concerned officers responsible for issuance of EC were aware that the mega township project has been launched without any Environmental Clearance.
12.Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB): No prior CTO was obtained by Respondent 1 from HSPCB. Respondent 1 was developing an integrated Mega township project on 1200 acres of land, right on the National Highway (NH) No.1 and had also constructed an entrance gate of the township, on the main NH. 1. The structure of the entrance gate has "TDI City" written on it and is so huge that it cannot be overlooked/ ignored due to oversight, by anyone travelling on NH 1.
Further, the Respondent 1 had advertised the launching of the project several times in the local & national dailies and also through large advertisement hoarding boards all over the state of Haryana and more So in the Sonipat Dist. These advertisements would have certainly made the responsible officers of HSPCB aware of the project. In the absence of the project proponents approaching the HSPCB for CTO, the HSPCB officers, who are located close to the project site, allowed such a mega project to continue, without a CTO.
13.Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) Haryana:
Following licenses were issued by DTCP for the project. The licenses were initially valid for two years. After the expiry of two year period, the Respondent 1, had to apply for renewal of the licenses. As per one of the condition of the license, project proponent had to obtain an EC before starting any development activity at site.
Sl.# License Area in acres License Numbers
1 123.046 183-228 of 2004 and 199 of
2007
2 37.738 153-167 of 2004
3 75.17 42-60 of 2005
(3.16 acres delicensed)
4 103.771 101-144 of 2005
5 304.5125 200-285 of 2005
6 159.7125 652-722 of 2006
7 252.714 (42.10 acre 729-872 of 2006
transferred to Ansal API)
65
8 53.505 177 of 2007
9 32.79 51 of 2010
Even though the Respondent 1 violated the terms & conditions of licenses by not obtaining prior CTO and environmental clearances, Respondent 2
a) Renewed these licenses repeatedly
b) Issued Part Completion Certificates stating that the development work including water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, roads, horticulture and electrification have been completed and operational.
By intentional misrepresentation of facts in the part completion certificate issued by Respondent 2, Respondent 1 got the sale deed executed and in the process District administration through Tehsildar Rai, Dist. Sonipat, and Government of Haryana also collected the stamp duty, from plot buyers. The sale deed executed also mentions that "the area is functional in terms of services i.e. road, electricity, water supply, sewerage and storm lines etc."
Respondent 2 not only violated the terms and conditions of Licenses, renewed licenses, part completion certificates but also violated the Environmental laws, by not ensuring provision of interconnected sewerage management system, STP of required capacity, solid waste treatment facility, water and electric supply, parks and horticulture etc., which are essential for sustainable development of residential township."
42. Applicant also pointed out that not only PP in OA II but large number of officials of TCPD Haryana are responsible and names of such officials are given in para 16 of IA as under:
"List of Responsible Officers of Town & Country Planning Sl# Name Designation Tenure 1 Sh. S S Dhillon, IAS Director T&CP 14-03-05 to 17-06-09 2 Sh T C Gupta, IAS Director T&CP 17-06-09 to 26-11-12 3 Sh Anurag Rastogi, IAS Director T&CP 26-11-12 to 20-02-15 4 Sh Arun Kr. Gupta, IAS Director T&CP 20-02-15 to 31-12-16 5 Sh. T L Satya Prakash IAS Director T&CP 16-01-17 to 21-03-18 6 Sh K M Pandurang IAS Director T&CP 2018 till date 7 Sh Dhare Singh CTP,T&CP 09-12-05 to 28-02-10 8 Sh J S Redhu CTP,T&CP 02-03-10 to 31-12-14 9 Sh Dilbagh Singh Sihag CTP,T&CP 31-12-14 to 31-05-16 10 Sh Kamal Kumar CTP,T&CP 01-06-16 to 19-09-17 11 Sh Jitender Sihag CTP,T&CP 19-09-17 till date 12 Sh K R Anirudh Sharma STP, Rohtak 20-11-06 to 19-09-07 13 Sh. Kamal Kumar STP, Rohtak 19-09-07 to 06-11-08 14 Sh Dinesh Chauhan STP, Rohtak 19-11-08 to 16-01-09 15 Sh Yusuf Mohd. Masuri STP, Rohtak 16-01-09 to 25-03-11 16 Sh RK Singh STP, Rohtak 29-03-11 to 02-12-11 17 Sh Yusuf Mohd. Masuri STP, Rohtak 05-12-11 to 31-07-14 18 Sh. Dinesh Chauhan STP, Rohtak 11-08-14 to 20-01-16 19 Sh Narender Solanki STP, Rohtak 19-01-16 till date 66 20 Sh. Narender Singh DTP, Sonipat 24-06-05 to 26-06-07 21 Sh Dilbagh Singh DTP, Sonipat 27-06-07 to 15-10-07 22 Sh. Narender Singh DTP, Sonipat 16-10-07 to 20-07-11 23 Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar DTP, Sonipat 20-07-11 to 21-06-12 24 Sh Dilbagh Singh DTP, Sonipat 11-09-12 to 17-06-14 25 Sh Vijender Singh DTP, Sonipat 19-06-14 to 31-12-14 26 Sh Dhirender Singh DTP, Sonipat 01-01-15 to 27-04-16 27 Sh Amrik Singh DTP, Sonipat 28-04-16 to 0-03-17 28 Sh Dhirender Singh DTP, Sonipat 03-03-17 to 05-12-18
43. Applicant has sought appropriate directions from the concerned authorities for taking action against all the erring officials, particularly, those belong to respondent 2 who have issued licenses and renewed the same despite absence of Consent to Operate (hereinafter referred to as 'CTO') and Environmental Clearance and also part completion certificates without ensuring compliance of provisions of STP of required capacity, solid waste management provisions, sewerage management system, water supply, electric supply, parks, horticulture etc.
44. Notices to PP/developers: On 28.09.2021, OA I and II, both were listed together led by OA I. After going through report of Chief Secretary, Haryana dated 09.06.2019, and another OA involving violations by another builder in the same area i.e., Sectors-58 to 64 in Kundli, Sonipat in OA 661/2018, Parveen Kakar vs MoEF&CC which was also listed on the said date, Tribunal noticed written statement filed by State PCB giving details of construction of various projects including projects namely-M/s Parilok Real Estate Pvt. Ltd., J.S. Broad Casting Pvt. Ltd, TDI Mansion Pvt. Ltd., Pushprattan Development Pvt. Ltd., M/s Navjyoti Overseas Pvt. Ltd., M/s P.S. Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Formerly non as Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd.), under Construction building at Pot no. E- 166, E-208, 209, E-42, F-58 and also the composite report of Chief Secretary Haryana dated 01.10.2020 referring to the compensation proposed on various builders found it appropriate to issue notice to all the PP/developers, directed Registry to issue notice to all the PPs. Relevant 67 extract of the order dated 28.09.2021, contained in para 13, reads as under:
"13. So far, compliance was being sought from statutory regulators and notice was not issued to individual PPs. Since further action is required, we find it necessary that the Tribunal needs to go into the matter. Accordingly, we issue notice to the all the PPs for their response to the violations alleged and found."
45. Pursuant to above order, registry issued notices to the following:
(i) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., UG Floor, Vandana Building, 11, Tolsystoy Marg, Connaught Place, New Delhi;
(ii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (for TDI Kingsbury Apartments G.T. Road, Sonipat);
(iii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., (My Floor 2, Sector - 60, Sonipat);
(iv) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Tuscan City, Sector - 58, Sonipat);
(v) M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers Sector - 61, Kundli, Sonipat);
(vi) M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Sector - 61 Kundli, Sonipat and
(vii) M/s. Narang Construction & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height) Sector - 62, Kundli, Sonipat).
46. Pursuant thereto, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers) (now, Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s. Narang Construction & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height) appeared before Tribunal through their counsels and except M/s. Narang Construction & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height), others also filed their written submission/objections etc. 68 IA 121/2021 by applicants in OA II:
47. Another IA 121/2021 was filed by applicants alleging that PP is continuously disposing large quantity of sewage waste on vacant residential plots causing severe damage to environment, hence an interim order be issued restraining it from disposing such sewage waste in open land.
48. Since basically, OA II had relied on the orders passed in OA I and PP in OA II was also one of the alleged defaulter proponents in OA I, therefore, both OAs were taken up together on 28.09.2021.
49. After noticing various reports and apparent violation on the part of PP in both the matters, Tribunal on 28.09.2021, in para 21 and 23 passed following order:
"21. In view of the serious violations noticed in the report of the joint Committee and also from the report of the Chief Secretary, Haryana, our observations in dealing with OA 764/2018 apply to the present matter also. We issue notice to the PP for its response and also direct the Chief Secretary, Haryana in coordination with other concerned officers to take further remedial action including recovery of compensation, black listing of the PP and compliance of EC conditions. We also issue notice to the Director of Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana and HSVP by e-mail for their response, if any. The Chief Secretary and the CPCB may cover the present matter in giving their reports in OA No. 661/2018 and OA No. 764/2018.
xxx...........................................xxx...............................................xxx
23. I.A. No. 86/2021 has been filed by the applicant on 19.03.2021 with reference to the facts found by the joint Committee at the time of site visit on 07.01.2021. In the said I.A. the applicant has assailed the EC on the ground that the single EC for sectors 58, 59, 60, 61, 63 & 64 is invalid and the EC was sought after substantial development was done. The applicant has also mentioned other violations since the violations mentioned are also covered in the report of the joint Committee and EC has to be separately challenged, which has not been done. The applicant is free to make submissions with reference to the report of the joint Committee itself. I.A. No. 121/2021 is for interim order against disposal of waste in open land which matter is being dealt with in the main order itself. I.A. Nos. 86/2021 and 121/2021 accordingly stands disposed of.69
IA 35/2022 dated 10.02.2022 filed on 14.02.2022 by respondent 1 in OA II
50. Respondent 1 has prayed for vacation of order dated 28.09.2021 whereby respondent 1 was restrained from creating third party right. In support of the application respondent 1 in para 4.5 and 4.9 has said as under:
"4.5. In compliance thereof, the Answering Respondent submitted a comprehensive para-wise reply to the queries and supplied all necessary documents in support thereof. A brief summary of the replies and the documents supplied in support thereof are listed below:
(i.) Copy of the permissions obtained from Town and Country Planning Department;
The Answering Respondent provided the Occupation Certificates issued by Respondent No. 3 for the said project.
(ii.) Details of the infrastructure facilities provided by the Answering Respondent;
Details of the Sewage Treatment Plants were provided. The same is in compliance of the environmental norms established for treatment and reuse of the waste water. Information regarding Rain Water Harvesting facilities, Green Areas, infrastructural facilities such as Roads provided to the Joint Committee.
(iii.) Permissions, Clearances, Consents, and NOCs obtained by the Answering Respondent including applications under process; A copy of the Consent to Establish Application was provided. It was also informed that the Consent to Establish application was refused to be accepted by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) as the project was operational.
A copy of the Consent to Operate Application was also supplied. However, it was informed that the same was refused by the HSPCB in light of the Environmental Compensation imposed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iv.) Details Sewage Management Infrastructure inside the project;
All necessary details of the Sewage Treatment Plants installed at the site, including the details of the installation capacities, were given.
(v.) Details Solid Waste Management Infrastructure inside the project;
Compliance to the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 were also informed to the Joint Committee.
A copy of the solid Waste Management Agreement was also enclosed therein, along with the pictures of the Waste Management Infrastructure.
(vi.) Any other documents.70
Latest photographs showing compliance with environmental norms and regulations and those of plantations were also provided.
4.9. It would be apposite to highlight the objections of the Answering Respondent:
(i.) Electricity & Water Supply:
Electricity and Water Supply is available in the project site. For drinking purposes the water is extracted from borewell. Water pipelines have also been installed. The answering Respondent is awaiting water connection from Haryana Urban Development Authority. For the faults of the authorities, the Answering Respondent cannot be penalised. The Answering Respondent is also in process of seeking renewal from CGWA. The documents for the renewal are collated and in the process of being submitted to the competent authorities.
(ii.) Sewerage Treatment Plant:
STPs have been installed at the site, the same are operational. The Company has installed four STPs in Kingsbury Apartments, one in My Floors II, one in Tuscan City, and one in Plotted Colony of capacity 250 KLD, which is operational and functional. The treated water from the STP is used for horticulture, construction and the excess treated water, if any, is sent to STP Plant located at PATLA as per the directions of the competent authorities. Photographs of installed STPs have been enclosed. Therefore, the Company is in substantial compliance of the environmental norms.
On advice of the Authority, the sewage collected form the plotted colony is being sent to PATLA STP. Work order has already been executed and the same have been annexed. The answering Respondent has enclosed the adequacy report of the STPs installed in the project with the concerned authorities.
Sewer connections have been installed and the same are functional. A copy of the water and sewerage connection voucher has been enclosed.
(iii.) Solid Waste & Wastewater Management:
The Answering Respondent has contracted with a local vendor for collection and disposal of solid waste. A copy of the Waste Management Agreements entered with local vendors have been annexed.
Separate bins for dry and wet waste have been provided by the Answering Respondent for proper waste segregation. The Answering Respondent has also installed organic waste converter of capacity 500 kg for the project. Photographs are also enclosed.
A copy of the Agreement with the local vendor was provided to the Joint Committee before, additionally, photographs of other Waste Management facilities were also provided. Untreated wastewater is not being released in open areas. Wastewater generated in the premises is treated in inhouse STPs and treated water is used for gardening and other miscellaneous purposes.71
Disposal of waste water in plotted areas was due to the conduct of farmers and local villagers (kissan andolan). The answering Respondent is doing its best to regulate the same. However, the answering Respondent cannot be held responsible for the same.
Sludge collection systems and machines have been provided at the site. They are functional and in operation. Pictures of Sewage Treatment Plans have also been annexed. Tertiary level treatment of water i.e. UV treatment is undertaken through STPs for reusing the water for other miscellaneous purposes like gardening.
The answering Respondent has contracted with a local agency for disposal of Hazardous Waste. Copy of the Agreement entered with local vendors for disposal of Hazardous Waste have been enclosed.
(iv.) Miscellaneous Basic Infrastructural Facilities:
Basic infrastructure facilities, such internal roads, open space, public parks, streetlights, have been provided by the Answering Respondent at the site. Latest photographs annexed with the said Reply would reveal that the concerned project of the Answering Respondent is developed and the facilities are functional.
Approach roads are developed and functional. At the time of inspection, the roads were under maintenance. However, now the maintenance work has been completed and the roads approaching plotted colony are in fit condition. Pictures are also enclosed.
Rain Water Harvesting pits have been regularly cleaned. Copy of the bills paid to the maintenance agencies for cleaning the pits have also been annexed with the Reply dated 27.07.2021. All conditions prescribed by DTCP are complied with. The Answering Respondent has planted over 25,996 plants in the project. Plantation details were also supplied to the Joint Committee.
The Answering Respondent has also taken sustainable development measures. 54 Solar Panels have been installed in the Project. Proof of the same was also annexed with the Reply. LED lights have installed in the street lights. Pictures of the same have been enclosed.
Expenditure undertaken by the Answering Respondent on Corporate Social Responsibility amounts to Rs. 59,50,000/-. Details of Environmental Management Cell and the expenditure was provided to the Committee along with bi-annual compliance reports.
A copy of the Consent to Operate Application, Fire NOC, etc. were also supplied to the Committee.
The Answering Respondent has filed Objections to the Compliance Report separately. The same are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity and prolixity. The Answering Respondent craves leave of this Hon'ble Tribunal to rely upon the same as though they form a part and parcel of the present Application."72
Objections dated 10.02.2022 filed on 14.02.2022 by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. to the compliance report dated 21.01.2021 and order dated 28.09.2021 passed by Tribunal in OA II i.e., OA 155/2020:
51. Objections are, that applicants have assailed Completion and Occupation Certificates which aspects are not within the jurisdiction of Tribunal; and interim compensation has been determined without giving another opportunity to proponent-TDI Infrastructure Ltd.
52. With regard to violations of environmental norms and laws of amenities, proponent-TDI Infrastructure Ltd., in para 6.9, has said as under:
"6.9. It would be apposite to highlight the objections of the Answering Respondent:
(i.) Electricity & Water Supply:
Electricity and Water Supply is available in the project site. For drinking purposes the water is extracted from borewell. Water pipelines have also been installed. The answering Respondent is awaiting water connection from Haryana Urban Development Authority. For the faults of the authorities, the Answering Respondent cannot be penalised. The Answering Respondent is also in process of seeking renewal from CGWA. The documents for the renewal are collated and in the process of being submitted to the competent authorities.
(ii.) Sewerage Treatment Plant:
STPs have been installed at the site, the same are operational. The Company has installed four STPs in Kingsbury Apartments, one in My Floors II, one in Tuscan City, and one in Plotted Colony of capacity 250 KLD, which is operational and functional. The treated water from the STP is used for horticulture, construction and the excess treated water, if any, is sent to STP Plant located at PATLA as per the directions of the competent authorities. Photographs of installed STPs have been enclosed. Therefore, the Company is in substantial compliance of the environmental norms.
On advice of the Authority, the sewage collected form the plotted colony is being sent to PATLA STP. Work order has already been executed and the same have been annexed. The answering Respondent has enclosed the adequacy report of the STPs installed in the project with the concerned authorities.
Sewer connections have been installed and the same are functional. A copy of the water and sewerage connection voucher has been enclosed.73
(iii.) Solid Waste & Wastewater Management:
The Answering Respondent has contracted with a local vendor for collection and disposal of solid waste. A copy of the Waste Management Agreements entered with local vendors have been annexed.
Separate bins for dry and wet waste have been provided by the Answering Respondent for proper waste segregation. The Answering Respondent has also installed organic waste converter of capacity 500 kg for the project. Photographs are also enclosed.
A copy of the Agreement with the local vendor was provided to the Joint Committee before, additionally, photographs of other Waste Management facilities were also provided. Untreated wastewater is not being released in open areas. Wastewater generated in the premises is treated in in house STPs and treated water is used for gardening and other miscellaneous purposes.
Disposal of' waste water in plotted areas was due to the conduct of farmers and local villagers (kissan andolan). The answering Respondent is doing its best to regulate the sane. However, the answering Respondent cannot be held responsible for the same.
Sludge collection systems and machines have been provided at the site. They are functional and in operation. Pictures of Sewage Treatment Plans have also been annexed. Tertiary level treatment of water i.e. UV treatment is undertaken through STPs for reusing the water for other miscellaneous purposes like gardening.
The answering Respondent has contracted with a local agency for disposal of Hazardous Waste. Copy of the Agreement entered with local vendors for disposal of Hazardous Waste have been enclosed.
(iv.) Miscellaneous Basic Infrastructural Facilities:
Basic infrastructure facilities, such internal roads, open space, public parks, streetlights, have been provided by the Answering Respondent at the site.
Latest photographs annexed with the said Reply would reveal that the concerned project of the Answering Respondent is developed and the facilities are functional. Approach roads are developed and functional. At the time of inspection, the roads were under maintenance. However, now the maintenance work has been completed and the roads approaching plotted colony are in fit condition. Pictures are also enclosed.
Rain Water Harvesting pits have been regularly cleaned. Copy of the bills paid to the maintenance agencies for cleaning the pits have also been annexed with the Reply dated 27.07.2021. All conditions prescribed by DTCP are complied with. The Answering Respondent has planted over 25,996 plants in the project. Plantation details were also supplied to the Joint Committee.
The Answering Respondent has also taken sustainable development measures. 54 Solar Panels have been installed in the Project. Proof of the same was also annexed with the Reply.74
LED lights have installed in the street lights. Pictures of the same have been enclosed.
Expenditure undertaken by the Answering Respondent on Corporate Social Responsibility amounts to Rs. 59,50,000/-. Details of Environmental Management Cell and the expenditure was provided to the Committee along with bi-annual compliance reports.
A copy of the Consent to Operate Application, Fire NOC, etc. were also supplied to the Committee.
A Copy of the latest documents showing compliance of environmental norms and sanctions are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE R-3.
Despite having received the said Reply dated 27.07.2021, the Joint Committee failed to consider the same. The said response has not even been placed before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Therefore, the objections of the Answering Respondent were never placed before this Hon'ble Tribunal. The error so committed by the Joint Committee was perpetuated by this Hon'ble Tribunal by awarding finality to the Compliance Report and passing the order dated 28.09.2021. In the submission of the Answering Respondent, in doing so this Hon'ble Tribunal apart from delegating its focal adjudicatory functions to a mere fact-finding committee has With greatest respect eschewed several dictas of this Hon'ble Court and rendered nugatory the statutory provisions of the Act on accounts of its direction issued without notice to the aggrieved party which on all counts condemns the Answering Respondent unheard."
53. Legal objections raised by proponent-TDI Infrastructure Ltd. are that opportunity was not given, Tribunal has proceeded without issuing notice to proponent, reports have been submitted without looking into the relevant record showing compliance in all respects on the part of proponent and interim compensation/interim orders have been issued without proper application of mind and consideration of relevant facts and material.
Reply/Status Report dated 31.03.2022 submitted by TCPD Haryana in OA I:
54. The affidavit has been sworn by Mr. M. Makrand Pandurang, Special Secretary, TCPD Haryana. In reference to Tribunal's order dated 28.09.2021, this reply/report is virtually an explanation in respect to the 75 aspects of grant of license and action in case of violations and reads as under:
"EXPLANATION FOR GRANT OF LICENCES:
2. It is relevant to submit before the Hon'ble Tribunal that all such services are part of External Development Works which are to be executed by HSVP being a nodal agency for execution of all such development works in the Urban Estates of Haryana.
3. That it is submitted that licences for development of residential/commercial/industrial colonies are granted by the Department of Town and Country Planning in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (in short the Act of 1975) and rules framed thereunder. That the 'external development works' and 'internal development works' have been defined in Section 2(g) and 2(i) respectively of the Act of 1975 which are reproduced as under:
"(g) "external development works" shall include any or all infrastructure development works like water supply, sewerage, drains, necessary provisions of treatment and disposal of sewage, sullage and storm water, roads, electrical works, solid waste management and disposal, slaughterhouses, colleges, hospitals, stadium/sports complex, fire stations, grid sub-stations etc. and any other work which the Directory may specify to be executed in the periphery of or outside colony/area for the benefit of the colony/area;
"internal development works" mean-- (i) metalling of roads and paving of footpaths;
(ii) turfing and plantation with trees of open spaces;
(iii) street lighting;
(iv) adequate and wholesome water supply;
(v) sewers and drains both for storm and sullage water and necessary provision for their treatment and disposal; and
(vi) any other work that the Director may think necessary in the interest of proper development of a colony;"
4. That the provisions of Trunk Infrastructure network through EDC is based on the proportionate payments received from end users as routed through colonizers. The proportionate cost of External development works to be executed by HSVP is recovered from the project proponents. It is relevant to highlight the following points:
i. The cost of provision of trunk water supply and sewer network along with STP is borne out of EDC funds received from colonisers upon grant of licence;
ii. Thus, on account of such statutory provisions, it is possible that, in several cases the establishment of colony takes place before the provision of trunk water supply and sewer network along with STP;
iii. The cost of city level infrastructure covered under EDC works out to thousands of crores. Under the existing framework, it is not possible for the Government to incur such cost upfront with its own funds. However, the coloniser remains duty bound 76 to ensure provisioning of temporary arrangements for such services in the interim period till the EDC works are in place; iv. This mechanism ensures that the development of colonies by various colonisers and provisioning of EDC works by the nodal agencies, viz. HSVP, HSIIDC run parallel to each other for balanced urban development in accordance with the mechanism envisaged in the statute.
5. That it is not possible to develop the basic infrastructure relating to sewerage system before grant of licence as HSVP plans and executes the external developments works keeping in view the total requirement of town and not for any particular colony or sector. Moreover, the necessity for development of such infrastructure is required only when the colony becomes habitable.
6. That at the time of grant of licence, a condition is imposed that the colonizer will make its own arrangements for laying down the infrastructure which is to be linked with the infrastructure as part of External Development Works to be provided by HSVP at a later stage. Further, while issuing the part completion certificate/Occupation Certificate, a condition is also imposed that the services will be laid by the colonizer upto the alignment of the proposed external services of the town and connecting with the HSVP system will be done by the colonizer at its own cost with the prior approval of the competent authority. It is also laid down that the colonizer will be solely responsible for making arrangement of water supply and disposal of sewerage and storm water of their colony as per requirement/guidelines of HSPCB/ Environment clearance till such time, the external services are provided by HSVP/State Government as per their scheme.
7. That further part completion certificates 86 occupation certificate for the residential plotted colonies 86 group housing colonies respectively completed in this area i.e. Sector-58 to 64, Sonipat granted by the Department subject to the condition that the licencee shall apply for connection for disposal of sewerage, drainage and water supply from HSVP as and when the services are made available within 15 days from its availability and that the licencee shall maintain the internal services till the colony is handed over after granting final completion. It was also stipulated that the licencee shall be fully responsible for supply of water, disposal of sewerage and storm water of the colony till these services are made available by HSVP/State Government as per their scheme. Copy of the said letter was also endorsed to the Director, Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change, Government of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, New Delhi for ensuring compliance of these conditions.
8. That in view of the above-said position, it was for the colonizer to link the internal sewerage system of the colony with the main sewerage system to be provided by HSVP and till these services are provided by HSVP/ State Government to make its own arrangements for disposal of the sewerage system.
9. That however, it is brought to the kind notice of this Hon'ble Tribunal that Executive Engineer, HSVP Sonipat vide office Memo No. 9805 dated 16.12.2021 addressed to Chief Engineer, HSVP Panchkula has informed that for disposal and treatment of sewage discharge 77 from the colonizer areas of Sector-58 to 64, Urban Estate Sonipat, a sewage disposal system has been constructed in Sector-64. The master sewer line laid along master road between sector-61/62-63 & 64/59 has been made functional and connected with the sewage disposal system constructed on road side berm Sector-64 Sonipat. Further, informed that STP with capacity of 7.5 MLD in RGEC is constructed and operational at site. Another STP with 15 MLD near Village Aterna is under construction. About 60% of the work is complete and rest is likely to be completed shortly. A copy of memo dated 16.12.2021 is attached as Annexure-1 for ready reference.
10. That 11 nos. of colonizers have already obtained sewer connections from HSVP Master Sewer line and their effluent is reaching upto disposal at Sector -64. A List of such colonisers is attached as Annexure-2 for ready reference. Thus, it is clear that sewer line infrastructure in the area has been completed to a large extent by HSVP.
ACTION WHEN VIOLATIONS WERE FOUND:
11. That the Department of Town and Country Planning has not considered any request for grant of Occupation certificate /Part Completion Certificate/Completion Certificate in Sector -58-64, Sonipat in compliance of the report of Chief Secretary dated 09.06.2019.
12. That regarding black-listing of the project proponents, it is submitted that at the time of grant of licence, a condition is imposed that the colonizer will make its own arrangements for laying down the infrastructure which is to be linked with the infrastructure as part of External Development Works to be provided by HSVP at a later stage.
Further, while issuing the part completion certificate/Occupation Certificate, a condition is also imposed that the services will be laid by the colonizer upto the alignment of the proposed external services of the town and connecting with the HSVP system will be done by the colonizer at its own cost with the prior approval of the competent authority. It is also laid down that the colonizer will be solely responsible for making arrangement of water supply and disposal of sewerage and storm water of their colony as per requirement/guidelines of HSPCB/ Environment clearance till such time, the external services are provided by HSVP/State Government as per their scheme. Accordingly, at the time of grant of part completion certificate/ occupation certificate to the project proponent, a report from all the concerned agencies w.r.t. provision/functionality of the infrastructure services in that particular colony has been sought. Further, Environmental Clearance duly granted by MoEF & CC for establishment of project is also procured before grant of permission.
13. That the Department procured necessary reports from the concerned agencies at the time of grant of part completion certificate/ occupation certificate and no such violations of any of the conditions of licence/building plan/occupation certificate/ part completion certificate have been noticed.
78
As far as Department is concerned the project proponents have either availed the sewer connection provided by HSVP or have adopted safe disposable method as per directions of Hon'ble NGT. Nevertheless vide order dated 16.03.2022, the answering respondent has ordered as follows:
"4. However, in compliance of the directions of Chief Secretary, Haryana, the Department has not issued any completion/occupation certificate to the completed projects in the area so far and continuing with the said directions, it is hereby directed that no such completion/occupation certificate as well as no new licence be granted in Sector-58 to 64, Sonipat till further orders in this regard."
ACTION TAKEN REPORT IN PRUSUANCE OF DIRECTIONS DATED 09.06.2019 OF CHIEF SECRETARY, HARYANA:
14. That point-wise status report with reference to directions dated 09.06.2019 is as follows:
Sr. Directions Action taken
no.
i. TCP Department shall ensure that all tankers Action required
discharging the effluent to the STP of 7.5 MLD by HSVP.
capacity be fitted with GPS and a monitoring
cell be established by HSVP at District Head
Quarters to monitor the movement And
regular discharge from all stakeholder units.
HSVP shall also ensure maintaining the logbook of its STP to which the effluent is sent and reconcile with its movement records.
ii. District Administration shall review the The action is matter every fortnight and ensure that no required by effluent is discharged on land/ dumped District illegally. HSPCB shall take legal steps Administration against the violators and sent a monthly Sonipat and report in this regard to Environment Haryana State Department. Pollution Control Board.
iii. ULB Department and Municipal Corporation Compliance is of Sonepat shall ensure The compliance of required by ULB Solid Waste Management, 2016 in the Department/ District And Deputy Commissioner shall Municipal review the progress in his fortnightly review, Corporation as directed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. Sonipat 606/2018.
iv. TCP Department shall not issue any That the occupation/completion certificate to the Department of upcoming/completed project till the Town and infrastructure and sewer systems are Country completely in place. Also, no further Planning has not license/consent to operate shall also be considered any issued by the Departments/board concerned request for grant till the completion of all infrastructure of Occupation facilities. certificate /Part Completion Certificate/ Completion Certificate in 79 Sector -58-64, Sonipat.
v. TCP Department has been directed to issue a Since, the
Public notice in this regard, if necessary. direction
Regarding
denial of
Occupation/
completion
certificate for
licenced colonies
already stands
implemented,
hence no such
public notice is
required.
vi. The Health Department has been Not related to
directed to conduct a study to assess TCP Department the possible adverse impact of the illegal discharge/pollution on the health of local residents.
vii. TCP Department has also been directed to Action required expedite and ensure timely completion of the by HSVP. laying of sewer lines and establishment of the proposed STP (with a capacity of 15 MLD) so that the issue is solved scientifically and permanently.
The answering respondents crave indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal to place the above status report on the record of the case in the interest of justice.
55. Annexure 2 to the said reply/status reports is the list of sanctioned sewer connections of coloniser's area which reads as under:
S. Name of License No. Area Sector Sanction
No. Company No. & Date
1 M/s Ansal 48 to 55 of 89.13 Sector -61 5971 dated
Properties and 2003 and 4 acres 28.08.2020
Infrastructure Ltd to 11 of
2004
2 M/s Ansal 86 to 97 of 92.234 Sector -62 5979 dated
Properties and 2004 and acres 28.08.2020
Infrastructure Ltd 128 to 131
of 2004 and
448 to 454
of 2006
3 M/s TDI 153 to 167 of 43.96 Sector -61 6236-43
Infrastructure 2004 and acres dated
Ltd KINGSBURY 183 to 228 of 03.09.2020
G.HS., 2004 and
Sonipat 101 to 144 of
2005, 72 of
2012, 79 of
2008, 42
to 60 of
2005
4 M/s Narang 1262 to 12.53 Sector -62 7075 dated
Constructions and 1263 of acres 10.09.2020
Financers Pvt. Ltd 2006,
80
81 of 2010,
60 of 2011
5 M/s Parkers 57-59 of 4.065 Sector -62 7895 dated
Builders 2007 acres 05.10.2020
Pvt. Ltd
6 M/s Kanhaiya 201 of 2008 14.288 Sector -59 8124 dated
(TDI) acres 07.10.2020
Communications
Pvt. Ltd
7 M/s Pardesi 126 -128 of 14.15 Sector -61 10310
Developers 2007 acres dated
Pvt. Ltd. 14.12.2020
8 M/s Max Heights 142 of 2014 5.00 Sector -61 7067 dated
Promoters Pvt. Ltd acres 10.09.2020
9 M/s Parker 214 of 2007 2.00 Sector -62 749 dated
Builders Pvt. acres 28.01.2021
Ltd.
10 M/s Parker Estate 651 of 2006 7.375 Sector -61 4734 dated
Developers Pvt. dated acres 22.06.2021
Ltd. 30.03.2006
11 M/s Sunshine 994 to 996 12.525 Sector -62 5029 dated
County, of 2006 acres 29.06.2021
G.H.S., Sonipat dated
14.06.2006
ARGUMENTS
56. Both OAs were heard finally on 01.04.2022. On behalf of applicants in both the matters, it was argued that record including the reports of joint Committee as also that of Chief Secretary and HSPCB clearly show violation of environmental laws and norms on the part of several builders/PP which were continuing even on the date when OA was filed and even thereafter. Therefore, appropriate remedial as well as preventive and punitive action must be taken absent these builders and Tribunal may issue appropriate order in this regard.
57. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of HSPCB and CPCB also supported applications to this extent and in fact it was pointed out that in respect to the defaulting developers, environmental compensation has already been recommended and imposed which was not approved by Tribunal and, therefore, it imposed interim compensation and directed the concerned Regulator's to assess appropriate environmental compensation 81 which is under process and a further report may be permitted to be filed in this regard within a day or two days.
58. On behalf of PPs/developers namely-M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Learned counsel submitted that detailed objections to the reports have already been filed. On behalf of M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers) (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.), learned counsels submitted that the report was submitted by joint Committee without giving show cause notice or opportunity to them. With regard to the findings recorded in the reports, it was requested that they may be permitted to file written submissions within a few days after reserving the order. On behalf of M/s. Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd., learned counsel stated that compensation is excessive since the violation recorded is not very serious However, neither any response was filed on behalf of M/s. Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd. nor any written submission has been filed.
59. We concluded hearing and reserved order on 01.04.2022 permitting parties to file written submissions/written arguments, if any, within two weeks. CPCB was also permitted to file additional report with regard to assessment of compensation in the light of the observations made by Tribunal.
Joint Committee report/affidavit dated 12.04.2022 filed on the same date through CPCB referring to Tribunal's order dated 28.09.2021 in OA I
60. Committee revisited, revised and recommended environmental compensation in respect to 7 proponents as under:
"In compliance to directions, meetings of the Joint Committee was convened 11.11.2021, 14.02.2022 and 6.4.2022. During the course of meetings, discussion were made on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd.82
vs UOI as referred above in NGT directions. Copy of minutes of meeting is attached as Annexure-I. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI refers that Environmental Compensation (EC) at the amount of 100 Crore or 10% of the total Project Cost, whichever is higher may be imposed in case of sever violations such as non - availability of Environment Clearance, Consent Management Conditions or 5 % of project case in case of violation of Conditions of Consent Management. Copy of Judgement is attached as Annexure-II.
As per decisions made during the first meeting, Sh. Rakesh Bansal, Assistant Town Planner, O/o Director, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh was requested to provide the project cost of concerned Projects. Sh. Rakesh Bansal has provided project cost details vide email dated 16.12.2021 in respect of 07 no. of projects [06 under reference and 01 additional (as mentioned at S1. No. 2)].
Based on directions of Hon'ble NGT, Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court and violations identified by Committee, Environment Compensation (EC) estimated by Joint Committee in 2020 and EC estimated at 5 % of Project Cost, are summarized as follows:
S. Project Environmental Project cost EC
No. Proponent Compensation (in lacs) estimated
Estimated by at 5% of
Committee in project cost
2020 (in Rs.) (in Crores)
1 M/s TDI 18,49,08,165 14402.28 7.20114
Infrastructure Ltd,
(For TDI
Kingsburry
Apartments), G.T.
Road, Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI 4,62,56,792 1401.72 0.70086
Infrastructure Ltd,
My Floor 2, Sector-
60, Sonipat.
3 M/s TDI 11,42,02,841 13017.11 6.508555
Infrastructure Ltd,
Tuscan City,
Sector-58,
Sonipat-
4 M/s TDI City Not assessed by 45477.02 22.73851
(respondent in Committee
O.A. No.
155/2020)
5 M/s CMD Built- 3,65,72,745 18592.52 9.29626
Tech Pvt. Ltd.
(Ushay Towers),
Sector-61,
Kundli, Sonipat-
6 M/s Parker 4,70,88,735 9913.75 4.956865
Estate
Development
Pvt. Ltd., Sector-
61, Kundli,
Sonipat.
83
7** M/s Narang 5,50,38,531 Project cost is
Constructions & not provided
Financiers Pvt. by Town &
Ltd. (Max Height), Country
Sector-62, Kundli, Planning
Sonipat Department,
Haryana
Note: In the matter of M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector
-61, Kundli, Sonipat- and M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd, Sector
-61, Kundli, Sonipat stay has been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
** In this case total project cost was not available for the committee members therefore, compensation value calculated on the basis of the environmental compensation estimated in the earlier report submitted by the committee.
Based on above calculation, it is recommended by the joint committee that Environment Compensation (EC) shall be levied on project proponent as either estimated by Joint Committee in 2020 or estimated at 5 % of Project Cost whichever is higher. Accordingly, following EC is proposed by the Joint Committee:
S. Project Proponent Environmental
No. Compensation (in Rs.)
1 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, (For TDI 18,49,08,165
Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road,
Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, 4,62,56,792
Sector-60, Sonipat.
3 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan 11,42,02,841
City, Sector-58, Sonipat-
4 M/s TDI City (respondent in O.A. No. 22,73,85,100
155/2020)
5 M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. 9,29,62,600
(Ushay Towers), Sector-61, Kundli,
Sonipat-
6 M/s Parker Estate Development 4,95,68,650
Pvt. Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli,
Sonipat.
7 M/s Narang Constructions & 5,50,38,531
Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height),
Sector-62, Kundli, Sonipat.
Affidavit dated 04.04.2022 filed on 05.04.2022 by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. in OA II:
61. Affidavit has been sworn by Shri Ritesh Vijhani, authorised representative of M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. It is said that M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is party in OA I and II and in both the matters, notice was issued to M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. only on 28.09.2021 vide the common order passed by Tribunal. On 01.04.2022, when matter was listed before Tribunal under the category of direction, reports which were 84 uploaded on website on 31.03.2022 and 01.04.2022 were to be considered but the said reports were not supplied to the said proponent and it did not have sufficient time even to peruse said reports and file objections, if any. Alleging that despite request of adjournment made by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Tribunal declined the same and proceeded to hear the matter. It is also said that in OA I, copy of OA was not served upon M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and when counsel requested for adjournment, the same was declined. The said proponent filed IA 35/2022 in furtherance of Supreme Court order dated 04.01.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 7604- 7605 of 2022 seeking vacation of interim order dated 28.09.2021 passed by Tribunal and the said application was listed for the first time still Tribunal instead of considering the said application proceeded to hear the matter finally. In OA II i.e. OA 155/2020, when counsel for M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. commenced arguments found that paper book was different to one filed in Tribunal and, therefore, an objection was raised and prayer for deference of hearing was made but the same was also declined by Tribunal. It has thus said that the said proponent has not been given appropriate adequate opportunity of hearing. Hence, it should be granted further opportunity to advance his submission before Tribunal. Written Submissions dated 16.04.2022 vide letter of the same date filed by applicants in OA II (Page 824):
62. It is said that the applicants are buyer of plot at plotted project of M/s. TDI City Kundli, Sonipat Haryana owned by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. It is a township spread over around 1200 acres of land. It comprised two parts, one part has residential apartment/commercial buildings etc. and another part comprised of plotted residential colony spread in about 1000 acres of land. The plots are allotted to the plot buyers who have to raise their own construction while common amenities like sewerage, electricity, water, horticulture, STP, rain water harvesting etc. are to be 85 provided by the developer/builder i.e., M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Pointing out various inconsistencies in the stand taken by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. in both OAs, applicants have stated in the written submissions as under:
"Difference in OA no. 155 of 2020 and OA No. 764 of 2018
2. Besides the present application, there is another case pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal, against the same project proponent being OA No. 764 of 2018. The said case pertains to only built-up apartments of kingsbury-I (11.46 acres) , Kingsbury-II (18.43 acres), Tuscan city (22.86 acres), Group Housing-IV (7 acres) , KingsburyIII (14.07 acres), My floor-II (14.28 acres), Independent Group Housing - III (10.14 acres) , in all totalling to 98.24 acres. (Kindly refer to para 4 of order dated 23.10.2019 in OA No. 764 of 2018). The said proceedings in OA No. 764 of 2018 thus do not pertain to plotted project of TDI city (comprising around 1000 acres of land), and which plotted project is a subject matter of present proceedings being OA no. 155 of 2020. Reference in this regard may be made to para VII (page no.5-6) of the OA no. 155 of 2020, wherein the applicants have duly declared, while filing the present application, that they are concerned with plotted part of the project which spreads over around 1000 acres of land and which is completely different from project falling under OA No. 764 of 2018.
3. It is unfortunate that the Project proponent, time and again, has been stating before this Hon'ble Tribunal as well as before Hon'ble Supreme Court in CA no. 7604-7605/2021 (since disposed of) that PP has been subjected by this Hon'ble Tribunal to double jeopardy as two cases have been entertained by the Hon'ble Tribunal with respect to same project.
In respectful submission of the applicants herein, the contention of PP in this regard is completely false and misleading and is liable to be rejected with punitive costs. The PP has already failed to impress the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the aspect of double jeopardy as well as on the aspect that the order has been passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal without affording an opportunity of being heard. Fortunately, the contention of the PP could not survive before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter was disposed of on the very first date with only a liberty given to PP to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal, without granting any substantial relief in favor of the PP.
Fair opportunity of being heard
4. The applicant respectfully submits that the PP has raised a wrong contention before Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as before this Hon'ble Tribunal to the effect that it was not heard by this Hon'ble Tribunal before passing the orders dated 01.10.2020 and 28.09.2021.
In respectful submission of the applicants herein, the contention of PP in this regard is completely false and misleading and is meant to mislead the Hon'ble courts. In the first place, advance notice was served upon the PP, by the applicants themselves before filing the 86 application. The PP has thus sufficient notice of the filing, listing and hearing of the application on the very first date. It is the PP itself which despite opportunity, chose not to appear. In the second instance of notice of proceedings to the PP, the joint committee which was appointed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, issued notice to the PP which is dated 4.11.2020 attached as Annexure -II to the compliance report dated 20.01.2021 filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal by the Joint Committee. In fact pursuant to the notice issued by the Joint committee, the PP submitted a detailed reply to the Joint committee which is Annexure R-1 to the objections filed by the PP on 10.02.22 before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Third instance of knowledge of the present proceedings to the PP is its presence and participation in the survey of the project, conducted by the Joint committee. The Forth instance which proves that PP has sufficient knowledge about the pending proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal is that on 27.07.2021, the PP volunteered another written reply before the Joint committee appointed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Fifth instance of PP participating in the proceedings is the hearing dated 28.09.2021 before this Hon'ble Tribunal when the lawyer of PP appeared before this Hon'ble Tribunal, and also marked her presence but chose not to make submissions. It was noticed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in its order dated 28.09.2021 in para 7 " Accordingly, we have considered the matter further with the assistance of learned counsel for the applicants and for the state PCB. Other counsel though present have opted not to participate. Counsel for TDI says that she is merely proxy counsel seeking adjournment."
Thus the PP and its counsels have not been fair in submitting that they have not been heard by the Hon'ble Tribunal before the orders were passed.
Reliability of documents filed by PP before this Hon'ble Tribunal and before Joint committee.
5. It is rather a shocking matter that the PP has dared to file on affidavit before this Hon'ble Tribunal misleading documents pertaining to building/apartments, to misrepresent Environmental compliance with respect to plotted project in question. Starting with Annexure R-1 at page 32 of the objections filed by the PP, the PP has filed a copy of reply that was furnished by the PP to the Joint committee. The said document places reliance on occupancy certificate w.r.t Towers. None of these towers fall under the plotted project and therefore the reliance placed by PP on Tower OCs is nothing but an attempt to play fraud upon this Hon'ble Tribunal. Similarly Annexure II page 54 -79 comprises of NOC/CTE all pertaining to apartment and none of these relate to plotted project and yet the PP has filed these documents to prove compliances with respect to plotted project.
Similarly Annexure III page 80-127 comprises CTO documents and other misc documents again pertaining to apartments and do not represent the plotted area of the project. The reliance on these documents is again a fraudulent act on the part of PP. 87 Similarly photographs filed from page 135 to 162 pertains to some part of the apartment project and as well some part of plotted project. The pictures are misleading and taken from some particular areas. The same do not per se shows the compliances of the environmental norms. The same would rather show that the PP has put on the vacant undeveloped land some poles which do not even have the bulb/electric connection till date.
The Pictures of STP at page 164-166 itself refers to building/apartment (plz see the foot of the page), these pictures again do not pertain to plotted area of the project and have been filed by the PP to mislead this Hon'ble Tribunal.
Page 168-173 is only a Work Order for STP which work order itself came into existence during pendency of the present proceedings. It is rather shocking that as against the mandatory requirement of STP plant with capacity of 16300 KLD (Plz refer to EC certificate or report of Joint committee) for the plotted project , the PP has placed on record a work order for 125 KLD and that too is only an order and not the real STP .
Pictures at Page 175-181 again do not represent the true nature of roads and connectivity. The pictures annexed by the PP are taken selectively for giving a misleading impression to this Hon'ble Tribunal and the same is therefore not reliable.
Picture at page 183-189 are again from apartment/building project and cannot be relied upon with respect to plotted project in question. Page 191 is a chart of trees which is prepared by PP itself and is a self-serving documents with no reliability.
Pages 193 -195 are solar water heater and not claimed by PP to be part of plotted project and therefore liable to be discarded. As per pages 196-204 the PP had undertaken to provide modular STP with capacity of 16300 KLD in the plotted part of the project way back in 2017 but till date no STP exist on the plotted project. These documents goes against the false claims of the PP regarding compliances of environmental norms.
Page 205-207 are photographs of building/apartment area and the same do not pertain to plotted project and is therefore liable to be rejected for the present proceedings.
Pages 208-215 comprises of self-made chart by TDI and cannot be read as compliance of environment norms for the plotted project of TDI city.
Pages 217-221 one single EC for the entire project that came as late as on 4.9.2021 after grant of part completion certificate. The certificate filed herein by the PP is a manipulated one as internal page 2 which was most crucial part, has been withheld/concealed. (Kindly refer last point 2(iv) on page 217 and first point 2 (xvi) on Page 218
- internal page 2 of 9 has been concealed/withheld). Complete copy of EC is being attached for referral of the Hon'ble bench 88 Pages 223-262 comprised CTO documentation pertaining to towers/apartment project and do not relate to the plotted project. Pages 263-271 are agreement executed by PP after filing of instant proceedings before this Hon'ble Tribunal. Again these are agreements and not compliances per se.
Pages 273-275 are Fire NOC pertaining to building 15 Mts and above and again are not pertaining to plots.
Pages 276-316 comprises CTO applied for towers only and not to the part of Plotted project in question.
Pages 321-326 are duplicate documents, already discussed herein above Pages 328-331 are fire documents for buildings and are again not related to plotted project in question Pages 332-334 is CTO applied, after notice was issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The same was rejected in Nov. 2021 by the authority. Pages 335-338 are agreement as latest as Feb 2022 and they do not depict any environment compliances as these are only agreements. Execution of works per se is not known.
Pages 339-387 comprised only an agreement for waste management that was executed in April 2021. The pictures attached are not giving details regarding date and location nor suggest the ground reality. Pages 388-433 contains STP tower adequacy report pertaining to apartment project and not plotted project (which still does not have any STP as per admitted case of PP).
Pages 434-435 are some incomplete pages of agreement with invisible date and are not reliable documents.
Pages 436-440 are only agreements and do not depict execution on the ground.
Pages 441-444 are duplicate documents, already discussed herein above.
Pages 445-448 is again only an agreement which was executed as late as in Feb 2022. This again is only an agreement and do not depict the ground reality.
Pages 449-457 are showing poles without bulbs and electricity and do not advance the case of the PP from any stretch of imagination. Page 458 comprises of only a signboard to show way to block K to L and it is completely irrelevant to prove environment norm compliances.
Pages 459-478 are pictures showing some labourers tilling the soil and the same is wholly irrelevant for the present proceedings. Pages 479-482 Picture of main holes, relevance of which have not been mentioned by the PP, area to which it pertains is also not mentioned.
89 Pages 483-493 are pictures of dustbin in Apartment area and are not relevant for the present proceedings.
Pages 494-497 are pictures showing trucks parked, very irrelevant, as also do not mention the area.
Pages 498-499 pertains to pictures of apartments and do not pertain to plotted project in question.
Pages 500-505 are payment receipts of HSVP for sewerage connection, dated 14.8.2020 i.e after filing of the case. Unfortunately the area to which it pertains is not mentioned in the said document. Pages 506 is only an assurance of water and not the availability of real water and is of no avail.
Page 507 pertains to Kingsbury tower/apartment and again do not pertain to plotted project in question.
CONDUCT OF PP And Its Counsels
6. The Project Proponent has tried to play fraud upon this Hon'ble Tribunal by manipulating the records. Apart from filing documents pertaining to apartment project to show false development in the plotted project, It can be seen that a single EC for the several sector , has been filed by the PP at pages 217 to 221. In the said EC internal page 2, which is most crucial as it cast certain obligations to make provision for STP with 16300 KLD capacity, biodegradable waste management of 76733 Kg/day as well power requirement of 118167 KVA. The said internal page 2 of the EC is not on record as none of these requirement have been fulfilled on the site. The most relevant page no.2 has thus been deceptively taken out/concealed/withheld by the PP while filing this document. A running pagination has been given by the PP to remaining pages after skipping internal page no. 2, which amounts to a clear attempt to commit fraud on this Hon'ble Tribunal. Shockingly, the said missing internal page 2 further declares at the bottom that "xiii. There is no court case pending against the project". This false declaration has been made to secure EC, despite the fact that dozens of criminal cases and civil/consumer cases are today pending against the PP for last many years. A copy of complete EC is being filed herein as Annexure-I
7. The applicant herein as well as thousands of other plot buyers have been handed over uninhabitable plots by the PP devoid of any development/environment compliances. Today they are being denied justice as deceptive documents and false statements are being presented by the PP and its erudite counsels in the course of these proceedings. An affidavit pointing to the conduct of PP and its Counsel has been filed by the applicant before the NCDRC. Similar affidavits pointing conduct of TDI builder and its counsel have been filed by various other victims before Hon'ble NCDRC. One such affidavit filed by applicant is attached as Annexure -II.
8. The applicant reiterates the report prepared by the Joint committee appointed by this Hon'ble Tribunal which was made after due inspection of the premises in the presence of applicant as well as representatives of PP, is a true and correct report. Still further, the 90 DT&CP Haryana itself has reported vide letter dated 5.1.2021 (annexed with the report of Joint committee) that the PP is in clear violation of conditions of license and conditions of part completion certificate. It is thus an open and shut case which establishes fraud and failure on the part of project proponent beyond any reasonable doubts. The objections filed by the PP against the said report as well as against the well reasoned orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, are therefore liable to be rejected with punitive costs. The applicant prays this Hon'ble Tribunal to allow the instant application and impose heavy costs on PP for damage to the environment and further direct prosecution of directors/project proponent for filing misleading documents and false affidavits before this Hon'ble Tribunal." Written submissions dated 16.04.2022 filed on 16.04.2022 by M/s. Parkar Estate Development Pvt. Ltd in OA I
63. Written submissions dated 16.04.2022 have been filed on 16.04.2022 on behalf of M/s. Parkar Estate Development Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'PEDPL'). It is stated that pursuant to Supreme Court's order dated 11.09.2020 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3177/2020, M/s. Parkar Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kissan Udey Samiti & Ors., it has deposited Rs. 1.25 Crores. Further it has filed objections to joint Committee reports dated 28.08.2019 and 11.02.2020 as also Tribunal's order dated 23.10.2019. In the objections, PEDPL has said that it is a company registered under companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of real estate development; HSPCB granted NOC (Consent to Establish) on 09.02.2009 for setting up residential project at Sector 61, Kundli, Sonipat; EC was granted by MoEF&CC vide letter dated 01.08.2007 for setting up the above project namely "Parkar Residency"
with project cost of Rs. 90 Crores comprising five towers with 13 stories and 312 apartments, 30 penthouses and 51 EWS flats; as per EC dated 01.08.2007, plot area was 29,854 m2 and proposed built up area (FAR) was 52,244.50 m2; Parking space would be for 876 ECS at surface and basement; there are several specific and general conditions for construction phase and operation phase; after completion of project, proponent-PEDPL applied for Occupation Certificate; Part Occupation Certificate was issued on 25.11.2012 while complete Occupation 91 Certificate was issued on 28.01.2013; copy of the above Occupation Certificates are filed as annexure R/4 and R/5 to the written submissions;
part Occupation Certificate dated 25.11.2012 states that proponent-
PEDPL caused certain variations in the approved building plans for which it has paid Rs. 14,81,216/- as composition charges to TCPD Haryana. The description of building for which the above part Completion Certificate was issued in the said letter as under:
Tower No. 2, 3, 4 & 5 (Four Nos.) with Basement, (278 Dwelling Units, where construction has been completed), in Group Housing Scheme measuring 7.375 acres (License no. 651 of 2006 dated 30.03.2006 which is valid upto 29.03.2013) in Sector-61, District Sonipat, developed by Parker Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd."
64. Complete Occupation Certificate dated 28.01.2013 shows that for variations in the approved building plan, PEDPL paid Rs. 43,32,112/- towards composition charges to TCPD Haryana. The above certificate mentions following conditions:
1. The building shall be used for the purposes for which the occupation certificate is being granted and in accordance with the uses defined in the approved Zoning Regulations/zoning Plan and terms and conditions of the licence. Any violations of this condition shall render this occupation certificate null and void.
2. That you shall abide by the provisions of Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 and Rules framed there under. All the flats for which occupation certificate is being granted shall have to be compulsorily registered and a deed of apartment will have to be filed by you within the time schedule as prescribed under the Apartment Ownership Act 1983. Failure to do so shall invite legal proceedings under the statute.
3. That you shall comply with all the conditions lay down in the memo no.1281/FSO dated 28.11.2011 of Fire Station Officer, Sonepat with regard to fire safety measures.
4. That you shall be fully responsible to supply of water as per norms till such time the colony is handed over after final completion.
5. That you shall obtain the connection for disposal of sewerage and drainage from HUDA after laying the services to the point of external services on payment of prescribed fee and charges including tine cost of such connection. You shall also maintain the internal services to the satisfaction of the Director General till the colony is handed over after granting final completion 92
6. That you shall be solely responsible for disposal of sewerage and storm water of your colony till such time these services are made available by HUDA/State Government as per their scheme.
7. Level/Extent of the services to be provided by HUDA i.e. Water Supply, Sewerage etc. will be proportionate to EDC deposited.
8. That you shall maintain roof top rain water harvesting system properly and keep it operational all the time.
9. That in case some additional structures are required to be constructed as decided by HUDA at later stage, the same will be binding upon you.
10. The basements and stilt shall be used as per provisions of approved zoning plan and building plans.
11. That you shall comply with all the stipulations mentioned in the Environment clearance issued by Ministry of Environment & Forest, Government of India Vide No. 21-
437/2007-1A-III Dated 01.08.2007.
12. That you shall comply with all the stipulation mentioned in the NOC issued by AAI vide letter no. AAI/NOC/2006/170/1203-05 dated 13.09.2006.
13. The day & night marking shall be maintained and operated as per provision of ICAO standard.
14. That the outer facade of the buildings shall not be used for the purposes of advertisement and placement of hoardings.
15. That you shall neither erect nor allow the erection of any Communication and Transmission Tower on top of the building blocks.
16. That you shall use Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) in the building as well as street lighting.
17. That you shall impose a condition in the allotment/possession letter that the allottee shall used Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) for internal lighting, so as to conserve energy.
18. That you shall apply for water Supply, Sewage & Electricity connection within 15 days from the date of issuance of Occupation certificate and shall submit the proof of submission thereof to this office."
65. The description of the building given at the end of complete Occupation Certificate reads as under:
"Tower-1 (64 Dwelling Units), Convenient Shopping/Community Building and EWS Block (51 Units), where construction has 93 been Completed in group housing scheme measuring. 7.375 acres (Licence No. 651 of 2006 dated 30.03.2006) in Sector-61, Sonepat developed by Parker Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd."
66. CTO was issued by HSPCB vide letter dated 10.01.2014 under Section 25/26 of Water Act, 1974 stating that daily quantity of domestic effluent shall not exceed 200 KLD. The above CTO was for a period of 14.08.2013 to 13.08.2014 which was renewed vide CTO dated 20.08.2014.
67. With regard to discharge of effluent and renewal/non-renewal of CTO from time to time, proponent-PEDPL has blamed inaction/delayed inaction on the part of HSPCB. Its general defence is that it has complied with the prescribed standards and it shall be dealt with when specific issue of violations on the part of PEDPL shall be discussed. However, it is suffice to mention that with regard to drawal of ground water from borewell, the defense is that it had applied for permission vide application dated 06.02.2007 but no order was passed by CGWA, hence it cannot be said that permission was denied. In respect of the observations made in the joint Committee's report dated 28.08.2019, factum of deficiencies had been answered by PEDPL, as under:
"a. The Flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP and the flow meter at the outlet of STP is non-functional- It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that flow meters have been provided at the inlet and the outlet of the STP and both are fully functional. Copy of photographs depicting flow meter at inlet and outlet of STP are marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/52.
b. Log book is not being maintained properly- It is submitted that the log books are maintained properly at the project site as well as with Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). Copy of log books is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure- R/53(Colly).
c. The STP installed by the unit is not structurally adequate and needs to be ascertained from the reputed institute regarding structural adequacy- In this regard it is submitted that STP installed is structurally adequate. The answering Noticee got the project site and the STP inspected by a team from Department of Civil Engineering, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi in September, 2020. As per the technical adequacy report on the STP by the 94 department (Annexure-R/41), the STP installed was structurally adequate.
d. The samples of effluent from outlet of STP has been collected by the team and sent to Laboratory, HSPCB, Panchkula for analysis and as per analysis report No. 894 dated 02.07.2019,the parameters are exceeding the prescribed limits the Board - It is submitted that on the recommendations of Watech Consultants dated 07.06.2019, the STP was under service after due information to the HSPCB. That the answering Noticee would like to mention herein that during the servicing of the STP, the tanks, MBBR media and the filter vessels were thoroughly cleaned. Thereafter, instead of Culture, adequate amount of media (grown up bacteria) was procured and added so that the stabilization takes place within few days and Sufficient bacterial growth happens leading to proper treatment of the effluent. The fact that the STP is under maintenance was intimated to the board vide letter dated 10.06.2019. The servicing of the plant was completed on 14/06/2019 and after 5 days samples were collected by a team of HSPCB. It is evident that within a period of 5 days bacteria cannot grow completely even after using stimulators/enzymes. We understand that the STP outlet cannot give satisfactory results in a period of 5 days but it was also ensured that the effluent from STP was not utilized in gardening/horticulture/discharged in the environment in any way but the complete effluent was sent to underutilized 7.5 MLD STP, village Patla, RGEC, Sonepat leading to proper treatment of the waste leading to compliance as per HSPCB orders and norms.
e. The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has also not made any aareement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non- complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016- In relation to Solid Waste Management, separate dustbins have been assigned for collection of dry and wet waste at each tower. Copy of photographs depicting separate bins are marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/54. It is submitted that there is separate area for segregation and composting. The answering Noticee has appointed maintenance company namely M/s Javier Management Services Pvt. Ltd, which entered into a contract in September 2019 with Mr. Jorvl S/o Sh. Abdul Haq to collect the solid waste from the premises. Copy of the contract dated September 2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/55. That thereafter the maintenance company namely M/s Javier Management Services entered into a contract/agreement dated 01.04.2020 with Sh. Sandeep S/0 Sh. Rajinder Singh for collection of solid waste. The garbage is dumped at Narela/Murthal Nagar Nigam dumping yard through tractors. Copy of the Agreement dated 01.04.2020 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/56. Hence, in the humble submission, the answering Noticee is in compliance with the SWM Rules."95
68. PEDPL has also objected to the observations made in the order dated 23.10.2019 stating that general observations have been made without looking into the specific facts of this proponent who had obtained EC and CTE and proceeded in accordance with law. However, with regard to observations regarding deficiencies and functioning of STP, discharge of untreated effluent and non-compliance of SWM Rules, 2016, PEDPL has replied as under:
"c. In terms of STP, the deficiencies observed during sampling relates to absence of flow meter at the inlet of STPs, non maintenance of log book, the outlet of STPs are exceeding the prescribed limits of board, etc -It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that flow meters have been provided at the inlet and the outlet of the STP and both are fully functional (Photographs @ Annexure-R/52). It is submitted that the log books are maintained properly at the project site as well as with Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) (Annexure-R/53). It is submitted that on the recommendations of Watech Consultants dated 07.06.2019, the STP was under service after due information to the HSPCB. That the answering Noticee would like to mention herein that during the Servicing of the STP, the tanks, MBBR media and the filter vessels were thoroughly cleaned. Thereafter, instead of culture, adequate amount of media grown up bacteria) was procured and added so that the stabilization takes place within few days and sufficient bacterial growth happens leading to proper treatment of the effluent. The fact that the STP is under maintenance was intimated to the board vide letter dated 10.06.2019. The servicing of the plant was completed on 14/06/2019 and after 5 days samples were collected by a team of HSPCB. It is evident that within a period of 5 days bacteria cannot grow completely even after using stimulators/enzymes. We understand that the STP outlet cannot give satisfactory results in a period of 5 days but it was also ensured that the effluent from STP was not utilized in gardening/horticulture/discharged in the environment in any way but the complete effluent was sent to underutilized 7.5 MLD STP, village Parla, RGEC, Sonepat leading of proper treatment of the waste leading to compliance as per HSPCB orders and norms.
d. Untreated effluents from STPs are being discharged either through tanker or on open land near village Nagal for percolation- It is denied that the untreated effluents from STP was being discharged on open lands. The answering Noticee on 26.12.2018 received a notice from Haryana Pollution Control Board (Annexure-R/18) conveying the orders dated 18.12.2018 passed by the Regional Monitoring Committee constituted by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal in OA 606/2018:
"the effluent of licensed colonies in Sector 58 to 64, Sonepat can be disposed of in the 7.5 MLD STP, Grec Village Patla that is at present underutilized. The Colonizers can send the effluent 96 from these sectors to the STP through tankers at their own cost and sewerage charges will be recovered as per HSVP Norms."
That in compliance of the aforementioned notice/order dated 26.12.2018 the answering Noticee started disposing a part of the effluent to the underutilized STP plant of HSVP/HUDA at village Patla That after keeping the treated effluent to meet with the horticulture and agriculture needs of the project, the balance effluent in its entirety was being sent to 7.5 MLD STP, village Parla, RGEC, Sonepat. That thereafter the answering Noticee received the sanction of sewer connection in HSVP trunk sewer line to dispose off the treated water from STP, vide sanction letter dated 22.06.2021 (Annexure-R/43). The answering Noticee after receiving the aforesaid sanction connected its sewer line to HSVP trunk sewer line for discharge of treated water from STP and the same was informed to Executive Engineer, HSVP Division vide letter dated 02.09.2021 (Annexure-R/44).
e. The units are non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection segregation and disposal of solid waste exists- In relation to Solid Waste Management, separate dustbins have been assigned for collection of dry and wet waste at each tower (Photographs @ Annexure-R/54). It is submitted that there is separate area for segregation and composting. The answering Noticee has appointed maintenance company namely M/s Javier Management Services Pvit. Lid, which entered into a contract in September 2019 with Mr. Jorvl S/o Sh. Abdul Haq to collect the solid waste from the premises (Annexure R/55). That thereafter the maintenance company namely M/s Javier Management Services entered into a contract/agreement dated 01.04.2020 (Annexure-R/56) with Sh. Sandeep S/o Sh. Rajinder Singh for collection of solid waste. The garbage is dumped at Narela/Murthal Nagar Nigam dumping yard through tractors. Hence, in the humble Submission, the answering Noticee is in compliance with the SWM Rules.
It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee that Rs. 2.5 Crores levied on the answering Noticee vide order dated 23.10.2019 is not based on any data but only on one sample collected on 19.06.2019. It is submitted Thar the project of the answering Noticee has an adequate and appropriate Sewage Treatment Plant installed within the project site. It is a matter of record that in the last about 5/6 years no sample taken of the project site has ever failed. It is submitted that the answering Noticee has from time to time submitted sample reports to the office of the HSPCB, but the same have not been taken into consideration before imposition of the Environment Compensation. It is therefore submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal needs to take into consideration the fact that as per all other reports the samples are well within the prescribed limits and the EC levied is based on only one sample that to which was taken immediately after the service of the STP."
69. Raising objections to report dated 21.02.2020, PEDPL has submitted its reply as under:
97
"9.3. Objections against the report dated 21.02.2020 submitted by the Joint Committee in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal It is submitted that the joint Committee comprising representatives of CPCB, MoEF&CC and IIT Delhi filed a report dated 21.02.2020 in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal. The Joint Committee has levied Environmental Compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,70,88,735/- on the answering Noticee herein. It is submitted that a perusal of the report shows that the Joint Committee for the calculation of Environment Compensation has taken the period of violation from 13.08.2017 till 21.11.2019. That the answering Noticee had applied for renewal of CTO on 13.05.2017 vide application number 4173543 from new ID as the earlier ID password was not working. The fee of Rs.10/- was duly paid on 13.05.2017 (Annexure-R/10). It is pertinent to mention here that the answering Noticee had applied for the renewal of the CTO well within time i.e. 3 months prior of expiry of earlier CTO dated 13.08.2017. That there was no refusal or denial of the application for renewal of CTO Submitted, by the Respondent Board before the expiry of four months i.e. 13.09.2017 and hence as per section 25(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Consent to Operate shall be deemed to have been unconditionally given on the expiry of four months of the making of application unless the application is allowed or refused. Hence, it is submitted that the answering Noticee had deemed Consent to Operate. That it was only on 21.11.2017 i.e. after expiry of almost 6 months that the answering Noticee received a letter dated 21.11.2017 from Haryana Pollution Control Board as per which the answering Noticee was advised to apply for renewal of CTO with their old Industry ID (Annexure-R/12). That the since the answering Noticee had been asked to file a fresh application for renewal CTO, the same was applied online vide application no.4662201 dated 31.12.2017 and the payment of Rs.10/-was successfully completed (Annexure-R/13). Thereafter the answering Noticee had submitted a physical application for renewal of the CTO vide application dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure-R/15). The HSPCB refused the renewal of CTO vide letter dated 26.02.2018 (the copy of which was not received by the answering Noticee) and the answering Noticee came to know about the letter dated 26.02.2018 only vide show cause notice dated 13.06.2019. It is submitted that as per the notices dated 26.02.2018 and 13.06.2019 the CTO was refused due to some shortcomings which were rectified, but even after the rectification of the shortcomings, and repeated follow ups on part of the answering Noticee, the CTO renewal was not granted by the HSPCB and neither any reason for the same had been provided to the answering Noticee. It is submitted that shortcomings did not exist on site of the project but were only related to documents/letters which though were already available on record of HSPCB but not attached with the online Application for renewal of CTO filed by the answering Noticee. The answering Noticee would also like to mention that though the documents/letters were not attached with the online application, but the same were submitted by hand along with the application of renewal of CTO at the registered office of the HSPCB. It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee that 98 the imposition of EC to the tune of 4.70 crores taking the period of violation from 13.02.2017 to 21.11.2O19 is totally illegal and vague. The answering Noticee herein has applied for the application of renewal of CTO and it was only on 13.06.2019 that the answering Noticee came to know about the refusal of the renewal application. Therefore, till the 13.06.2019, the answering Noticee is deemed to be operating with the consent of the Board as per Section 21(2) of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and Section 25{7) of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act and EC cannot be imposed from 13.08.2017."
Brief Note/Written Submissions/Objections filed vide letter dated 16.04.2022 by M/s. Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. in OA I
70. The said brief note/written submissions, we find appropriate to reproduce as under:
"1. That the instant Original Application No. 764 or 2018 is preferred by the Applicant against the Respondents under section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (the Act, 2010). At the outset, it is important to mention that M/s Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd (a unit of Pardesi group AND erstwhile CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd) is neither a party in the said Original Application nor a copy of the same has ever been supplied to M/s Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. It submitted that the said Original Application was filed only against M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and only M/s TDI infrastructure Ltd. was a Respondent in the memo of appearance of the captioned OA. In the Original Application, the Applicant has alleged violations and non-compliance of environmental norms and sanctions in the project "TDI City - Kundli" located at Sonipat. It is submitted that without making M/s Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd a party to the O.A., the Applicant has alleged violations and non-compliance of environmental norms and sanctions in the project namely 'Ushay Towers'.
2. That on 06.05.2019, this Hon'ble Tribunal directed the Chief Secretary of Haryana to submit a report about the status of compliance of SWM Rules and Sewage Management in respect of the projects. Pursuant, thereto, Chief Secretary of Haryana submitted a Compliance Report dated 28.08.2019.
3. That the said Compliance Report was taken up for consideration on 23.10.2019. On the said date, without issuing notice to the answering noticee, this Hon'ble Tribunal passed interim coercive directions thereby imposing interim environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.5 Cr. That vide order dated 23.10.2019 this Hon'ble Tribunal also constituted a joint Committee comprising representatives of CPCB, MOEF&CC and IIT Delhi to suggest realistic compensation to be recovered, apart from other actions to be taken. In the humble submission of the answering Noticee, the said coercive actions are being taken in violation of the principles of Natural Justice & Audi Alteram Partem but are also in breach of the provisions the Act, 2010.99
4. That the Joint Committee submitted its compliance report dated 11.02.2020 on assessment of Environmental Compensation whereby the Joint Committee assessed an Environmental Compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,65,72,745/- on the answering Noticee without providing any opportunity of being heard which again is a clear violation of the principles of Natural Justice & Audi Alteram Partem.
5. That it is against interim order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble NGT in the absence of the answering Noticee, that the answering Noticee herein approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3178 of 2020 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to issue notice and also stayed the recovery proceedings subject to deposit of 50% of the interim Compensation vide order dated 11.09.2020. It is submitted that the answering Noticee has deposited an amount of Rs.1.25 Cr in the Appeal and hence the recovery proceedings are currently stayed. The matter is presently sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. That the present Objections are being preferred by the answering Noticee, M/s Pardesi Developers Pvt. Lid., to the Compliance Report dated 28.08.2019, Compliance Report by joint Committee dated 11.02.2020 and the interim order dated 23.10.2019. The instant Objections are filed by the answering. Noticee, through its Authorised Representative Mr. Harsh Daryani, who has been authorised to do so vide a Board of resolution dated 26.08.2020. Copy of the Board Resolution dated 26.08.2020 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/1.
7. FACTUAL MATRIX-
i. The answering Noticee herein, M/S Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.
is a reputed developer company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The answering Noticee is the project proponent of Ushay Towers located at Sector 61, Sonipat. It is submitted that the project in question i.e. Ushay Towers is a residential housing project located in Sonipat.
ii. The Original Project Proponent, one M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt.
Ltd., was granted Environment Clearance dated 12.06.2008 for construction of township, residential complexes and commercial complex at village Rasoi, G.T: Karnal Road, Sonipat, Haryana which was valid for a period of 10 years. Copy of the Environment Clearance dated 12.06.2008 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/2, iii. The answering Noticee herein in the year 2009, formerly CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd., purchased 75% share of the said project from the landowners who had granted CMD Built-Tech the license for development. Subsequently the development license was transferred in the name of CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the answering Noticee herein, by Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana only on 08.07.2013. Copy of the development license in the name of the answering Noticee herein dated 08.07.2013 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/3.100
iv. That the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 18.09.2013 admitted the winding up petition bearing Company Petition No. 468/2011 titled as "Shahi Exporters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CMD Built-tech Pvt. Ltd." Copy of the order dated 18.09.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is marked and the annexed herewith as Annexure-R/4. It is submitted that since the answering Noticee herein had purchased 75% share of the project from CMD Build-tech Pvy. Lid., the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 22.01.2014 in CA No.468/2011 directed the answering Noticee herein to maintain Status Quo with respect to any development rights in relation to the said property. It is pertinent to mention herein that from this date the answering Noticee herein ceased to be in possession of the said property, as the Official Liquidator took over the same. Copy of the order dated 22.01.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/5. It was only vide order dated 09.11.2017 in CA Petition No. 468/2011 that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court released 75% of the said property (Tower- Q1, Q3, P1, P2, P3, P5, P6, P7, P8. R1 and two towers in S Block) belonging to the answering Noticee herein. Copy of the order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/6.
v. The, Occupation Certificate dated 01.02.2018 was granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana for Towers Q1, Q3, P1, P2, P3 P5, P6, R1 and EWS Flats. Copy of the Occupation Certificate dated 01.02.2018 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/7.
vi. The Application for grant of Terms of Reference (TORs) was submitted vide application dated 21.03.2018. The Terms of Reference (TORs) was granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana vide letter dated 07.08.2018. Copy of the grant of Terms of Reference (TORS) letter dated 07.08.2018 issued by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/8.
vii. Thereafter the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dated 12.02.2019 released the remaining 5 towers from the custody of the Official Liquidator and disposed off the CA Petition No. 468/2011. Thus it is only at this stage that the answering Noticee herein came in complete possession of the entire property on which Ushay Towers has been developed. Copy of the order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/9.
viii. That an inspection was conducted by the officials of the Haryana Pollution Control Board during the monsoon season on 03.06.2019 and samples were collected from the inlet and the outlet of the STP. That pursuant to the inspection the answering Noticee received a Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2019 alleging certain deficiencies on part of the project proponent. It is pertinent to mention herein that the Show Cause the Notice dated 10.06.2019 had no mention whatsoever about the inspection carried out on 03.06.2019 neither did it mention anything about the report of the samples collected. Copy of the 101 Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/10.
ix. The Occupation Certificate for the remaining towers was granted by the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana on 12.06.2019. Copy of the Occupation Certificate dated 12.06.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/11.
x. That the inlet and outlet of the STP were again tested on 19.06.2019 and the samples were found to be well within the prescribed limits. The answering Noticee duly replied to the show cause notice dated 10.06.2019 vide reply dated 20.06.2019. Copy of the reply dated 20.06.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/12. That without taking into consideration the reply dated 20.06.2019 filed by the answering Noticee herein, the Haryana Pollution Control Board issued another Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2019 to the answering Noticee indicating that the parameters of the samples collected were found higher than the prescribed limits. It is important to mention herein that the report bearing no. 828 dated 14.06.2019 of the samples taken on 03.06.2019 was not provided to the answering Noticee. Copy of the show cause notice dated 29.07.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as and annexed as Annexure-R/13.
xi. That the answering Noticee submitted a reply dated 09.08.2019 to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.07.2019. It was duly mentioned that in the reply dated 09.08.2019 that when the inspection was carried out on 03.06.2019, the STP installed at the project site was under maintenance and hence the parameters of the samples collected were found higher than the prescribed limits. Copy of the reply dated 09.08.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/14.
xii. That the Haryana State Pollution Control Board failed to take into consideration the reply dated 09.08.2019 submitted by the answering Noticee and a heavy environment compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,37,500/- was imposed by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board vide order dated 10.10.2019. Copy of the order dated 10.10.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/15. That the answering Noticee in furtherance of the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Haryana Pollution Control Board, deposited the environmental compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,37,500/- on 31.10.2019. Copy of the payment receipt dated 31.10.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/16.
xiii. That thereafter, the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal relying upon the inspection carried out by HSPCB on 03.06.2019 and the compliance report submitted by the Chief Secretary of Haryana dated 28.08.2019, imposed an interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.5 crores on the answering Noficee vide order dated 23.10.2019. Copy of the order dated 23.10.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/17. It is submitted that the Environment Compensation levied on the answering Noticee needs to be revised and the same was 102 imposed by this Hon'ble Tribunal without hearing the answering Noticee herein.
xiv. Further, this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal constituted another committee comprising of a member of Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Forrest & Climate Change, and IIT Delhi to assess the final environmental compensation to be paid by the project proponents the proponents including the answering Noticee.
xv. That as already explained in the preceding paragraphs the project in question earlier belonged to CMD Developers and thereafter Official Liquidator was appointed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the year 2014, the answering Noticee herein came in complete possession of the entire property on which Ushay Towers has been developed only on 12.02.2019. That it was at this stage and after the receipt of the show cause notice dated 10.10.2019 it came to the knowledge of the answering Noticee herein that there was no CTO that had been obtained by CMD Build-tech Pvt. Ltd. That knowing the same and being an environment conscious developer, the answering Noticee firstly duly paid the Environment Compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,37,500/- and thereafter immediately applied for the Consent to Operate vide application dated 16.11.2019. Copy of the Application dated 16.11.2019 for obtaining Consent to Operate submitted by the answering Noticee herein is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/18. However, it is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that no untreated effluent was ever being discharged by the answering Noticee onto any land. The project proponent has installed a STP of 660 KLD at the project site. At the time of inspection in the month of June 2019 only 50 flats in the said project were occupied and the total population in the project site was roughly around 240 people (including residents, staff and visitors). It is submitted that as also noted in the report dated 28.08.2019 only approximately 27 KLD of waste water was being generated in the year 2019, which was being sent to STP of capacity 660 KLD, Hence, it can be rightly said that the STP installed was not being utilized to its full capacity since only approx 27 KLD was being generated against the capacity of 660 KLD and was not of under capacity. It is submitted that the treated waste water from the STP was being utilized for flushing (dual plumbing) and horticulture (Gardening purpose). Therefore it is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that at the time of inspection and even thereafter, not much waste water was being generated at the project site in comparison to the capacity of the STP and the treated water was being used for flushing and gardening purposes and there was no discharge of untreated effluent by the answering Noticee either outside the premises of the project or any stagnation has ever been alleged. It is submitted that the project of the answering Noticee was non-polluting at any given point of time. It is submitted that the treated effluent used for horticulture meets the criteria as prescribed by the 103 Board from time to time. A copy of the tabular chart showing Waste water management and water balance is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/19.
xvi. That the answering Noticee got the project site and the STP inspected by a certified laboratory on 25.01.2020 and the samples were found to be well within the permissible limits. The report of the sample collection dated 31.01.2020 was submitted to the Regional Officer Haryana State Pollution Control Board. Copy of the report dated 31.01.2020 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/20.
xvii. That a report dated 21.02.2020 was formulated and submitted by Joint Committee in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal. Copy of the report dated 21.02.2020 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/21. The Joint Committee the finalized their evaluation of Environment Compensation and the answering Noticee has been made liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,65,72,745/- Crores. It is pertinent to mention herein that the committee has reached the said conclusion without ever providing the answering Noticee with the opportunity of being heard. It is further important to mention herein that the joint Committee has erroneously taken the period of violation from 01.02.2018 to 21.11.2019 without any justification. It is submitted that the inspection was carried out on 03.06.2019 and it was only on this date that the samples collected were not found to be within the prescribed limits. It is reiterated that the when the inspection dated 03.06.2019 was carried out, the STP was under maintenance and hence the samples were found not to be within the prescribed limits. That as already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs a re-inspection was carried out on 19.06.2019 and the samples collected were found to be within the permissible limits. Hence, without prejudice to the rights and contents of the answering Noticee herein, Environment Compensation (if any) should only be levied from 03.06.2019 till 19.06.2019.
xviii. That vide letter dated 22.06.2020 the Haryana Pollution control Board informed the answering Noticee that the Joint Committee formed by this Hon'ble Tribunal has completed the final calculation of Environment Compensation and that the answering Noticee herein was liable to abide by the same. At the outset it is submitted that no notice was issued to answering Noticee herein by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal nor was any opportunity of being heard provided by the Joint Committee prior to the finalizing of the Environment Compensation. Copy of the letter dated 22.06.2020 issued by Haryana Pollution Control Board is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/22.
xix. That pursuant to the letter dated 22.06.2020 issued by the Haryana Pollution Control Board, the answering Noticee submitted a detailed representation dated 05.08.2020 to the Board. It is submitted that in the representation it was duly mentioned by the answering Noticee herein that it had installed a 660 KLD Sewage Treatment Plant at the site which was fully 104 functional and the unit is/was not discharging any untreated effluent. Copy of the representation dated 05.08.2020 filed by the answering Noticee herein is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/23.
xx. That since the Haryana Pollution Control Board failed to take into consideration any of the reply submitted by the answering Noticee herein and in appeal against the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal on 23.10.2019, the answering Noticee filed Civil Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as M/S Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd v. Kissan Udey Samiti & Ors. being CA no. 3177/2020, in which the following orders were passed on 11.09.2020:
"Issue notice returnable after eight weeks on the condition that the appellant(s) shall deposit 50% of the interim compensation imposed on them before the Tribunal, with the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks.
However, the appellants shall appear before the State Pollution Control Board as directed by the Tribunal. The State Pollution Control Board shall give an opportunity to the appellants before passing a final order without being influenced by the interim compensation imposed by the Tribunal.
The recovery proceedings are stayed for period of 8 weeks within which the amount of 50% of the interim compensation shall be deposited. In default, the recovery proceedings shall revive.
Copy of the order dated 11.09.2020 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/24.
xxi. That the Application for CTO dated 16.11.2019 was also rejected due to the directions of the Ld. Additional Chief Secretary of Haryana dated 18.09.2019 that no further CTO shall be issued till the completion of all infrastructure facilities (by the Government Bodies) in Sector 58-64. Copy of the order dated 18.09.2019 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure- R/25. It is submitted that once the laying of HSVP trunk sewer line was completed by HSVP, the answering Noticee again submitted an application dated 12.12.2020 before the Haryana Pollution Control Board for obtaining Consent to Operate. The Consent to Operate was granted to the answering Noticee on 05.01.2021 valid from 25.12.2020 till 30.09.2022. Copy of the Consent to Operate dated 05.01.2021 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/26.
xxii. The answering Noticee has also received the sanction of sewer connection in HSVP trunk sewer line to dispose off the treated water from STP, vide sanction letter dated 14.12.2020. Copy of the sanction letter dated 14.12.2020 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/27.
xxiii. That it is pertinent to mention herein that notice was issued to the answering Noticee in the present matter by this Hon'ble Tribunal for the first time vide order dated 28.09.2021. That 105 pursuant to the order dated 28.09.2021, the answering Noticee received a notice dated 07.10.2021 issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal. Copy of the notice dated 07.10.2021 issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure R/28.
xxiv. That in compliance of the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the answering Noticee deposited an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/- on 01.11.2021.
xxv. That further a letter was received from Haryana Pollution Control Board intimating the answering Noticee about the personal hearing to be held before the Joint Committee on 03.02.2022. That the answering Noticee attended the personal hearing on 03.02.2022 and subsequently a letter dated 10.02.2022 was issued by the Haryana Pollution Control Board asking the answering Noticee to submit a detailed representation along with certain relevant documents. Copy of the letter dated 10.02.2022 issued by the Haryana. Pollution Control Board is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure- R/29. That in compliance of the letter dated 10.02.2022 the answering Noticee submitted a representation along with the relevant documents along with a cover letter on 17.02.2022. Copy of the cover letter dated 17.02.2022 along with the representation is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure- R/30.
8. The answering Noticee is conscious of its duty is towards the cause of environment and takes all necessary steps to operate within the prescribed parameters. That the answering Noticee has been regularly taking steps and complying with the directions issued/ notified with regards to water pollution and air pollution from time to time, by the Board and other concerned agencies for water and air pollution mitigation. It is submitted that the conditions stipulated in the Environment Clearance are duly complied with by the answering Noticee from time to time. That some of the many Compliances undertaken are as under:-
(i) Height Clearance- That a No Objection Certificate for Height Clearance dated 30.09.2014 was issued by the Airports Authority of India (AAI). Copy of the No Objection Certificate for Height Clearance dated 30.09.2014 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/31.
(ii) Applicability of Forest Laws on Non-Forest Land- It is submitted that the a letter dated 03.03.2015 was issued by the Forest Department clarifying that the project site (CLU) is outside the closed forest area under Section 4 and 5 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act 1900. Copy of the letter dated 03.03.2015 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/32.
(iii)Power Supply-A letter dated 04.02.2015 was issued by the Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited assuring the provision/supply of tentative load of 7500 KVA from the nearest Sub-Station as per UHBVN norms. Copy of the letter dated 04.02.2015 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/33.106
(iv) HT Installation- The project site was inspected by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Inspectorate (Haryana) on 30.05.2018 and the same was found generally complying with the relevant provision of CEA (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. It is submitted that the approval for energisation of the HT comprising of Ix 630 KVA 11/0.433KV was thereby accorded to the answering Noticee. Copy of the letter/approval dated 31.05.2018 issued by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Inspectorate (Haryana) is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/34.
(v) DG Set- The project site was inspected by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Inspectorate (Haryana) on 23.08.2017 and the same was found generally complying with the relevant provisions of CEA (Measures Relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. It is submitted that the approval for energisation of the DG Set comprising of 1 x 250 KVA was thereby accorded to the answering Noticee. Copy of the letter/approval dated 24.08.2017 issued by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Inspectorate (Haryana) is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/35. That thereafter another approval for installation of 3x2000 KVA and 1x250 KVA, 3x500 KVA & 1x1000 KVA DG Sets was accorded vide letter dated 20.06.2017. Copy of the DG Sets as Approval dated 20.06.2017 is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-
R/36.
(vi) Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant- It is submitted that a Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant (with net- metering facility) is installed at the site Ushay Towers by m/S Asian Generators Pvt. Ltd. on 06.07.2017. Copy of the Commission Report for Grid Connected Solar Photovoltaic Power Plant is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure- R/37.
(vii) Fire NOC- That the part No Objection Certificate from the fire safety point of view was granted on 18.10.2017. It is submitted that the remaining part No Objection Certificate from the fire safety point of view was granted on 16.05.2019. Copy of the part No Objection Certificate from the fire safety point of view dated 18.10.2017 and part No Objection Certificate from the fire safety point of view dated 16.05.2019 are marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/38 and Annexure-R/39 respectively.
(viii) Green Area- It is submitted that out of the total plot area of 57254 sq mtr. the green area is 13597.97 sq. mtr. i.e. 23.75% of the total plot area. Copy of the plan approved by the Town and Country Planning Department, Haryana is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/40.
That as per the conditions imposed in the Environment Clearance CFL/LED lights are used in the premises, STP is fully functional, treated water is used in horticulture and rain harvesting/ recharge pits are provided in the premises or collection of rain water. It is submitted that in compliance of the conditions of the Environment Clearance, the answering Noticee from time to time has been filing 107 the compliance reports before the Respondent Authorities. To show its bonafide in this regard, the answering Noticee is attaching for the king perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal a copy of the compliance reports filed as late as 2019 and 2020. It is submitted that the reports for the intervening period are not being attached for the sake of brevity. Copy of the compliance reports from the year 2019 and 2020 are marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/41 (Colly).
9. OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS:
9.1. Objections/submissions against the Compliance Report dated 28.08.2019 submitted by the Chief Secretary of Haryana.
It is submitted that in compliance of the order dated 06.05.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, the Chief Secretary of Haryana submitted a report dated 28.08.2019 in which following observations were made against the answering Noticee herein:
a. The Flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP and the flow meter at the outlet of STP is non-functional- It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that flow meters have been provided at the inlet and the outlet of the STP and both are fully functional. Copy of photographs depicting flow meter at inlet and Outlet of STP are marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/42.
b. Log book is not being maintained properly- It is submitted that the log books are maintained properly at the project site as well as with Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP). Copy of log books is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/43 (Colly) c. The unit is non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by the project Proponent. The project has 15 also not made any agreement with any agency for Scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold and thus, non complying under provision of Solid Waste Management and Handling Rules, 2016- In relation to Solid Waste Management, separate dustbins have bee assigned for collection of dry and wet waste at each tower and also at the ground level for segregation of waste. Copy of photographs depicting separate bins are marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/44. It is submitted that there is separate area for segregation and composting. It is submitted that an adequate space for converting wet Waste into compost is being maintained at the project site and finally the inert waste is disposed off at the Municipal Corporation Sonipat, facilitated and operated by JBM Enviro. The answering Noticee has also entered into an agreement with M/S Satyam Petro Chemical (authorized, registered and licensed under CPCB and HSPCB, having a cost effective organization of 108 Hazardous Waste to safely dispose generated waste oil) for safe disposal of Hazardous Waste (Used Lube Oil).
Copy of the agreement entered into with M/S Satyam Petro Chemical for safe disposal of Hazardous Waste (Used, Lube Oil) is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/45.
d. It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee that the Sewage Treatment Plant of 660 KLD installed by the project proponent, is fully operational and the treated effluent from the STP is recycled/Re-used for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. At the time of inspection in the month of June 2016 only 50 flats in the said project were occupied and the total population in the project site was roughly around 240 people (including residents, staff and visitors). It is submitted that as also noted in the report dated 28.08.2019 only approximately 27 KLD of waste water was being generated in the year 2019, which was being sent to STP of capacity 660 KLD. Hence, it can be rightly said that the STP installed was not being utilized to its full capacity since only approx 27 KLD was being generated against the capacity of 660 KLD. It is submitted that the treated waste water from the STP was being utilized for flushing (dual plumbing) and horticulture (Gardening purpose). Therefore it is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that at the time of inspection and even thereafter, not much waste water was being generated at the project site in comparison to the capacity of the STP and the treated domestic effluent was being used for flushing and gardening purposes and there was no discharge of untreated effluent by the answering Noticee. It is submitted that the treated effluent used for horticulture meets the criteria as prescribed by the Board from time to time. It is submitted that the answering Noticee has now received the sanction of sewer connection in HSVP trunk sewer line to dispose off the treated water from STP, vide sanction letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-R/27). The answering Noticee after receiving the aforesaid sanction connected its sewer line to HSVP trunk sewer line for discharge of treated water from STP and electromagnetic flow meter has also been installed.
9.2. Objections against the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
It is important to mention herein that this Hon'ble Tribunal relying on the report dated 28.08.2019, observed blanket violations of environmental laws by all the projects in question.
a. No prior Environmental Clearance & CTE was obtained- It is submitted that the answering Noticee has stepped into the shoes of the earlier project proponent i.e. CMD 109 Build-tech Pvt. Ltd. and it was in the year 2017 that 12 towers were released in favour of the answering Noticee herein and the remaining towers were released only in 2019. It is submitted that since the answering Noticee came in complete possession of the project in question only in the year 2019, the answering Noticee has no knowledge about the procurement of CTE by the earlier project proponent i.e. M/S CMD Build-tech Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that The Original Project Proponent, one M/s CMD Built-Tech Pt. Ltd., was granted Environment Clearance dated 12.06.2008 for construction of township, residential complexes and commercial Complex at village Rasoi, G.T. Karnal Road, Sonipat, Haryana Annexure- R/2) and the same was valid for a period of 10 years. That before the expiry of the Environment Clearance in June 2018, the Application for grant of Terms of Reference (TORs) was submitted vide application dated 21.03.2018. The Terms of Reference (TORs) was granted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana vide letter dated 07.08.2018 (Annexure-R/8).
b. The projects have been constructed without obtaining Environmental Clearance and without CTE/CTO from HSPCB- It is reiterated that EC dated 12.06.2008 was granted to the original project proponent on 12.06.2008. Thereafter an application for grant of TORs for extension of EC was submitted by the project proponent and the TORs was granted on 07.08.2018. However, the extension in EC has not been granted due to the pendency of the present Original Application before this Hon'ble Tribunal.
With respect to Consent to Operate it is submitted that as already explained in the preceding paragraphs the project in question earlier belonged to CMD Developers and thereafter Official Liquidator was appointed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the year 2014. It is submitted that the answering Noticee herein came in complete possession of the entire property on which Ushay Towers has been developed only on 12.02.2019 (Order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court @ Annexure-R/9). That it was at this stage and after the receipt of the show cause notice dated 10.10.2019 it came to the knowledge of the answering Noticee herein that there was no CTO that had been obtained by CMD Build- tech Pvt. Ltd. That knowing the same and being an environment conscious developer, the answering Noticee firstly duly paid the Environment Compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,37,500/- imposed by the Haryana Pollution Control Board vide order dated 10.10.2019 and thereafter immediately applied for the Consent to Operate vide application dated 16.11.2019 (Application for CTO @ Annexure-R/18). That the Application for CTO dated 16.11.2019 was rejected due to the directions of the Ld. Additional Chief Secretary of Haryana dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure R/25) that no further CTO shall be issued till the completion of all infrastructure facilities in Sector 58- 110
64. It is submitted that once the laying of HSVP trunk sewer line was completed by HSVP, the answering Noticee again submitted an application dated 12.12.2020 before the Haryana Pollution Control Board for obtaining Consent to Operate. The Consent to Operate was granted to the answering Noticee on 05.01.2021 valid from 25.12.2020 till 30.09.2022.
c. In terms of STP the deficiencies observed during sampling relates to absence of flow meter at the inlet of STPs, non maintenance of log book, the outlet of STPs are exceeding the prescribed limits of board, etc- It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that flow meters have been provided at the inlet and the outlet of the STP and both are fully functional (Photographs Annexure-R/42). If is submitted that the log books are maintained properly at the project site as well as with Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) (Annexure- R/43). It is submitted that the inspection was carried out on 03.06.2019 during monsoon season and the STP was under maintenance due to which the samples collected were beyond the permissible limits. That a re-inspection was carried out on 19.06.2019 and the samples collected were well within the prescribed limit.
d. Untreated effluents from STPs are being discharged either through tanker or on open land near village Nagal for percolation-It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee that the Sewage Treatment Plant of 660 KLD installed by the project proponent, is fully operational and the treated effluent from the STP is recycled/Re-Used 24 for flushing, horticulture & D.G. cooling. At the time of inspection in the month of June 2016 only 50 flats in the said project were occupied and the total population in the project site was roughly around 240 people (including residents, staff and visitors). It is submitted that as also noted in the report dated 28.08.2019 only approximately 27 KLD of Waste water was being generated in the year 2019, which was being sent to STP of capacity 660 KLD. Hence, it can be rightly said that the STP installed was not being utilized to its full capacity since only approx 27 KLD was being generated against the capacity of 660 KLD. It is submitted that the treated waste water from the STP was being utilized for flushing and horticulture (Gardening purpose). Therefore it is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that at the time of inspection and even thereafter, not much waste water was being generated at the project site in comparison to the capacity of the STP and the treated water was being used for flushing and gardening purposes and there was no discharge of untreated effluent by the answering Noticee. It is submitted that the answering Noticee received the sanction of sewer connection in HSVP trunk sewer line to dispose off the 111 treated water from STP, vide sanction letter dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-R/27). The answering Noticee after receiving the aforesaid sanction connected its sewer line to HSVP trunk-sewer line for discharge of treated water from STP and electromagnetic flow meter has also been installed.
The answering Noticee got the project site and the STP inspected. As per the technical adequacy report on the STP, the STP installed was structurally adequate. Copy of the technical adequacy report on the STP is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/46. That in the humble submission of the answering Noticee, that not much waste water was being generated at the project site in comparison to the capacity, of 660 KLD of the STP and the treated water was being used for flushing and gardening purposes and there was no discharge of untreated effluent by the answering Noticee. Therefore, it is humbly submitted that there arises no question of PERMANENT DAMAGE to the environment being caused by the answering Noticee in the operation of his project. It is submitted that except on only one event i.e. 03.06.2019, on no other event the samples taken from the inlet and outlet of STP have failed. Hence, there arises no question of imposing such a hefty amount of Environment Compensation on the answering Noticee as there exists no nexus between the compensation levied and the environmental damage involved.
e. The units are non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection segregation and disposal of solid waste exists- In relation to Solid Waste Management, separate dustbins have been assigned for collection of dry and wet waste at each tower and also at the ground level for segregation of waste (Photographs @ Annexure- R/44). It is submitted that there is separate area for segregation and composting. It is submitted that an adequate space for converting wet waste into compost is being maintained at the project site and finally the inert waste is disposed off at the Municipal Corporation Sonipat, facilitated and operated by JBM Enviro. The answering Noticee has also entered into an agreement dated 15.01.2021 with M/S Satyam Petro Chemical (authorized, registered and licensed under CPCB and HSPCB, having a cost effective organization of Hazardous Waste to safely dispose generated waste oil) for safe disposal of Hazardous Waste (Used Lube Oil) (Agreement Annexure-R/45).
It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee that Rs. 2.5 Crores levied on the answering Noticee vide order dated 23.10.2019 is not based on any data but only on one sample collected on 03.06.2019. It is submitted that the project of the answering Noticee has an adequate and appropriate Sewage Treatment Plant installed within the project site. It is a matter of record that in the last about so 112 many years no sample taken of the project site has ever failed. It is submitted that the answering Noticee has from time to time submitted sample reports to the office of the HSPCB, but the same have not been taken into consideration before imposition of the Environment Compensation. It is therefore submitted that this Hon'ble Tribunal needs to take into consideration the fact that as per all other reports the samples are well within the prescribed limits and the EC levied is based on only one sample that to which was taken when the STP was under maintenance. It is also pertinent to mention herein in the report submitted by the Chief Secretary of Haryana dated 28.08.2019 there was no observation whatsoever with regards to untreated effluent being discharged/percolated by the answering Noticee herein. It is submitted that this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal has made blanket observations for all the project proponents and the allegations levelled against the answering Noticee herein are in complete contradiction to report dated 28.08.2019.
9.3. Objections against the report dated 21.02.2020 submitted by the Joint Committee in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
That a report dated 21.02.2020 was formulated and submitted by Joint Committee in compliance of the order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal. The Joint Committee finalized their evaluation of Environment Compensation and the answering Noticee has been made liable to pay an amount of Rs. 3,65,72,745/- Crores. It is pertinent to mention herein that the committee has reached the said conclusion without ever providing the answering Noticee with the opportunity of being heard. It is further important to mention herein that the joint Committee has erroneously taken the period of violation from 01.02.2018 to 21.11.2019 without any justification. It is submitted that the inspection was carried out on 03.06.2019 and it was only on this date that the samples collected were not found to be within the prescribed limits (since the STP was under maintenance). That as already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs a re-inspection was carried out on 19.06.2019 and the samples collected were found to be within the permissible limits. Hence, without prejudice to the rights and contents of the answering Noticee herein, Environment Compensation (if any) should only be levied from 03.06.2019 till 19.06.2019.
It is in the humble submission of the answering Noticee that the project in question earlier belonged to CMD Developers and thereafter Official Liquidator was appointed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the year 2014. It is submitted that the answering Noticee herein came in complete possession of the entire property on which Ushay Towers has been developed only on 12.02.2019 (Order dated 12.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court @ Annexure-R/9). That since the answering Noticee came in possession of the 113 entire property only in the year 2019, calculating environmental compensation from 01.02.2018 is unjustifiable, unreasonable and thus, merits to be set aside.
10. That it is important to mention herein that ab-initio a bore well existed on this piece of land (originally agricultural) purchased for building this housing society. The water used in construction (treated water from STP/with other resources) as well as later on for the purpose of domestic needs (fresh water) of the residents of the society, was procured through tankers from different sources and the bore well remained defunct mostly. Copy of one of the letters showing arrangement of water from a water supply agency is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/47. That however, recently an application dated 31.01.2022 for permission to extract ground water has been submitted by the answering Noticee before the Haryana Water Resources Authority, so that the bore-well which is lying defunct can be utilized.
11. It is also in the humble submission of the answering Noticee herein that for the project in question a sum of Rs. 28.50 Cr (as on 07.08.2012) towards external development charges stands deposited with the Government Agencies. Copy of the EDC details deposited with respect to the project in question is marked and annexed herewith as Annexure-R/48. It is submitted that the while imposing the Environment Compensation on the project proponent, the Joint Committee as well as this Hon'ble National Green Tribunal have failed to acknowledge that the delay in carrying out External Development Work such as laying down of sewer lines and water pipelines, by the Government Agencies for which the answering Noticee has already deposited a huge sum, cannot be attributed to the project proponents. The answering Noticee as well as the other project proponents cannot be made liable for the delay in the procedure adopted by the Government agencies for carrying out external development work.
12. The answering Noticee is conscious of its duty is towards the cause or environment and takes all necessary steps to operate within the prescribed parameters. That the answering Noticee has been regularly taking steps and complying with the directions issued/ notified with regards to water pollution and air pollution from time to time, by the Board and other concerned agencies for water and air pollution mitigation. In this view of the matter, taking the factual averments and the legal submissions herein above, specially the fact that no sample has ever failed (except the sample taken on 03.06.2019 during monsoon period during service of the STP) and also that during the time period when the inspection took place and even after that not much waste water was being generated at the project site in comparison to the capacity of 660 KLD of the STP and the treated water was being used for flushing and gardening purposes with no discharge/stagnation anywhere, the imposition of EC in any case would be very harsh upon the answering Noticee, keeping in view the present circumstances arising out of recession in the Real Estate Sector over the past few years and financial hardships especially on account of Covid-19." 114
71. We have heard counsels for applicants in both OAs and appearing for HSPCB, CPCB and some developers' proponents. Applicants have clearly said that the violations alleged in OAs are substantiated from the report submitted by the joint Committees and, therefore, the construction raised by the developers' proponents questioned in OAs are patently illegal. Hence appropriate direction for demolition and restoration of the premises to its original position and also environmental compensation be assessed and imposed upon such violators for the damage caused to the environment, for remediation/rejuvenation of environment in the area in question. It is also said that appropriate criminal action be also taken against such violations. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for TDI Infrastructure Ltd. referring to its objections pleaded that there is no violation on its part and the allegations made are incorrect. All basic amenities have been provided, sewage generated in the completed project is functional and solid waste and water management is in accordance with the relevant rules. Similarly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. contended that the allegation and violation of environmental laws given against the said proponent are incorrect. Hence, no action is warranted against the proponent. Similar arguments have been advanced on behalf of M/s. Narang Constructions & Financiers Pvt. Ltd.
Additional written submissions dated 18.04.2022 filed on 18.04.2022 by applicants in OA II
72. Three aspects have been raised in written submissions which are as under:
"(i) The assessment made by Joint Committee in its report dated 12.4.2022, to the effect that cost of the plotted project is only 454.77 Cr., is highly undervalued. The cost of project as per EC (page 2 point xiv of EC) is Rs. 1790 Crores. The calculation of environment compensation calculated at 5% of project cost is therefore highly undervalued and needs serious consideration of this Hon'ble Tribunal for making a right assessment of the compensation.115
(ii) A paltry compensation of Rs. 22.73 Crore, as assessed by the Joint Committee, is highly inadequate for a vast project spread over 1000 acres, with no CTO and no environmental compliances in place.
(iii) On internal page 13 of the report of Joint committee dated 12.4.2022, the Joint committee has identified the violation of consent management and Environment Clearance. However, serious environmental Violations of disposal of untreated sewerage waster on vacant residential plots which was witnessed by the joint committee members in presence of applicant and respondent/PP, has not been considered at all. Pictures of the same were also attached in the onsite inspection report dated 20.1.2021.
ISSUES:
73. The basic issue raised in these matters is regarding compliance or violation of environmental norms, terms and conditions of Consent/EC. In the light of the pleadings referred above, the objections filed by some of the developers/proponents and the reports submitted by joint Committee and other authorities, in our view, following issues need be answered in these OAs:
I. Whether there is violation of environmental norms and laws as also the provisions of Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and EP Act 1986 in respect of various projects questioned in OAs I and II?
II. Whether Statutory Regulators and other authorities including local bodies have failed to enforce law, in particular, environmental laws in respect of project in question?
III. What remedial action/order need to be passed in these matters?
74. ISSUE I: We shall proceed to consider issue I by referring to the findings recorded by joint Committee in its report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019 and, would simultaneously consider objections, if any, filed by concerned proponent and discuss the same. We shall also proceed project/proponent wise in this regard. 116
75. In the report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019, joint Committee inspected various projects in Sectors-58 to 64, Kundli, Sonipat developed by different builders, namely, TDI Infrastructure Ltd.; TDI Realcon Pvt. Ltd.; Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. (Sunshine Country Group Housing); CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers); Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd; JBB Everest Pvt. Ltd.; Narang Constructions and Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height) and M/s. Max Height Promoters (affordable Group housing).
76. However, we are not dealing with all the developers, hereinabove mentioned, inspected by joint committee, but confine ourselves to consider such part of the report which deals with the developers where serious violations of environmental; norms and laws have been found.
77. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.: General observations made in respect of this developer, are that EC dated 14.11.2007 was issued to M/s. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. For development of certain areas in Sectors-58,59,60 and 64, Kundli, Sonipat. Name of Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. was changed to TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. On 22.12.2006 through Ministry of Company Affairs, Govt. of India. Later, TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was also changed on 05.02.2008 by Ministry of Company Affairs to become TDI Infrastructure Ltd. EC dated 14.11.2007 issued to Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. was not transferred to TDI Infrastructure Ltd. EC was for development and construction for township, including facilities like hospitals and health care, primary and high schools, club and recreational facilities, shopping mall and multiplex etc. on a plot area of 5072000 m2, 900 flats for general sale and 158 EWS flats were to be constructed with total built up area as 39000 m2. Total water requirement approved was 1044 m3 per day and waste water to be generated was 835 m3 per day which was supposed to be disposed of in HUDA sewer. CTE was granted to M/s. TDI 117 Infrastructure Ltd. on 06.03.2012 for waste water generation of 835 KLD with condition that solid waste generated shall be properly collected, segregated scientifically and would be disposed of as per SMWH Rules, 2016 by using vermiculture composting method etc. For expansion, M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. obtained EC on 04.09.2017 at Sectors- 58,59,60,61, 63 and 64. TCPD Haryana gave details of TDI projects in respect to acres, as mentioned in EC, as under:
1. 11.46 Acre Group Housing-I (Kingsbury-I) Sector-61
2. 18.43 Acre Group Housing-II (Kingsbury-II) Sector-61
3. 22.86 Acre Group Housing-III (Tuscan City) Sector-58
4. 7.0 Acre Group Housing-IV (Not Sector-
constructed)
5. 14.07 Acre Independent Group Housing-I Sector-61 (Kingsbury-III)
6. 14.288 Acre Independent Group Housing-II Sector-6 (My Floor-II)
7. 10.14 Acre Independent Group Housing-III Sector-
(Not constructed)
78. Three projects namely Kingsburry Apartments, My Floor 2 and Tuscan City were developed by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. Hence, we proceed to consider these projects as under:
TDI Kingsburry Infrastructure Apartment, G.T. Road, Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat developed by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.:
79. Joint Committee commenced its survey on 18.06.2019, completed on 20.06.2019. The project in question was visited by committee on 18.06.2019. The details of constructions raised and other aspects are mentioned as under:
a) Residential blocks-22
b) Constructed flats-2999
c) Flats occupied-2050
d) Date of operation-2014
e) Part occupation was granted from 2012 to 2017
f) No EC for construction of the above project in Sector-61 was obtained by PP.118
g) 4 STPs of 510 KLD capacity were installed for treatment of domestic effluent/liquid waste in respect whereof further findings are as under:
(i) STP installed at Block D: This STP covers blocks A, B, C, D and T having approximately 700 flats. About 70% flats were occupied. Estimated effluent generation was 270 KLD. The deficiencies observed during inspection are:
STP is lying abandoned and untreated effluent is being discharged either through tankers in 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla or on open land near village Nangal for percolation.
(ii) STP installed at Block K: This STP covers blocks K, J, H and EWS-1 and 2 having approximately 650 flats. Almost 65% flats were occupied. Estimated effluents generation was 228 KLD. The deficiencies observed during inspection were:
STP is lying abandoned and untreated effluent is being discharged either through tankers in 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla or on open land near village Nangal for percolation.
(iii) STP at Block V: This STP covers blocks Y, V, K, W, S having approximately 700 flats. Deficiencies found during sampling are:
No oil and grease trap were provided, flow meter was not provided at the inlet of STP, no dosing for growth of bacteria was being done, logbook was not maintained and flow meter at outlet of STP was lying abandoned.
Sample of effluent from inlet and outlet of STP of V Block was collected and tested. Report no. 880 dated 02.07.2019 shows parameters of outlet STP exceeding the prescribed norms/limits by PCB.119
(iv) STP installed at Block Z: This STP covers blocks E, Z, L, G, F and R having approximately 800 flats. Almost 70% flats were occupied. Estimated effluent generation was 297 KLD. The deficiencies observed during inspection are:
STP is lying abandoned and untreated effluent is being discharged either through tankers in 7.5 MLD STP, Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla or on open land near village Nangal for percolation.
80. There was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. No facility for collection and segregation of solid waste was; Project had not entered into any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste, which was being generated from household; and there was complete non-compliance of SWM Rules, 2016.
81. PP in its objections dated 10.02.2022 filed on 14.02.2022 has relied on Part Occupation Certificate/Occupation Certificates issued to M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. and M/s. Navjyoti Overseas Pvt. Ltd. as detailed below:
(i) Part Occupation Certificate dated 30.03.2012: It is in respect of towers no. 5 to 10 with basement, 1071 dwelling units, constructed area 1,23,982.83 m2 in Sectors-58 and 61, Sonipat. We may note at this stage that no EC for Sector-61 was granted to this PP on or before this date.
(ii) Part Occupation Certificate dated 25.05.2012 in respect to towers no. 1, 3 and 4 with basement constructed area 61,586.22 m2. The certificate was issued in respect of total 49 dwelling units where construction was completed in group site measuring 11.46 acres (license dated 17.12.2004, 15.12.2004 and 26.07.2005) in Sectors 58 and 61 Sonipat, part of residential plotted colony namely TDI City. The certificate was issued in favour of M/s. TDI 120 Infrastructure Ltd. and Navjyoti Overseas Pvt. Ltd., 4, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi. Interestingly, Part Occupation Certificate was issued on 25.05.2012 in respect of Sector 61 though till that date no EC was issued in respect of Sector 61 to this proponent.
(iii) Occupation Certificate dated 28.08.2017: It is in respect of blocks 17A, 17B, 17C, 18A, 18B, 18C, 19A, 19B, 19C, U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, Y1, Y2, Y3, V1 and EWS and shopping complex comprising 672 main dwelling units and 166 EWS flats and 7 number of shops, in Sector 61 though till that date no EC was issued in respect of Sector 61 to this proponent. Only on 04.09.2017, an expansion EC was granted which included Sector-61 but prior to that, no EC in respect of Sector-61 was issued to this proponent but none has been pleaded or placed before us.
(iv) Occupation Certificate dated 28.08.2017: It is in respect of towers Type 3 (25 nos.), Type 4 (13 nos.) and EWS Block and 225 main dwelling units and 182 EWS flats in Sector 61 though till that date no EC was issued in respect of Sector 61 to this proponent. Only on 04.09.2017, an expansion EC was granted which included Sector-61 but prior to that, no EC in respect of Sector-61 was issued to this proponent but none has been pleaded or placed before us.
(v) Occupation Certificate dated 15.12.2017: It is in respect of 63 main dwelling units and 28 EWS flats, comprising built up area 15,047.54 m2. The reference was given to licenses dated 15.12.2004, 17.12.2004 and 26.07.2005 for group housing colony measuring 11.46 acres in Sectors 58, 59, 60, 61 and 64, Sonipat.
(vi) Occupation Certificate dated 15.12.2017: It is in respect of towers no. R, Z and 11 for 170 main dwelling units and 222 EWS flats.
121
82. The above documents relating to part occupation or complete occupation shows that in Sector-61, constructions were made illegally and in violation of EIA 2006 in as much as no EC was granted in respect of Sectro-61 authorizing constructions thereat. True that two certificates are dated 15.12.2017 and prior thereto expansion EC was granted on 04.09.2017 but the fact evident is that constructions in respect of the above EC were also raised prior to grant of expansion EC i.e. when no EC in respect of Sector-61 was available. The activities therefore, were patently illegal and in utter violations of environmental laws including EP Act, 1986 read with EIA 2006.
83. PP has also placed on record his application dated 09.05.2014 and recommendation letter dated 27.05.2015.
84. Application dated 09.05.2014 was submitted by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.to Director General, TCPD, Haryana requesting for grant of Occupation Certificate of group housing colony measuring 22.864 acres, part of residential plotted colony 53.505 acres and license no. 177 of 2007 dated 13.04.2007.
85. Recommendation of grant of Occupation Certificate vide letter dated 27.05.2015 sent by Superintendent Engineer, HUDA, RGEC Circle, Sonipat to Chief Engineer-I, HUDA, Panchkula. It certified that as per the report of Executive Engineer services namely roads, water supply, sewerage and storm water drainage have been laid at site as per approved estimate. However, it further says that sewer line has been laid in the vicinity of group housing scheme of residential plotted colony in Sector 58, Sonipat but due to non-continuity, the sewer lines are not functional so far; RCC box drains of size 3.66 × 2.13 mtr. was not constructed; for supply of water, 3 no. of tubewells and 6 no. of rain water harvesting pits, 122 01 STP, 01 UGT (Under Ground Tank) were completed; and water supply will be made through Ranney Well in the vicinity of colonizer area where work for installation of 2 nos. Ranney well was in progress and likely to be executed in next 2 or 3 years.
86. In the entire objections filed by PP, findings of the Committee that no EC was obtained, for raising constructions in Sector 61 though construction was started and part construction completed and occupation was allowed by obtaining Part Occupation Certificate in 2012 and onwards, is not contradicted or substantiated otherwise by placing any material on record. What PP has relied on is an EC dated 04.09.2017 which was issued as an expansion of the project, residential colony TDI City at Sector 58,59,60,61,63 and 64, Kundli, Sonipat. The said EC says that construction work was already done for an area not less than 39,00,000 m2 as per EC granted and now on a total plotted area 45,98,807.965 m2, built up area 65,14,132.528 m2 i.e. expansion of the project EC was prayed which was granted. It refers to general plots 7049, EWS plots 1761, 01 community centre/amenities area, 3 commercial areas, 6349 dwelling units, 1130 EWS units and 680 servant units. Apparently, this EC has not concern with the project in question, already constructed. PP has said that STP were installed but we have already noticed the observations of the Committee found on the date of inspection that there were several deficiencies in STP installed at Block V and the samples showed non-conformity with the prescribed standards. In respect of STP installed at blocks B, K and Z, the same were lying abandoned and not in use, as a result whereof, untreated effluents were being discharged illegally. Though in general way, proponent has denied the findings of joint Committee report but neither it has disputed the inspection made by the said Committee nor the observations made therein could be refuted or 123 contradicted by placing any material on record. We, therefore, find no reason but to accept Committee report in regard to the above illegalities/deformities found in the project showing that the project was executed illegally and still by discharging untreated or polluted effluent. Violation of environmental laws and norms was continued. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., My Floor 2, Sector 60, Sonipat developed by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.:
87. This project was visited by joint Committee on 19.06.2019. The observations made by joint Committee are:
a) EC dated 14.11.2007 was granted in the name of M/s. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd. for Sectors 58, 59,60 and 64, Kundli, Sonipat.
Consent to Establish (hereinafter referred to as 'CTE') was granted on 06.03.2012 for Sectors 58,59,60 and 64. Occupation Certificate was issued by TCPD Haryana on 28.08.2017. Expansion of project was granted for Sectors 58,59,60,61,63 and 64 on 04.09.2017. 540 flats were constructed out of which 274 were occupied as per report of PP. One STP was found installed at the site but its capacity could not be ascertained as it was lying abandoned and no record was available at site for ascertaining capacity. Domestic effluent was being collected in cemented collection tank and discharged through tankers on open land for percolation near village Nangal. Sample of the effluent was collected from collection tank and analysis report no. 895 dated 02.07.2019 showed that it did not meet the prescribed standards/parameters of environmental norms of the Board.
b) PP has relied on the application dated 13.03.2020 submitted to HSPCB for consent/authorisation for the year 2020-2021 under Section 25 and 26 of Water Act, 1974 and Section 21 of Air Act, 1981, giving details of gross capital investment of Rs. 35.13 Crores and number of people staying in the colony as 6159 besides number 124 of workers and office staff, mentioned as 155. Total plot area and built up area mentioned was 57,821.39 m2 and 1,69,465.5 m2. Here it has mentioned the site of the project at Sector 59. It also says that 150 KLD STP has been installed and STP with total capacity with 750 KLD shall be installed. Under part B-Waste Water Aspects, details of water consumption were given as 941 KLD and waste water discharge/disposal details were mentioned as under:
S. Type of Maximum Effluent to Effluent Mode of No. Effluent Generation be Recycled Disposal/ disposal Quantity of (KLD) Discharge Effluent (KLD) Quantity (KLD) 1 Domestic 754.0 347.0 373.0 Recycling/ Effluent Reuse
c) The area of green belt was mentioned as 10,067.56 m2.
88. It is thus, evident that no consent was obtained by PP though occupation of plots was allowed in 2017-2019 itself which obviously resulted in discharge of domestic effluent but neither a functional STP was made available nor consent under Water Act 1974 was obtained. Only on 13.03.2020 an application for grant of consent was filed. Mere submission of application, even otherwise does not amount to grant of consent. Violation is evident and no material has been placed to contradict the same.
89. The report also says that after receiving Occupation Certificate on 28.08.2017, PP allowed third parties to occupy the flats and reside therein though CTO was not obtained from HSPCB at all and no such document has been placed on record by PP. Therefore, violation of environmental norms is clearly established. Further, any subsequent steps taken for obtaining consent will not validate the past violations which stand established.
125
90. Report also says that there was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. No facility for collection and segregation of solid waste was being done by PP. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the household. In the objections filed by PP, no material has been placed on record to show that these findings of joint Committee who visited the site on 19.06.2019, are incorrect and no material has been placed on record to contradict the same. Any subsequent arrangement, if any, will not validate the past violations.
M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Tuscan City, Sector 58, Sonipat developed by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd.:
91. Committee visited the said project on 20.06.2019 and has recorded its observations as under:
a) EC dated 14.11.2017 in respect of Sectors 58,59,60 and 64, Kundli, Sonipat was issued in the name of M/s. Intime Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
CTE was granted for Sectors 58,59,60 and 64 on 06.03.2012. EC for expansion project was granted on 04.09.2017 for Sectors 58,59,60,61,63 and 64. The violations found by Committee are:
(i) No CTO was obtained from HSPCB;
(ii) No Occupation Certificate was issued by TCPD till the date of
inspection;
(iii) No consent under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 was issued by HSPCB;
b) As per the reply submitted by PP, it had constructed 615 flats whereof 234 number of flats were occupied. Thus, constructions and occupation by third party, allowed was wholly illegally.
c) Other deficiencies recorded by joint Committee are: 126
(i) The estimated effluent generation based on 234 occupied flats with 4 members each was 127 KLD but no STP was provided at the site.
(ii) Further domestic effluent generated is being collected in the cemented collection tank and is being discharged through tankers on open land for percolation near village Nangal.
d) Sample of effluent was collected from collection tank and sent to HSPCB laboratory. Analysis report no. 896 dated 03.07.2019 shows that parameters are exceeding the prescribed limits of the Board.
e) There was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. Further, no facility for collection and segregation of solid waste was being done by PP.
The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the household.
92. In the reply of PP, nothing has been placed on record to show that the above findings recorded by joint Committee in its inspection dated 20.06.2019 are incorrect. In fact, there is no document placed on record to show that the aforesaid project was launched and made operative after obtaining all statutory consent/NOCs/Clearances and the continuity of violation of environmental norms is evident since there is continuous discharge of untreated effluent and disposal and management of solid waste.
M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat:
93. The site of the project was visited by joint Committee on 19.06.2019.
The observations made in the Committee report show that EC was granted on 12.06.2008 which had already expired. The project proposed 16 towers out of which 8 were completed and 8 were found under construction. 375 127 flats were constructed, out of which 200 flats were at possession stage and 50 were occupied. STP with capacity of 660 KLD was found installed but deficiencies in its operations were noticed as under:
(i) flow meter was not provided at inlet and outlet of STP;
(ii) logbook was not being maintained.
94. The samples of effluents from outlet of STP were collected and sent for analysis and vide analysis report no. 893 dated 02.07.2019 parameters were found within prescribed norms. Treated effluent was being used for horticulture within the premises of the project. However, there was no compliance of SWMH Rules, 2016. No facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by PP. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the household.
95. In regard to the above project, objections have been filed by M/s.
Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. It has stated that initially, project was launched by M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. which was granted EC on 12.06.2008 for construction of township, residential and commercial complex at Village Rasoi, GT Karnal Road, Sonipat, Haryana. Copy of EC is filed as annexure R-2 to the objections which shows that proposal to construct township residential complex, commercial complex at Sector 61, village Rasoi, GT Karnal Road, Sonipat, Haryana was proposed by M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. which was appraised by Expert Appraisal Committee in its meeting held on December 19-20, 2007 and May 23-24, 2008 respectively. The proposed project contemplated construction of residential and commercial complex for 762 dwelling units and 144 EWS units. Total plot area was 57262.503 m2 while built up area indicated was 39156.42 m2. Requirement of water was shown as 774 KLD including recycled water resulting in generation of 696 KLD waste water. EC was 128 subject to specific conditions during construction phase and operational phase and also general conditioned mentioned therein. The Objectee i.e. M/s. Pardesi Developer Pvt. Ltd. purchased 75% shares of the project from land owners who had granted license to M/s. CMD Built-Tech for development. Consequently, development license was transferred in the name of M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. by TCPD Haryana by order dated 08.07.2013 which is on record as annexure R/3 to the objections. Later on, M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. underwent winding up proceedings in Company Petition No. 468/2011, Shahi Exporters Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. before Delhi High Court. The petition was admitted by order dated 18.09.2013 whereby official liquidator was also appointed as provisional liquidator of the company and directed to take over all the assets, book of accounts on record and prepare in manner. By order darted 22.01.2014, Delhi High Court issued notice to M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. and passed following interim order:
"In the meantime the non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 shall maintain status quo as to their shareholding as well as with respect to their assets including any development rights in relation to the subject property."
96. Later on, vide judgment dated 09.11.2017, Delhi High Court vacated interim order dated 22.01.2014. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:
"8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Ms.Neelima Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that her clients have entered into a settlement and do not wish to further pursue the application or press the interim order as noted above. She further submits that the admitted position is that the land is owned 25% by the respondent company and 75% by non-applicant No.1 and hence, she submits that no prejudice would be caused to the parties as the official liquidator already has possession of five of the towers in question in Kundli, being the share of the respondent.
9. Learned counsel appearing for non-applicant No.1 and 2 have reiterated the above submissions, namely, that he owns 75% of the land and is owner of 12 of the towers. He submits that prior to the winding up order passed by this court on 3.7.2009 by registered conveyance/sale deeds his clients had attained rights in the said property. He has also undertaken that in case the present application 129 is allowed, the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2 shall not sell or encroach upon any of the open areas in the project site and will also not effect sale of more than their share of the land.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Official Liquidator (OL) has taken me through an affidavit filed by Dr.Ramesh Kumar, Assistant Official Liquidator, dated 9.3.2016 where it has been stated that pursuant to an additional affidavit filed by non-applicant No.1 the full facts have come to the knowledge of the OL. The OL took possession of five towers being Marina Tower, Crest Tower, Honda Bay Tower, Kochi Tower and Kept Down Tower and even deployed security for watch and ward purposes. Hence, it has been stated that the OL has been able to secure the assets of the respondent company in liquidation in the Kundli Project in terms of conveyance/sale deeds dated 3.7.2009 which is the last title documents before filing of the winding up petition on 24.10.2011. Hence, 30% of the total project has been secured by the OL.
11. Learned counsel appearing for the Ex-Directors has, however, vehemently opposed the present application. He has repeatedly stressed that the respondent company was owner of 25% undivided share of the land and that any sale effected by the non-applicant No.1 or No.2 would damage the said rights of the respondent. It has also been submitted that if the entire project is sold as a single unit, it would fetch a better price and the company would also be revived. He has also expressed his apprehension that as per the settlement between the petitioners and non-applicant No.1, non-applicant No.1 will step into the shoes of the petitioners as a creditor and continue to pursue the draconian interest rate of 40% which the petitioners were claiming.
12. From a conspectus of the above, it follows that certain facts are not in dispute. The respondent company in liquidation owns 25% undivided share in the project site at Kundli. Five Towers out of the 17 towers belong to the respondent company and the balance 12 Towers belong to the non-applicant Nos.1 and 2. As far as the Official Liquidator is concerned the only asset of the respondent company in Kundli are the five Towers and 25% share of undivided land. Thus having secured 5 of the towers which are in possession of the OL where security has been deployed 30% of the value of the property is secured in possession of the OL.
In view of the above, no prejudice is caused to the respondent company in case the present application is allowed. I may also note that the non-applicants No.1 and 2 have given an undertaking to this court not to encroach upon or utilize the open spaces in the project site for any project and development and will also not deal with the share of the respondent company. The said undertaking of the non- applicants No.1 and 2 is taken on record. The concerned Managing Director of the two companies will file an affidavit to that effect in the court record. On filing of the affidavit, the interim orders passed by this court on 22.1.2014 shall stand vacated. The interim order dated 10.07.2013 to the extent it relates to the Kundli project would also stand vacated. CA No.165/2014 will also stand dismissed as withdrawn. Of course this order does not permit sale of property which is in possession of the OL. Application is allowed on the above terms."130
97. Before vacation of interim order dated 09.11.2017, it appeared that M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. and others filed an application dated 01.05.2017 before Director, TCPD Haryana for issue of Occupation Certificate in reference to license no. 126-128 of 2007 dated 27.02.2007. Total area 14.15 acres, Sector 61, Sonipat in respect of 8 towers. Details whereof are given as under:
Tower/ No. of No. of Floors FAR Sanctioned FAR Achieved Block No. Dwelling Area in Sqm. % Area in % Units Sqm.
Tower-Q1 48 Ground Floor 8694.132 15.183 8694.132 15.183 to 12th Floor Tower-Q3 48 Ground Floor 8694.132 15.183 8694.132 15.183 to 12th Floor Tower-P1 47 Ground Floor 5962.67 10.413 5962.67 10.413 to 12th Floor Tower-P2 47 Ground Floor 5973.039 10.431 5973.039 10.431 to 12th Floor Tower-P3 74 Ground Floor 5962.67 10.413 5962.67 10.413 to 12th Floor Tower-P5 47 Ground Floor 6163.304 10.763 6163.304 10.763 to 12th Floor Tower-P6 47 Ground Floor 5983.776 10.450 5983.776 10.450 to 12th Floor Tower-R1 44 Ground Floor 3908.492 6.826 3908.492 6.826 to 10th Floor Total main 375 units EWS 124 Ground Floor 3198.80 5.586 3085.40 5.388 Block to 3rd Floor Non-FAR Area in Sqm.
Basement 30882.89 28742.955
98. Subject to certain conditions mentioned in the Occupation Certificate dated 01.02.2018, it was issued by Director, TCPD Haryana which is on record as annexure R/7 to the objections. EC dated 12.06.2008 was valid for a period of 5 years as provided in para 9 of Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to 'EIA 2006'). The said period expired on 11.06.2013 and there was no application given for extension or renewal of the period of EC. Only on 21.03.2018, M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.
submitted an application with reference to MoEF Notification dated 14.03.2017 for grant of EC under violation category. Vide letter dated 07.08.2018, the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, 131 Haryana (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA Haryana') communicated to M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. that Terms of Reference (hereinafter referred to as 'TOR) is approved as per the decision taken in 115th meeting of the Authority on 25.07.2018 but subject to the following statutory provisions:
"i) The State Government/SPCB to take action against the project proponent under the provision of the section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and further no Consent to Operate or Occupancy Certificate to be issued till the project is granted EC.
ii) The Project Proponent shall be required to submit a bank guarantee equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan with SPCB prior to the grant of EC. The quantum shall be recommended by the SEAC and finalized by the regulatory authority. The back guarantee shall be released after successful implementation of the EMP, followed by recommendations of the SEAC and approval of the regulatory authority."
99. PP was also directed to submit EIA report by incorporating TOR as approved by the Authority within the time period and further said that the project will be considered only after receipt of complete information.
100. In the pending Company Petition before Delhi High Court against M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd., it appears that there was a compromise between the company under liquidation, M/s. Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Accepting compromise, Delhi High Court by order dated 12.02.2019 disposed of Company Petition and all pending applications, revoked its order dated 18.09.2013, whereby Company Petition was admitted and provisional official liquidator was appointed and the entire project including 5 towers which were in the share of company under liquidation was directed to be handed over to M/s. Pardesi Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The order of Delhi High Court reads as under:
"CA109/2019 132
1. The petitioner, Ex.Management and non-applicant M/s. Pardesi Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited have entered into a settlement agreement.
2. In terms of the settlement agreement, it has been agreed that on receipt of Rs.11.50crores from M/s. Pardesi Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited, the petitioner and Ex.Management has agreed to withdraw the present petition and discharge the company in liquidation and the Ex. Management from all obligations offering the land at Kundli including five towers as stated therein which are attached by the official Liquidator to Pardesi developers and infrastructure private limited.
3. OL has filed its reply though it is not on record. A copy or the same has been handed over in court. As per the said reply, notice inviting claims were published but no claims have been received
4. Hence, taking into account all this, the learned counsel for the OL states that entire expenses of the OL including security expenses incurred by the OL up to 15thFebruary, 2019 being a sum of Rs.51,95,786/- have been paid by non-applicant. Learned counsel for the OL states that they have no objection in case present application is allowed.
5. Accordingly, the order of this court dated 18thSeptember, 2013 admitting the petition and appointing the provisional liquidator stands revoked. The land in question, which belongs to the respondent company being part of Kundli project shall be handed over to the non- applicant as agreed upon by the parties before 15.02.2019. The balance of the company with all remaining assets will remain with the Ex-Directors/Former Management.
The application stands disposed of as above.CO.PET.468/2011
In view of the above, nothing further survives in the present petition. The petition is infructuous and stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
The next date being 28thFebruary, 2019 stands cancelled.
A copy of this order be given dasti under the signatures of the court master."
101. It is thus evident that after expiry of EC on 11.06.2013, no expansion or renewal was sought either by M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. or by M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. or by M/s. Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Though an attempt has been made by the objectee to explain that it had no occasion to apply for expansion or renewal of EC prior to 2018 but record shows that in 2009 itself admittedly 75% shares of this project were 133 purchased by M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. and it got the development license transferred in its name vide Director, TCPD letter dated 08.07.2013 but chose not to seek expansion or renewal of EC and instead continued with the construction activities in as much as in 01.05.2017, it applied for grant of Occupation Certificate which was ultimately issued on 01.02.2018. Entire construction activities therefore were apparently illegal and in violation of the provisions of EIA 2006 read with EP Act, 1986.
102. The complaint of non-compliance of SWM Rules, 2016 and illegal dumping, discharge of sewage and construction of building without any STP etc. in Sectors- 58 to 64, Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana was brought before Tribunal in OA 764/2018. Since in this regard, a general order in respect of State of Haryana was already issued on 20.08.2018in OA 606/2018 (supra), OA was disposed of by order dated 16.10.2018 directing applicant Kisan Uday Samiti in OA 764/2018 to approach the Committee constituted vide order dated 20.08.2018 passed in OA 606/2018 (supra). Committee was directed to co-ordinate the matter and over-see compliance of SWM Rules, 2016 in accordance with law. Later, in a Miscellaneous Application filed in OA 764/2018, Tribunal considered compliance status with regard to order passed in OA 606/2018 (supra), called Chief Secretary of Haryana vide order dated 06.05.2019 who appeared and later constituted a Committee by order dated 14.06.2019 to investigate compliance of SWM Rules, 2016 in respect of the projects developed in Sectors 58 to 64 at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana.
103. The report dated 16.07.2019 submitted by the said Committee was filed before Tribunal by Chief Secretary Haryana along with its letter dated 28.08.2019 in OA 764/2018. Since the issue raised in OA 764/2018 was widened by Tribunal, these two OAs which had involved 134 similar issues were tagged by OA 764/2018 and all the matters proceeded together. These were heard together on 01.04.2022 when order was reserved in all three matters. It is only for the purpose of elaboration and clarity in the judgment, we separated OA 764/2018.
104. Though the observations made by Committee are that project commenced after grant of EC in 2008 but it is also a fact that tenure of EC prescribed under para 9 of EIA 2006 expired in 2013 but project continued with construction activities etc. without any extension/renewal of EC and thus it violated the provisions of EIA 2006 read with EP Act, 1986. It is also true that though M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. applied for EC on 21.03.2018 but no EC has been granted till the date of the inspection or even thereafter. No such document has been placed before us by the objectee along with its objections. The evident and further violation on the part of objectee in respect to project in question is writ large from the fact that by order dated 07.08.2018, SEIAA clearly prohibited issue of CTO or Occupancy Certificate till EC is granted but the said condition has been violated at the instance of PP by Director TCPD Haryana in as much as on the application dated 11.03.2019 filed by M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd., a further Occupation Certificate has been granted for the building with details given as under:
Tower/ No. of No. of G+ FAR Sanctioned FAR Achieved Block No. Dwelling Dwelling (achieved) Area in % Area in % Units Units /Height Sqm. Sqm.
Achieved
Tower-P7 47 47 G+12 5983.776 10.45 5983.776 10.45
Tower-P8 47 47 G+12 5983.776 10.45 5983.776 10.45
Community - - G+1 580.067 1.01 595.777 1.01
Building
Commercial - - G Floor 252.226 - 252.226 -
Total 94 94 - 12777.845 21.91 12777.845 21.94
105. The said Occupancy Certificate also says that Occupancy Certificate in respect of towers Q1, Q3, P1, P2, P3, P5, P6 and R1, EWS block and basement was already granted on 01.02.2018.135
Action taken by HSPCB against PP/objectee:
106. Referring to a field officers' inspection conducted on 03.06.2019, a show cause notice dated 10.06.2019 was issued by HSPCB to M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector 61, village Rasoi, Kundli, Sonipat pointing out following deficiencies found in the said inspection:
"1. The unit found operating without prior Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Board as three Residential Towers have been occupied.
2. The Establishment work to Towers at site is also being done without valid GTE from the Board."
107. The show cause notice stated that PP may show cause as to why prosecution under Section 43, 44 of Water Act 1974, 37,38 and 40 of Air Act, 1981 and Section 5 read with EP Act, 1986 may not be initiated and environmental compensation be not imposed as per Tribunal's judgment dated 29.04.2019 in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. Reply dated 20.06.2019 was submitted by objectee M/s. Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. Copy whereof is annexure R-12 to the objection stating as under:
"1. The Environmental Clearance in June, 2008 was duly issued by the Ministry of Environment Forest in the name of CMD Built Tech Pvt. Ltd. licensee there after the License was transferred in the name of CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. now Pvt. Ltd. now known as Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Copy Enclosed).
2. Then it expired.
3. We regularly submitted our compliance in the Environment Department, Panchkula.
4. Now we have applied for renewal of Environment Clearance.
5. TOR Copy received from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Haryana, Bays No. 55 - S58, Prayatan Bhawan, Sector 2, Panchkula. (Copy Enclosed).
We would also inform you, Our Towers are under construction and we will be applying for CTE now.
Please give us time so that we will apply for CTE."136
108. It is evident from the above reply that a false statement was made by the objectee that its towers are under construction and it will now apply for CTE though substantial constructions were already completed. As noticed in joint Committee's report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019, 8 towers with 375 flats were constructed out of which 200 were at the stage of possession and 50 were already occupied. Expiry of EC is also admitted in the above reply ad it is not the case of objectee/PP that renewal/extension/fresh EC was issued yet it has continued with the construction activities of the project. There is self-proven violation on the part of PP/objectee.
109. HSPCB issued another show cause notice dated 29.07.2019 mentioning following deficiencies in the project under consideration:
"1. The unit found operating without prior Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Board as three Residential Towers have been occupied.
2. The establishment work of Towers at site is also being done without valid CTE from the Board.
3. The flow meter has not been provided at the inlet &outlet of STP. 4 Logbook is not being maintained."
110. The notice also said that sample from outlet of STP was collected from the premised of the project and sent for testing. Analysis report no.828 dated 14.06.2019 showed that effluent discharged from STP exceeded prescribed limits as per following details:
Sr. No. Parameter Name Result Mg/l Limit Mg/l 1 Suspended Solid 137 100 2 BOD 110 30 3 COD 336.9 250
111. This show cause notice was replied by objectee/PP vide letter dated 29.08.2019 (annexure R-14 to the objections). In the reply, it clearly stated that since there was no condition mentioned in the EC that PP has to obtain CTE and CTO, therefore, objectee/PP had no knowledge about taking permission of CTE/CTO form HSPCB as stated in the show cause 137 notice; no period of expiry was mentioned in EC; provisions of Section 24/25 of Water Act 1974 are not applicable to the project in question where PP has built STP and there is zero discharge of any effluent from group housing society. The reply also said that 16 residential towers were proposed where against objectee/PP had obtained Occupation Certificate for 10 towers, community building and shopping complex and for remaining 6 towers, company has applied for Occupation Certificate with the concerned department. It also said that no construction is going on since long and only internal finishing work/repairing work is going on. With regard to functioning of STP, it is said that it was under maintenance at the time of inspection. The reply with regard to constructions already completed and STP maintenance etc., we may reproduce the relevant extract, as under:
"It submitted that there are total Sixteen residential Towers and the company has obtained Occupation Certificate for the Ten Towers, Community Building and shopping complex and for the remaining Six Towers the company has applied for Occupation Certificate with the concerned department, the copy of the same is attached as Annexure-B. It is further submitted that there is no construction work going on at site since long period and only internal finishing work and minor repair work in few dwelling units is going on at site.
It is pertinent to mention here that when the official of the HSPCB visited the site and collected the sample from the STP it was under maintenance."
112. Thus, non-conformity of effluent with the prescribed norms is admitted, construction of all 16 towers is also admitted though there was no EC on and after 11.06.2013 and no consent at any point of time was obtained from HSPCB. Even the Occupation Certificates were obtained by objectee/PP from Director TCPD in blatant violations of directions issued by SEIAA by its letter dated 07.08.2018.
113. HSPCB ultimately passed order dated 10.10.2019 assessing environmental compensation of Rs. 6,37,500/- in respect of damage 138 caused by objectee/PP for discharging pollutant in excess of the standards prescribed under EP Act, 1986 for the period 03.06.2019 to 19.06.2019 i.e., date of collection to date of recollection of sample when norms were found in conformity.
114. The entire objections placed on record nowhere shows that violations found by joint Committee in its inspection made on 19.06.2019, mentioned in report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019 are not correct.
115. With regard to installation of flow meters and maintenance of logbooks, objectee/PP has stated in para 9.1 (a) and (b) that the flow meter has been installed and logbook is being maintained. Annexure R/42 and 43 to the objections have been filed in support of this stand. A perusal of annexure R-42 shows that in one of the photograph, date of month and year of manufacturing of the meter is mentioned as 06/19. Thus, the meter itself was manufactured in 2019 hence it could not have been installed prior to 06/19. In absence of any material, it cannot be said that the said meter was installed on or before the date of installation i.e., 19.06.2019. It appears that later on meters have been installed which cannot validate the violation already committed.
116. Similarly, annexure R/43 is a chart of the alleged STP waste water management log book. It is for the period of 01.08.2018 to 30.09.2018. Neither the subsequent period log book nor the fact that the log book was shown to the inspection team on 19.06.2019 has been supported by placing any material. Even if the logbook was maintained for some time but it was not maintained consistently and continuously i.e., in ordinary course of business. Hence violation is there and well proven.
117. With regard to non-compliance of SWMH Rules, 2016 and non- availability of facility of collection and segregation of solid waste as also 139 non-execution of agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste generated at the premises of the project, PP has relied on photographs annexed as annexure R/44 and agreement annexure R/45. We have mentioned hereat that annexure R/45 is dated 15.01.2021 i.e., almost one and a half year after the date of the inspection. Any subsequent remediate step taken cannot validate non-compliance of the past period as was found by the joint Committee in its report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019. We may also notice that with regard to EC, a stand has been taken by PP that it was not granted due to pendency of the present OA but we already discussed the matter above and there is nothing to show that the concerned authority has deferred the matter due to pendency of the OA and this statement in paragraph 9.2 (b) of the objections is clearly incorrect and contrary to material on record.
118. The discharge of effluent from STP, objectee/PP himself has admitted that at the time of inspection, STP was under maintenance, therefore, discharge of untreated pollutants remained undisputed. Any subsequent operation of maintenance cannot validate the violation found by the joint Committee on spot inspection on 19.06.2019. Further objections are actually repetitive.
119. Hence, we find no merit or substance in the objections and in our view, violations mentioned in the joint Committee report stand proved and no material has been placed on record to contradict the said findings. Project Parker Residency at Sector-61, near Rasoi, Kundli, Sonipat developed by M/s Parker Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd.:
120. The project site was inspected by the team of joint Committee on 19.06.2019. The observations of joint Committee are as under:
(i) The Occupancy Certificate issued by TCPD on 25.01.2012 and 27.01.2013. Flats occupied are 270. Earlier CTE/CTO was obtained 140 but at the time of inspection, no valid CTO was operating and, therefore, project was going on illegally. With regard to STP of 250 KLD, as per statement of PP was installed. Presently, about 146 KLD effluent was being generated and sent to STP. The deficiencies during sampling noted were:
"(i) The flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP.
(ii) Logbook is not being maintained properly.
(iii) The flow meter at the outlet of STP is non-functional.
(iv) On physical verification, it seems that the STP installed by the unit is not structurally adequate as per pollution load and needs to be ascertained from the reputed institute regarding structural adequacy."
(ii) The sample of effluent collected from outlet of STP was sent for testing and as per analysis report no 894 dated 02.07.2019 parameters were found exceeding the limits. Some part of treated/untreated effluent was being used for horticulture within the premises and rest being sent to 7.5 MLD STP Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla.
(iii) There is no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. No facility for collection and segregation of solid waste is being done by PP. The project has also not made any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste which is being generated from the house hold.
121. M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd. (PP) has filed objections vide letter dated 16.04.2022. From the facts stated in the said objections as also the documents placed therewith, we find some additional facts and place the same chronologically as under:
(i) 09.02.2007-NOC for the purpose of requirement of EC was issued by HSPCB (annexure R-2 to the objections)
(ii) 01.08.2007-EC was granted by MoEF to PP for construction of residential project (Parker Residency at Sector 61, near Rasoi, 141 Kundli, Sonipat. The project cost was shown as 90 Crores comprising construction of 5 towers having 13 storeys for 312 apartments, 30 penthouses and 51 EWS flats. Plot area was 29854 m2 and proposed built up area (FAR) was 52244.50 m2.
Parking space was to be provided for 876 ECS at surface and basement. EC was subject to usual specific and general conditions mentioned therein.
(iii) 25.11.2012- Director TCPD granted Part Occupation Certificate in respect of tower no. 2,3,4 and 5 (278 dwelling units where constructions had completed), with basement subject to certain conditions mentioned therein.
(iv) 28.01.2013- Director, TCPD granted Occupation certificate to PP for tower no. 1 (64 dwelling units), convenient shopping/community building and EWS block (51 units) where construction had completed.
(v) 26.07.2013- PP deposited Rs. 2.5 lakhs as performance security for obtaining NOC/CTE for construction project (residential project) and forwarded the same to HSPCB vide letter dated 14.08.2013.
(vi) 10.01.2014-CTO was granted by HSPCB for the period of 14.08.2013 to 13.08.2014 permitting daily domestic effluent not exceeding 200 KLD to be discharged from the premises.
(vii) 20.08.2014- Consent for discharge of 200 KLD domestic effluent was granted for the period on 14.08.2014 to 13.08.2017.
(viii) 05.02.2018- Application for consent/authorization under Section 25/26 of Water Act and 21 of Air Act, 1981 for the period of 14.08.2017 to 13.08.2022 was submitted.
142
(ix) 26.02.2018- Application for grant of Consent under Water Act and Air Act was denied on the ground of show cause notice and incomplete application as detailed below:
"4. Not submitted agreement with registered recycler for disposal of waste oil generated from DG sets. 2. Not submitted noise monitoring report of D.G. Set. 3. Not submitted Analysis report under Water and Air Act. 4. Not submitted CTO fees along with 300 5 late fees. 5. Not submitted the Environment statement for the previous year."
(x) 26.12.2018- HSPCB sent a letter communicating Tribunal's order dated 18.12.2018 passed in OA 606/2018 (supra).
(xi) 10.06.2019- PP informed Regional Officer, HSPCB Sonipat that STP is under maintenance/service, therefore, it is discharging entire effluent to STP (HUDA) at Patla village by deploying water tankers.
(xii) 13.06.2019- Show cause notice issued by HSPCB proposing prosecution and imposition of compensation as PP was discharging effluent in drain/canal or on land for percolation without consent.
(xiii) 25.06.2019- PP submitted reply to the show cause notice dated 13.06.2019 stating that it is submitting document again and was not violating by discharging/disposing effluent on land but transporting the same for disposal at 7.5 MLD Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, village Patla.
(xiv) 19.06.2019- Joint Committee appointed by Chief Secretary, Haryana vide order dated 14.06.2019 visited the premises of PP and found certain deficiencies.
(xv) 17.07.2019- HSPCB issued show cause notice mentioning deficiencies noticed by the Committee on 19.06.2019 as under:
"I. the flow meter has not been provided at the inlet of STP. II. Logbook is not being maintained properly for operation of STP.
III. the flow meter at the outlet of STP is non-functional.143
IV. The unit is not having valid CTO from the Board. "
(xvi) 03.08.2019- PP submitted reply to the show cause notice dated 17.07.2019 stating as under:
"The following observation were also raised and reply is as under:
1. We have provided flow meter at the in let of STP (photograph enclosed)
2. We are also submitting copy of log book for operation of STP.
3. We have provided flow meter at the out let of STP which is fully functional.
4. We have already requested vide our letters dt-25/06/2019 & 10/05/2018 but no reply was received till date.
As per analysis report number 894 dt.02.07.2019 which shows parameters are exceeding the permissible limit. It is submitted that vide previous inspection and reports, effluent of STP is always with in permissible limit.
It is pertinent to mention here that this is the first time that effluent of STP exceeds the permissible limit. We assure you that we will maintain our STP thoroughly.
In view of above, it is requested not to initiate prosecution action under section 43/44/47 of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1974, under section 37/38/40 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act 1981, under Section 5 read with section 15 of EP Act, 1986 against the unit and also Environmental Compensation may not be imposed on us as per orders of Hon'ble NGT in Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. and orders passed by HSPCB vide Endst. No.HSPCB/PLG/2019/6043-50 dated 29/04/2019. It is also requested to re sample of our group housing project as soon as possible."
PP has also filed as annexure R-26 copy of the log book claiming to be maintained giving details of sewage effluents supplied through tankers at 7.5 MLD Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, village Patla.
(xvii) 26.09.2019- HSPCB passed an order imposing environmental compensation of Rs. 2737500/- on account of damage caused by PP for discharging pollinate in excess of the standards prescribed under EP Rules, 1986 for the period of 19.06.2019 to 30.08.2019 144 (date of collection of sample to date of recommendation of environmental compensation process).
122. The documents relating to subsequent period, in our view, are not relevant for considering, whether findings recording deficiencies/violation noted by the joint Committee during its inspection on 19.06.2019 are correct or not. However, with regard to compliance of SWM Rules, 2016, we find that PP has placed on record agreement dated 09.09.2019, 12.09.2019 and 01.04.2020 entered with M/s. Javier Management Services Pvt. Ltd. for collection of solid waste. The facts stated above clearly show, demonstrate and justify following inferences:
(i) EC was granted to PP on 01.08.2007. As per para 9 of EIA 2006, the validity period of EC is 5 years. Obviously, the period expired in 2012 and neither there is any averment nor any material to show that the EC was extended/renewed thereafter.
(ii) PP completed project and obtained Part/completion Certificates on 25.11.2012 and 28.01.2013 but till that date neither any CTE nor CTO was obtained under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. For the first time, application for consent was submitted in August 2013 and CTO was granted by order dated 10.01.2014.
(iii) Even renewal consent expired on 13.08.2017. Before expiry no application was filed for renewal. The first application for renewal or fresh consent was filed on 05.02.2018 which was refused by HSPCB by order dated 26.12.2018. No CTO was granted thereafter, hence on the date of inspection on 19.06.2019, there was no valid CTO available with PP.
(iv) Joint Committee found that flow meter was not provided at inlet of STP and log book for operation of SPT was also not maintained. The flow meter at outlet of STP was non-functional. PP in the reply has 145 said that he has now provided flow meters but subsequent remedial action cannot validate the past violations and therefore the findings recorded by joint committee with regard to above violations remain uncontroverted.
(v) With regard to maintenance of logbook PP has placed on record photocopy of log book as annexure R-26 to the objections.
(vi) In this regard, at this stage, we may mention that Committee found 270 flats duly occupied and an estimated discharge of effluent was computed as 146 KLD. This computation has not been disputed by PP/objectee.
(vii) It cannot be doubted that discharge of domestic effluent by the residents is a regular phenomenon. However, log book shows that for days together, there was no collection and disposal of sewage effluent at the premises in question.
(viii) Photocopy of the log book has been placed before us which starts from 31.05.2019 on which date there is no collection of sewage effluent for discharge through tankers at 7.5 MLD STP at Patla Village as claimed by PP.
(ix) On various dates, the discharge or no discharge shown is as under:
Date Quantity Time of collection of
sample by villagers
31.05.2019 Nil -
01.06.2019 Nil -
02.06.2019 5000+ 1.47
5000 3.10
03.06.2019 5000 4.40
04.06.2019 Nil -
05.06.2019 5000 10.50
5000 11.40
5000 1.20
5000 2.00
5000 3.23
06.06.2019 5000 12.30
5000 1.20
5000 3.14
5000 4.16
07.06.2019 5000 11.40
146
08.06.2019 5000 11.15
5000 12.20
5000 1.16
10.06.2019 5000 12.36
5000 1.25
5000 3.30
(x) From the chart, we have taken the above figures upto 30.06.2019.
In the subsequent chart facts/data given are almost similar as stated above. What is important herein to consider is that PP in question has deployed only one vehicle (tanker) no. HR10J0352 for transporting sewage effluent from the project site to 7.5 MLD STP at Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Village Patla, Sonipat. On some days, there is no transportation and on other days the quantity collected and discharged is shown between 5,000 to 25,000. In fact, mostly the quantity is between 5,000 to 20,000 i.e. 5 KLD to 20 KLD and only on one or two occasions it has gone to the extent of 25,000 litre. Now everyday generation is 146 KLD but discharge by tanker is just 5 to 20 or 25 KLD. What happened to remaining sewerage, there is no reply. Moreover, even time taken in collection of sample and discharge would show that tanker has been shown to have operated by completing its round within 50 minutes to 1.10 hours. As per the information available on public domain, distance from Sector-61, Parker Residency to 7.5 MLD STP Rajiv Gandhi Education Society, Patla, Sonipat is about 13 kms. Collection of the effluent, transportation of the same to and fro, covering 26 kms and emptying tanker at STP within 50 minutes to 1.10 hours is quite improbable. This shows that the log book has been prepared not in ordinary course/operation but sitting at one place and a manipulated document. In fact, it gives us reason to accept the allegation that tanker is discharging effluent in the nearby open land of the villagers which is the complaint made before us. That is why 147 running time virtually stands excluded and the only time taken by the tanker is for filling and emptying.
123. In view thereof, we have no reason but to accept the findings recorded by the joint committee with regard to violations found at the premises of the proponent justifying consequential punitive and other action including imposition of environmental compensation. Project Max Height Sector-62, Sonipat developed by M/s. Narang Constructions Pvt. Ltd.
124. This project site was visited by joint Committee on 20.06.2019 and it found that occupation Certificate was issued by Director, TCPD on 06.09.2013. The project has 634 flats out of which 320 were occupied. An STP of 400 KLD was installed but the deficiencies during sampling were noted as under:
"No facility for collection and segregation of solid waste was being done by PP. Project had not entered into any agreement with any agency for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste, which was being generated from household."
125. Sample of the effluent from outlet of STP was collected and as per test report no. 897 dated 03.07.2019, parameters were found within prescribed limits. Treated effluents were being used for horticulture within the premises of the project. There was no compliance of SWMH Rules, 2016.
126. Thus, in respect of the above project, violations noted by Committee were non-installation of flow meter at the inlet of STP, non-maintenance of log book and non-compliance of SWM Rules, 2016.
127. Before us, PP is represented through counsel but neither it has filed any objection to the said report nor any argument in respect to the above 148 violations had been advanced before us. Thus, findings reported by joint Committee in the report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019 stand proved and accepted.
128. In view of above discussion, Committee report dated 16.07.2019/28.08.2019 with respect to the violations noted therein in respect to the proponents we have discussed above is accepted and the objections raised otherwise by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. CMD Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Parker Residency Pvt. Ltd. are rejected.
129. Issue I is answered accordingly.
Issue II-regarding accountability of Statutory Regulators and Statutory Authorities including local bodies:
130. Facts of the case discussed above are self-speaking to demonstrate gross dereliction of duties in functioning of the responsible authorities or local bodies, other sanctioning authorities and Statutory Regulators responsible for enforcement of environmental laws. TCPD Haryana in a mechanical manner granted licenses without ensuring whether earlier conditions of licenses were complied with by PPs and for years together licenses were issued. It felt sufficient to make a condition in orders that PPs shall observe various provisions and obligations for example regarding sewer connection, treatment and management of domestic sewage, storm water services, water supply etc. However, it did not get the things verified from spot as to whether those conditions were actually followed and observed or not.
131. In Part Completion Certificates issued by TCPD Haryana, from time to time, it repeatedly said that PPs shall be responsible solely for making disposal arrangement of sewerage/storm water drainage of the colony but 149 did not bother to verify whether the same was being complied with and observed by PP, in fact on the spot. It also ignored provisions of EIA 1994 and EIA 2006 which contemplate EC/prior EC from Competent Authority before commencement of any activity of the project.
132. HSPCB was under an obligation to ensure compliance of environmental laws but we do not find any effective regulatory and monitoring action on its part. It has enough powers under the Statute to take several actions against PPs but it failed to do so. The negligence and inaction on the part of officials of HSPCB, is highly condemnable and we observe that it crosses the limit of simple negligence and enters into the arena of criminal negligence. Violation of environmental laws by PPs has degraded and damaged environment. Condition of air quality and ground water is very poor in entire District Sonipat. Pollution caused by PPs has obviously contributed to it. It causes damage to the health of general public for no fault on their part. Polluters, in the case in hand, virtually given a clear march-over all illegal activities and no effective, preventive and remedial action has been taken. It also shows lack of concern on the part of official of HSPCB to the poor people who had suffered on account of illegal activities on the part of PPs due to continued pollution caused by execution of its project in violation of environmental laws and contrary to environmental norms in a district where ground water level was in the category of over-exploited and the entire district was notified by CGWA for the purpose of regulation of ground water in 2011 and air quality was also very poor yet HSPCB failed to take any action in the matter. This is a very serious situation where Statutory Regulators and Statutory local bodies as also other authorities are not serious enough to discharge their statutory duties with utmost devotion. Tribunal castigated this failure in its various earlier orders referred above but till date even the highest authority in the 150 State of Haryana (Chief Secretary) has failed to take any effective action against such defaulters, incompetent and inefficient officials who have miserably failed to enforce compliance of environmental laws and permitted continued violation by PPs.
133. Even local bodies have failed to ensure compliance of various laws and Statutory provisions on the part of PPs. The inferences is clear that if it is not an active collusion and co-operation by the authorities yet passive participation which has allowed PPs to violate blatantly environmental laws and such activities were continuing when OAs were filed and even thereafter. In fact, nothing was placed before us even on the date of hearing that such activities as such have been stopped in entirety. We, therefore, hold that Statutory Regulators, local bodies and other authorities are guilty of gross negligence which has caused blatant violation of environmental laws on the part of PPs in proceeding with the project in question without having any care and regard for environmental laws.
134. Issue II is answered accordingly.
135. Issue III- Now the question arises as to what environmental compensation must be imposed upon the violators and the methodology for its compensation.
Environmental Compensation-Assessment/Methodology:
136. The question of assessment of environmental compensation includes the principles/factors/aspects, necessary to be considered for computing/assessing/determining environmental compensation. Besides judicial precedents, we find little assistance from Statute. Section 15 of NGT Act, 2010 talks of relief of compensation and restitution. It confers wide powers on this Tribunal to grant relief by awarding compensation for 151 the loss suffered by individual(s) and/or for damage caused to environment. Section 15 reads as under:
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution-(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,-
a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);
b) for restitution of property damaged;
c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as
the Tribunal may think fit.
(2)The relief and Compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (6) and (c) of sub-section of (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).
(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:
Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the' applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may, be, compensation or relief received from, any other Court or authority.
137. Sub-section 1 enables Tribunal to make an order providing relief and compensation to (i) the victims of pollution, (ii) other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I. Tribunal is also conferred power to pass an order providing relief for restitution of property damaged. Section 15(1)(c) enables Tribunal to pass an order providing relief for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as Tribunal may think fit. Section 15 sub-section 4 says that Tribunal may divide compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedules II, having regard to the damage to public health, 152 property and environment so as to provide compensation or relief, (i) to the claimants and (ii) for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.
138. Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 gives a list of heads under which compensation or relief for damage may be granted. It has 14 heads in total out of which item (a) to (f), (l), (m) and (n) relates to loss, damage etc. sustained to the person or individual or their property. Item (i) to (k) relates to harm, damage, destruction etc. of environment or environmental system including soil, air, water, land, and eco-system. Items (i) to (k) of Schedule II of NGT Act, 2010 are as under:
"(i) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to the fauna including milch and draught animals and aquatic fauna;
(j) Claims on account of any harm, damage or destruction to flora including aquatic flora, crops, vegetables, trees and orchards;
(k) Claims including cost of restoration on account of any harm or damage to environment including pollution of soil, air, water, land and eco-systems;"
139. Items (g) and (h) relate to expense and cost incurred by State in providing relief to affected person; and loss caused in connection with activity causing damage. The damage to environment covers a very wide variety of nature as is evident from definition of environment under section 2 (c) which is inclusive and says; 'environment includes water, air, and land and the interrelationship, which exists among and between water, air and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro- organism and property'.
140. Section 20 of NGT Act, 2010 requires Tribunal to apply principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle.
153
141. Thus, broad principles of environmental laws are given but the methodology for assessing/determining compensation is not provided in the statute. Even Rules framed under NGT Act, 2010 are silent on this aspect. Issue of determination of EC is significant in the sense that it should be proportionate to or bears a reasonable nexus with the environmental damage and its remediation/restoration. Similarly in case of compensation to be determined for a victim, it needs to co-relate to injury caused or damage suffered by such person as also cost incurred for treatment/remediation.
142. Taking into consideration multifarious situations relating to violation of environmental laws vis-a-vis different proponents, nature of cases involving violation of environmental laws can be categorized as under:
(i) Where Project/Activities are carried out without obtaining requisite statutory permissions/consents/clearances/NOC etc., affecting environment and ecology. For example, EC under EIA 2006; Consent under Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981;
Authorisation under Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and other Rules; and NOC for extraction and use of ground water, wherever applicable, and similar requirements under other statutes.
(ii) Where proponents have violated conditions imposed under statutory Permissions, Consents, Clearances, NOC etc. affecting environment and ecology.
(iii)Where Proponents have carried out their activities causing damage to environment and ecology by not following standards/norms regarding cleanliness/pollution of air, water etc. 154
143. The above categories are further sub-divided, i.e., where the polluters/violators are corporate bodies/organisations/associations and group of the people, in contradistinction, to individuals; and another category, the individuals themselves responsible for such pollution.
144. Further category among above classification is, where, besides pollution of environment, proponents/violators action also affect the community at large regarding its source of livelihood, health etc.
145. The next relevant aspect is, whether damage to environment is irreversible, permanent or is capable of wholly or partially restoration/remediation.
146. Determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation must, not only conform the requirement of restoration/remediation but should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should also be preventive, deterrent and to some extent, must have an element of "being punitive". The idea is not only for restoration/remediation or to mitigate damage/loss to environment, but also to discourage people/proponents from indulging in the activities or carrying out their affairs in such a manner so as to cause damage/loss to environment.
147. To impose appropriate 'environmental compensation' for causing harm to environment, besides other relevant factors as pointed out, one has to understand the kind and nature of 'Harmness cost'. This includes risk assessment. The concept of risk assessment will include human- health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a guideline to understand harm caused to environment as well as people. For the purpose of human- health risk assessment, it comprised of three broad steps, namely, 155 planning and problem formulation; effects and exposure assessment and risk categorization. The first part involves participation of stakeholders and others to get input; in the second aspect health effect of hazardous substances as well as likelihood and level of exposure to the pollutant are examined and the third step involves integration of effects and exposure assessment to determine risk.
148. Similarly, ecological risk assessment is an approach to determine risk of environmental harm by human activities. Here also we can find answer following three major steps, i.e., problem codification; analysis of exposure and risk characterization. First part encompasses identification of risk and what needs to be protected. Second step insists upon crystallization of factors that are exposed, degree to exposure and whether exposure is likely or not to cause adverse ecological effects. Third step is comprised of two components, i.e., risk assessment and risk description.
149. In totality, problem is multi-fold and multi-angular. Solution is not straight but involves various shades and nuances and vary from case to case. Even Internationally, there is no thumb-rule to make assessment of damage and loss caused to environment due to activities carried out individually or collectively by the people, and for remediation/restoration. Different considerations are applicable and have been applied.
150. In India, where commercial activities were carried out without obtaining statutory permissions/consents/clearance/NOC, Courts have determined, in some matters, compensation by fixing certain percentage of cost of project. In some cases, volume of business transactions, turnover, magnitude of establishment of proponent have also been considered as guiding factors to determine environmental compensation. 156
151. Nature is extremely precious. It is difficult to price elements of nature like light, oxygen (air), water in different forms like rain, snow, vapour etc. When nature is exploited beyond its carrying capacity, results are harmful and dangerous. People do not understand the value of what nature has given free. Recently in Covid-19 wave II, scarcity of oxygen proved its worth. In dreadful second phase of the above pandemic, any amount offered, in some cases, could not save life for want of oxygen. Further, damage to environment, sometimes do not reflect in individuals immediately and may take time but injury is there. In such cases, process of determination of compensation may be different.
152. In an article, 'the cost of pollution-Environmental Economics' by Linas Cekanavicius, 2011, it has been suggested, where commercial activities have been carried out without consent etc., and pollution standards have been violated, Total Pollution Cost (hereinafter referred to as 'TPC') can be applied. It combines the cost of abatement of environment pollution and cost of pollution induced environmental damage. The formula comes to TPC(z)=AC(z)+ED(z), where z denotes the pollution level. Further, clean- up cost/remediation cost of pollution estimated to be incurred by authorities can also be used to determine environmental compensation.
153. When there is collective violation, sometimes the issue arose about apportionment of cost. Where more than one violator is indulged, apportionment may not be equal since user's respective capacity to produce waste, contribution of different categories to overall costs etc. would be relevant. The element of economic benefit to company resulting from violation is also an important aspect to be considered, otherwise observations of Supreme Court that the amount of environmental compensation must be deterrent, will become obliterated. Article 14 of the Constitution says that unequal cannot be treated equally, and it has also 157 to be taken care. Determination/assessment/computation of environmental compensation cannot be arbitrary. It must be founded on some objective and intelligible considerations and criteria. Simultaneously, Supreme Court also said that its calculations must be based on a principle which is simple and can be applied easily. In other words, it can be said that wherever Court finds it appropriate, expert's assessment can be sought but sometimes experts also go by their own convictions and belief and fail to take into account judicial precedents which have advanced cause of environment by applying the principles of 'sustainable development', 'precautionary approach' and 'polluter pays', etc.
154. Clean-up cost or TPC, may be a relevant factor to evaluate damage, but in the diverse conditions as available in this Country, no single factor or formula may serve the purpose. Determination should be a quantitative estimation; the amount must be deterrent to polluter/violator and though there is some element of subjectivity but broadly assessment/computation must be founded on objective considerations. Appropriate compensation must be determined to cover not only the aspect of violation of law on the part of polluter/violator but also damage to the environment, its remediation/restoration, loss to the community at large and other relevant factors like deterrence, element of penalty etc.
155. Committee in its reports has made certain recommendations determining environmental compensation under certain heads. The computation by Committee is based on certain formulas it has suggested. We have to examine mechanism suggested by Committee and also the value provided to factors like constant quotient and value of "R" i.e., Rupee, to find out whether the same satisfy all aspects necessary to determine appropriate environmental compensation. Applying principle of absolute 158 liability, Polluters Pay alongwith Precautionary Principle and sustainable development, it has to be seen whether PPs are liable to pay environment compensation as suggested by Committee and also to undergo other statutory sanctions provided in the statutes including criminal prosecution, or computation of compensation requires some other method.
156. CPCB Guidelines: CPCB has suggested in a report methodology for assessment of environmental compensation which may be levied or imposed upon industrial establishments who are guilty of violation of environmental laws and have caused damage/degradation/loss to environment. It does not encompass individuals, statutory institutions and Government etc. Report is titled as "Report of the CPCB In-house Committee on Methodology for Assessing Environmental compensation and Action Plan to Utilize the Fund" which was finalized in the meeting held on 27.03.2019. It shortlisted the incidents requiring an occasion for determining environmental compensation. Six such incidents, shortlisted, are:
"Cases considered for levying Environmental Compensation (EC):
a) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/consent limits.
b) Not complying with the directions issued, such as direction for closure due to non-installation of OCEMS, non-adherence to the action plans submitted etc.
c) Intentional avoidance of data submission or data manipulation by tampering the Online Continuous Emission / Effluent Monitoring systems.
d) Accidental discharges lasting for short durations resulting into damage to the environment.
e) Intentional discharges to the environment -- land, water and air resulting into acute injury or damage to the environment.
f) Injection of treated/partially treated/ untreated effluents to ground water."
157. For the instances at item (a), (b) and (c), report says that 'Pollution Index' (hereinafter referred to as 'PI') would be used as a basis to levy environmental compensation. CPCB had already published Guidelines 159 categorizing industries into Red, Orange, Green and White, based on the concept of PI. The PI is arrived after considering quantity and quality of emissions/effluents generated, types of hazardous waste generated and consumption of resources. PI of an industrial sector is a numerical number in the range of 0 to 100 and is represented as follows:
PI=f (Water Pollution Score, Air Pollution Score and HW Generation Score).
158. Since range of PI is 0 to 100, increase in value of PI denotes increasing degree of pollution hazard from industrial sector. Accordingly, report says, for determining environmental compensation in respect of cases covered by item (a), (b) and (c), it will apply following formula:
"EC = PI × N × R × S × LF Where, EC is Environmental Compensation in Rs.
PI = Pollution Index of industrial sector N = Number of days of violation took place R = A factor in Rupees (₹) for EC S = Factor for scale of operation LF = Location factor"
159. The formula incorporates anticipated severity of environmental pollution in terms of PI, duration of violation in terms of number of days, scale of operation in terms of micro and small/medium/large industry and location in terms of proximity to the large habitations. A note is also given under the aforesaid formula and it reads as under:
"Note:
a. The industrial sectors have been categorized into Red, Orange and Green, based on their Pollution Index in the range of 60 to 100, 41 to 59 and 21 to 40, respectively. It was suggested that the average pollution index of 80, 50 and 30 may be taken for calculating the Environmental Compensation for Red, Orange and Green categories of industries, respectively.
b. N, number of days for which violation took place is the period between the day of violation observed/due date of direction's compliance and the day of compliance verified by CPCB/SPCB/PCC. c. R is a factor in Rupees, which may be a minimum of 100 and maximum of 500. It is suggested to consider R as 250, as the Environmental Compensation in cases of violation. 160 d. S could be based on small/medium/large industry categorization, which may be 0.5 for micro or small, 1.0 for medium and 1.5 for large units.
e. LF, could be based on population of the city/town and location of the industrial unit. For the industrial unit located within municipal boundary or up to 10 km distance from the municipal boundary of the city/town, following factors (LF) may be used:
Table No. 1.1: Location Factor Values S. No Population* Location Factor# (million) (LF) 1 1 to <5 1.25 2 5 to <10 1.5 3 10 and above 2.0 *Population of the city/town as per the latest Census of India #LF will be 1.0 in case unit is located >10km from municipal boundary LF is presumed as 1 for city/town having population less than one million.
For notified Ecologically Sensitive areas, for beginning, LF may be assumed as 2.0. However, for critically Polluted Areas, LF may be explored in future.
f. In any case, minimum Environmental Compensation shall be ₹ 5000/day.
g. In order to include deterrent effect for repeated violations, EC may be increased on exponential basis, i.e. by 2 times on 1st repetition, 4 times on 2nd repetition and 8 times on further repetitions. h. If the operations of the industry are inevitable and violator continues its operations beyond 3 months then for deterrent compensation, EC may be increased by 2, 4 and 8 times for 2nd, 3rd and 4th quarter, respectively. Even if the operations are inevitable beyond 12 months, violator will not be allowed to operate.
i. Besides EC, industry may be prosecuted or closure directions may be issued, whenever required.
A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation (without deterrent factor) is given at Table No. 1.2. It can be noticed that for all instances, EC for Red, Orange, and Green category of industries varies from 3,750 to 60,000 ₹/day.
Table No. 1.2: A sample calculation for Environmental Compensation Industrial Red Orange Green Category Pollution 60-100 41-59 21-40 Index (PI) Average PI 80 50 30 R-Factor 250 S-Factor 0.5-1.5 L-Factor 1.00-2.00 161 Environmental 10,000-60,000 6,250-37,500 5,000-22,500 Compensation (₹/day)
160. We find that R which is a factor in Rupees (₹) is taken to be 100 minimum and 500 maximum. It has suggested that R value be taken as average i.e., Rs. 250/-. On what basis this minimum and maximum has been determined and why average is suggested, beyond any comprehension. We do not find any material in the above report which may throw light for taking value of R as above. Similarly, for determining value of S i.e., Factor for Scale of Operation from 0.5 to 1.5, we find no Guidelines as to on what basis, it has been determined and only on the size of the industry, divided in small, medium and large, the said factor has been prescribed. The note further says that minimum environmental compensation would be Rs. 5000/- per day. From table 1.2, we find that in the highest case i.e., large industry, depending on the level of PI, maximum environmental compensation would be Rs. 60,000/- per day and minimum Rs. 10,000/- per day. The above determination excludes the actual loss to the environment and cost of remediation including damage to flora-fauna and human beings. Moreover, classification of industries for industrial policy, or for some licensing purpose, banking purpose etc. would be wholly irrelevant for environment. A small industry may be capable of causing much more pollution than medium or even large industry. For example, pollution caused by a brick kiln using coal as fuel may be much more than many medium category industries.
161. In respect of items (d), (e) and (f), report says that for determining environmental compensation, one has to consider the matters in two parts, one for providing immediate relief and another long-term relief, such as remediation. In such cases, detailed investigations are required from 162 Expert Institutions or Organizations, based on which environmental compensation will be decided. Second part of report is with regard to utilization of environmental compensation fund. For this purpose, report says that CPCB will finalize a scheme for utilization of fund for protection of environment. Certain schemes identified by CPCB for utilization of the said fund are mentioned in para 1.4.1, as under:
"a. Industrial Inspections for compliance verification a. Installation of Continuous water quality monitoring stations/Continuous ambient air quality monitoring stations for strengthening of existing monitoring network b. Preparation of Comprehensive Industry Documents on Industrial Sectors/clean technology c. Investigations of environmental damages, preparation of DPRs d. Remediation of contaminated sites e. Infrastructure augmentation of Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)/capacity building of SPCBs/PCCs."
162. All the above, except item (e), relate to establishment/infrastructure for monitoring/prevention of pollution which in fact is the statutory duty and function of officials of State PCB and CPCB. It appears that CPCB has attempted to utilize environment fund to meet expenses which is the responsibility of Government.
163. Chapter II of report deals with determination of environment compensation for violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in NCR. Here a fixed amount of environmental compensation has been recommended in table 2.1, as under:
"Table No. 2.1: Environmental Compensation to be levied on all violations of Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP) in Delhi-NCR.
Activity State Of Air Quality Environmental
Compensation
Industrial Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore
Emissions
Severe Rs 50 Lakh
Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh
Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh
Vapour Recovery System (VRS) at Outlets of Oil Companies 163 i. Not installed Target Date Rs 1.0 Crore ii. Non-functional Very poor to Severe + Rs 50.0 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 25.0 Lakh Construction sites Severe +/Emergency Rs 1.0 Crore (Offending plot more Severe Rs 50 Lakh than 20,000 Sq.m.) Very Poor Rs 25 Lakh Moderate to Poor Rs 10 Lakh Solid waste/ Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh garbage dumping in Moderate to Poo Rs 10.0 Lakh Industrial Estates Failure to water sprinkling on unpaved roads
a) Hot-spots Very poor to Severe + Rs 25.0 Lakh
b) Other than Hot- Very poor to Severe + Rs 10.0 Lakh "
spots
164. Chapter III considers determination of environmental compensation where a proponent has discharged pollutants in water bodies or failed to prevent discharge of pollutants in water bodies and also failed to implement Waste Management Rules. Laying down Guidelines for determination of environmental compensation in this category, report has referred to Tribunal's order dated 06.12.2018 in OA No. 125/2017 and MA No. 1337/2018, Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka, stating as under:
"Since failure of preventing the pollutants being discharged in water bodies (including lakes) and failure to implement solid and other waste management rules are too frequent and widespread, the CPCB must lay down specific guidelines to deal with the same, throughout India, including the scale of compensation to be recovered from different individuals/authorities, in addition to or as alternative to prosecution. The scale may have slabs, depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability, etc. Deterrent effect for repeated wrongs may also be provided."
165. It is suggested that determination of environmental compensation in this category would have two components, (i) Cost saved/benefits achieved by the concerned individual/authority by not having proper 164 waste/sewage managing system; and (ii) Cost to the environment (environmental externality) due to untreated/partially treated waste/sewage because insufficient capacity of waste/sewage management facility. It further says that Cost saved/benefits achieved would also include interest on capital cost of waste/sewage management facility, daily operation and maintenance (O & M) cost associated with the facility. The determination of environmental compensation, therefore, is suggested, applying following formula:
"Therefore, generalized formula for Environmental Compensation may be described as:
EC= Capital Cost Factor × Marginal Average Capital Cost for Establishment of Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Facility × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Waste or Sewage Management or Treatment Capacity Gap) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality"
166. Environmental externality has been placed in two categories (i) untreated/partially treated sewage discharge and (ii) improper municipal solid waste management and detailed in table 3.1 and 3.2, as under:
"Table No. 3.1: Environmental externality for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Sewage Marginal Cost of Minimum and Maximum Treatment Environmental value of Environmental Capacity Externality (Rs. per Externality recommended Gap (MLD) MLD/day) by the Committee (Lacs Rs.
Per Day)
Up to 200 75 Min. 0.05, Max. 0.10
201-500 85 Min. 0.25, Max. 0.35
501 and 90 Min. 0.60, Max. 0.80
above
Table No. 3.2: Environmental externality for improper municipal solid waste management Municipal Marginal Cost of Minimum and Maximum Solid Waste Environmental value of Environmental Management Externality (Rs. per Externality recommended Capacity ton per day) by the Committee (Lacs Gap (TPD) Rs. Per Day) Up to 200 15 Min. 0.01, Max. 0.05 201-500 30 Min. 0.10, Max. 0.15 501-1000 35 Min. 0.25, Max. 0.3 1001-2000 40 Min. 0.50, Max. 0.60 165 Above 2000 Max. 0.80 "
167. CPCB has further recommend a fixed cap for minimum and maximum cost for capital and O & M component for environmental compensation in table 3.3 and 3.4, as under:
"Table No. 3.3: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for untreated/partially treated sewage discharge Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million- Class-I plus City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 2000 Min. 1000 Min. 100 values of EC (Total Capital Max. 20000 Max. 10000 Max. 1000 Cost Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 2 Min. 1 Min. 0.5 values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 20 Max. 10 Max. 5 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) Table No. 3.4: Minimum and Maximum EC to be levied for improper municipal solid waste management Class of the City/Town Mega-City Million- Class-I plus City City/Town and others Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 values of EC (Capital Cost Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs./day) "
168. Para 3.3 deals with the method of determining environmental compensation for damage/untreated/partially treated sewage by concerned individual/authority. Under this head, CPCB has considered that for population above 1 lakh, requirement of water supply, would be minimum 150 to 200 lpcd and 85% whereof would result in sewage generation. It takes capital cost for 1 MLD STP ranges from 0.63 crores to 3 crores and O & M cost around Rs. 30,000 per month. Consequently, it 166 suggested to assume capital cost for STPs as Rs. 1.75 crores/MLD (marginal average cost). Expected cost for conveyance system is assumed as Rs. 5.55 crore/MLD and annual O& M as 10% of combined capital coast. Based on the above assumptions, Committee has recommended/suggested environmental compensation, to be levied on urban local bodies, by applying formula and here CPCB has suggested two formulas and any of them may be adopted.
"EC= Capital Cost Factor × [Marginal Average Capital Cost for Treatment Facility × (Total Generation-Installed Capacity) + Marginal Average Capital Cost for Conveyance Facility × (Total Generation -Operational Capacity)] + O&M Cost Factor x Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Total Generation- Operational Capacity) × No. of Days for which facility was not available + Environmental Externality × No. of Days for which facility was not available Alternatively;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = [17.5(Total Sewage Generation - Installed Treatment Capacity) + 55.5(Total Sewage Generation- Operational Capacity)] + 0.2(Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Total Sewage Generation-Operational Capacity) × N Where; N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Quantity of Sewage is in MLD"
169. Para 3.4 deals with the method of environmental compensation to be levied on concerned individual/authority for improper solid waste management, chargeable from urban local body based on the following formula:
"EC = Capital Cost Factor x Marginal Average Cost for Waste Management × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) + O&M Cost Factor × Marginal Average O&M Cost × (Per day waste generation-Per day waste disposed as per the Rules) × Number of days violation took place + Environmental Externality × N Where;
Waste Quantity in tons per day (TPD) 167 N= Number of days from the date of direction of CPCB/SPCB/PCC till the required capacity systems are provided by the concerned authority Simplifying;
EC (Lacs Rs.) = 2.4(Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) +0.02 (Waste Generation - Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N + Marginal Cost of Environmental Externality × (Waste Generation-Waste Disposed as per the Rules) × N"
170. Here also certain assumed figures have been taken by CPCB. Report says that municipal solid waste generation is approximately 1.5 lakh MT/day in India as per MoHUA Report-2016. As per principles of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and PWM Rules, 2016, total cost of municipal solid waste management in city/town includes cost for door-to- door collection, cost of segregation at source, cost for transportation in segregated manner, cost for processing of municipal solid waste and disposal through facility like composting bio-methanation, recycling, co- processing in cement kilns etc. It is estimated that total cost of processing and treatment of municipal solid waste for a city of population of 1 lakh and generating approximately 50 tons/day of municipal solid waste is Rs. 15.5 Crores which includes capital cost (one time) and Operational and Management cost for one year. Expenditure for subsequent years would be only 3.5 Crores/annum. For arriving per day waste generation, CPCB has referred to a survey conducted by Environment Protection Training Research Institute (EPTRI) which estimated that solid waste generated in small, medium and large cities and towns is about 0.1 kg (Class-III), 0.3- 0.4 kg (Class-II) and 0.5 kg (Class-I) per capita per day respectively. The committee opined that 0.6 kg/day, 0.5 kg/day and 0.4 kg/day per capita waste generation may be assumed for mega-cities, million-plus UAs/towns and Class-I UA/Towns respectively for calculation of environmental compensation purposes.
168
171. Sample calculation of environmental compensation to be levied for improper management of municipal solid waste has been provided in table 3.6 which read as under:
"Table No. 3.6: Sample calculation for EC to be levied for improper management of Municipal Solid Waste City Delhi Agra Gurugram Ambala Population (2011) 1,63,49,831 17,60,285 8,76,969 5,00,774 Class Mega-City Million-plus Class-I Town Class-I Town City Waste Generation (kg. 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 per person per day) Waste Generation (TPD) 9809.90 880.14 350.79 200.31 Waste Disposal as per 2452.47 220.04 87.70 50.08 Rules (TPD) (assumed as 25% of waste generation for sample calculation) Waste Management 7357.42 660.11 263.09 150.23 Capacity Gap (TPD) Calculated EC (capital 17657.82 1584.26 631.42 360.56 cost component) in Lacs.
Rs.
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1000 Min. 500 Min. 100 Min. 100 values of EC (Capital Cost Max. 10000 Max. 5000 Max. 1000 Max. 1000 Component) recommended by the Committee (Lacs Rs.) Final EC (capital cost 10000.00 1584.26 631.42 360.56 component) in Lacs. Rs.
Calculated EC (O&M 147.15 13.20 5.26 3.00
Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day
Minimum and Maximum Min. 1.0 Min. 0.5 Min. 0.1 Min. 0.1
values of EC (O&M Cost Max. 10.0 Max. 5.0 Max. 1.0 Max. 1.0
Component)
recommended by the
Committee (Lacs
Rs./Day)
Final EC (O&M 10.00 5.00 1.00 1.00
Component) in Lacs.
Rs./Day
Calculated 2.58 0.18 0.03 0.02
Environmental
Externality (Lacs Rs. Per
Day)
Minimum and Maximum Max. 0.80 Min. 0.25 Min. 0.01 Min. 0.01
value of Environmental Max. 0.35 Max. 0.05 Max. 0.05
Externality
recommended by the
Committee (Lacs Rs. per
day)
Final Environmental 0.80 0.25 0.03 0.02 "
Externality (Lacs Rs. per
day)
169
172. Chapter IV deals with determination/computation of environmental compensation in case of "illegal extraction of ground water" and for this purpose report has referred to Tribunal's order dated 03.01.2019 passed in OA No. 327/2018, Shailesh Singh vs. Central Ground Water Board & Ors. The relevant extract of the order quoted in para 4.1 of the report is as under:
"CPCB may constitute a mechanism to deal with individual cases of violation of norms, as existed prior to Notification of 12/12/2018, to determine the environment compensation to be recovered or other coercive measures to be taken, including prosecution, for past illegal extraction of ground water, as per law."
173. Here, broadly, determination of environmental compensation refers to two major aspects i.e. illegal extraction of water as one aspect and illegal use of ground water as second aspect. For determination of environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, formula suggested by Committee is:
"ECGW =Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGW) Where water Consumption is in m3/day and ECRGW in Rs./m3 Yield of the pump varies based on the capacity/power of pump, water head etc. For reference purpose, yield of the pump may be assumed as given in Annexure-VI.
Time duration will be the period from which pump is operated illegally. In case of illegal extraction of ground water, quantity of discharge as per the meter reading or as calculated with assumptions of yield and time may be used for calculation of ECGW."
174. Depending on the category of the area for the purpose of ground water i.e., safe, semi-critical, critical and over-exploited and also the purpose for which ground water is used, determination of environmental compensation for illegal use of ground water, has been suggested differently for different purpose/use i.e., for drinking and domestic use; for packaged drinking water units/for mining infrastructure and dewatering 170 projects and for industrial units. Hence all these aspects are separately given in paragraph 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.6.3 and 4.6.4 as under:
"4.6.1 ECRGW for Drinking and Domestic use:
Drinking and Domestic use means uses of ground water in households, institutional activity, hospitals, commercial complexes, townships etc. Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No <2 2 to <5 5 to <25 25 & above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 4 6 8 10 2 Semi Critical 12 14 16 20
3. Critical 22 24 26 30 4 Over-Exploited 32 34 36 40 Minimum ECGW=Rs 10,000/- (for households) and Rs. 50,000 (for institutional activity, commercial complexes, townships etc.) 4.6.2 ECRGW for Packaged drinking water units:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 12 18 24 30 2 Semi Critical 24 36 48 60
3. Critical 36 48 66 90 4 Over-Exploited 48 72 96 120 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/-
4.6.3 ECRGW for Mining, Infrastructure and Dewatering Projects:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 15 21 30 40 2 Semi Critical 30 45 60 75
3. Critical 45 60 85 115 4 Over-Exploited 60 90 120 150 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/ 4.6.4 ECRGW for Industrial Units:
Sl. Area Category Water Consumption (m3 /day) No ˂200 200 to 1000 to 5000 & ˂1000 ˂5000 above Environmental Compensation Rate (ECRGW) in Rs./m3 1 Safe 20 30 40 50 2 Semi Critical 40 60 80 100
3. Critical 60 80 110 150 171 4 Over-Exploited 80 120 160 200 Minimum ECGW=Rs 1,00,000/- "
175. It is also recommended that minimum environmental compensation for illegal extraction of ground water would be Rs. 10,000/- if it is for domestic purposes, but in other matters, it would be Rs. 50,000/-.
176. These recommendations by CPCB have not been given in the form of a binding statutory provision. Even otherwise, we find that these are only broad suggestions, ignore several relevant aspects which have to be considered while determining environment compensation in a given case therefore, cannot be taken as readymade application to all situations for determining of environment compensation. Moreover, on some aspects there is no suggestion, but it is deferred.
177. We also find that some crucial relevant aspects requiring application of 'Polluters Pay', have not been considered in the above suggestions. CPCB has failed to consider that the purpose of determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation and levy thereof, involve various factors like (i) cost of damage to environment, (ii) cost needed for restoration/remediation of damage caused to environment, (iii) element of deterrent/provincial, (iv) liability arising for violation of statuary mandatory law relating to environment namely requirement of consent, EC and NOC etc. It is not mere cost of item or subject but computation of something which situation has arisen by an act of PPs due to violation of environmental law causing damage to environment. The loss and its remedy involve complex of components.
178. Nature is precious. The elements of nature like air, water, light and soil in materialistic manner may not be priced appropriately and adequately. Most of the time, whenever price is determined, it may be 172 extremely low or highly exorbitant meaning thereby disproportionate. Still, since some of the assets of nature are marketable, on that basis price may be determined but when such elements are damaged or degraded, restoration thereof, in effect is priceless. Many a times, it may be almost impracticable and improbable to recover and remediate damaged environment to its position as it was. Moreover, its cost might be very high. It also cannot be doubted that once there is a pollution or damage to environment, it would affect adversely not only the environment but also inhabitants and all biological organisms. Damage is there, only degree may differ whether to the environment or to the inhabitants and other organisms. To find out simultaneously degree of damage and to ascertain the same in many cases may not be possible or practicable. For example, a polluted air causes respiratory diseases but the people do not get infected and starts reflection of the disease immediately but it takes some time. The time taken in reflection of injury on the person or body also differs from person to person depending upon his immunity and other health conditions. In some cases, damage to environment i.e., air pollution may be fatal to a person who already has respiratory problem. For some a minor inconvenience, minor injury to others, and some may not suffer to the extent of showing symptoms of any diseases at all. When we talk of environmental compensation for causing degradation to environment and for its restoration or remediation, it is not a formal or casual or symbolic amount which is required to be levied upon the violator. It is substantive and adequate amount which must be levied for restoration of environment. CPCB in determining values of fixed quotients and rupees etc., has been very lenient as if only symbolically violator is to be held liable and it must pay a petty amount.
173
179. Statutory Regulators must realize that the amount is needed for remediation and restoration of damaged environment; enough to be deterrent, to provide adequate compensation where inhabitants are affected adversely and where violator has proceeded in violation of Environmental Laws relating to consents, clearances, permissions etc., to penalize him for such violation to prove to be a deterrent to him and others. Unfortunately, the above guidelines laid down by CPCB have not considered all these aspects and it appears that the same have been prepared in a very casual and formal manner.
180. In respect of computation of compensation for illegal extraction of ground water, CPCB has referred to Tribunal's order in Court on its own motion vs. State of Karnataka (supra) directing it to lay down guidelines to deal with the scale of compensation but has failed to consider that Tribunal has also observed that its scale may have slabs depending on extent of pollution caused, economic viability etc. and deterrent effect.
181. Statutory Regulators have also failed to consider that environmental compensation is not a kind of fee which may result in profiteering to violators and after adjusting a nominal amount of environmental compensation, a violator may find it profitable to continue with such violations. The objective of environmental compensation is that not only the loss and damage already caused, is made to recover and restore but also in future, the said violator may not repeat the kind of violation already committed and others also have a fear of not doing the same else similar liability may be enforced upon them. Unless amount of compensation is more than maximum permissible profit arising from violation, the purpose of environmental compensation would always stand defeated. 174
182. Loss caused to surroundings of the environment, may also include flora-fauna and human beings. It is in this backdrop that in various matters when the issues were considered by Courts and Tribunal and found necessary to impose environmental compensation upon Proponent/Violator of environmental laws, they have followed different mechanisms. Sometimes, Committee's reports confirming violations have been referred but for quantum of compensation, directions have been issued in different ways. In some cases, CPCB guidelines have been applied while in many other, project cost has been made basis.
183. CPCB Guidelines have taken care of industries and municipal bodies. Its application in all cases irrespective of other relevant consideration may prove to be disastrous. Individuals, charitable, social or religious bodies, public sector and government establishments etc., may, in given circumstances justify a different approach. Further, there may be cases attracting aggravating factors or mitigating factors, for example in national emergency some activity got performed violating environmental norms or a proponent is resilient to any advice to adhere law to protect environment and so on. In fact, quantum of EC should have nexus with State's efforts for protection and preservation of environment and control of pollution. Compensation regime must be a deterrent to violators and incentivize eco-friendly proponents. No one should get profited by violating environmental laws and community should also not suffer for violation of environmental norms by defaulting proponents. There is no reason, if beside the aspects noticed above, the computation process also incorporates the elements of inflation, quality of life, and economic prosperity.
184. In the context of "violation of disposal of Bio-Medical Waste" and "Non-compliance of Bio-Medical Waste Management Rules, 2016" and 175 determination of environmental compensation for such violations, Tribunal in OA No. 710/2017, Shailesh Singh vs. Sheela Hospital & Trauma Centre, Shahjahanpur & Others and other connected matters, vide order dated 15.07.2019, accepted report of CPCB, and said:
"10. The compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs.
11. It is made clear that if even after two months the States/UTs are found to be non-compliant, the compensation will be liable to be recovered from the said States/UTs at the rate of Rs. 1 Crore per month till the non-compliance continues."
185. The above recommendations i.e., in para 10, Tribunal said "compensation regime suggested by the CPCB may be adopted. It will be open to the State PCBs/PCCs to adopt a higher scale of compensation, having regard to the problems faced in such States/UTs". It further says that if State Governments and UTs still remain non-complying for two months, compensation will be recovered at the rate of Rs. 1 Crore per month till non-compliance continues.
186. In respect of solid waste, sewage effluent, ground water extraction etc., Tribunal in OA No. 593/2017, Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and another vs. Union of India and others, vide order dated 28.08.2019 has said in para 16, that as regards environmental compensation regime fixed vide CPCB guidelines for industrial units, GRAP, solid waste, sewage and ground water is accepted as an interim measure. Tribunal further observed that recovery of compensation on 'Polluter Pays' principle is a part of enforcement strategy but not a substitute for compliance. It directed all States/UTs to enforce compensation regime latest w.e.f. 01.04.2020 and made it clear that it is not condoning any past violations. Tribunal directed to enforce recovery of compensation from 01.04.2020 176 from the defaulting local bodies failing which the concerned States/UTs themselves must pay the requisite amount of compensation.
187. In the matter of illegal mining causing damage to environment, methodology for determining environmental compensation was examined in OA No. 360/2015, National Green Tribunal Bar Association vs. Virender Singh (State of Gujarat) and other connected matters decided on 26.02.2021. Here a report was submitted by CPCB on 30.01.2020, placing on record recommendations made by Committee comprising:
i.) Dr Purnamita Dasgupta, Professor, IEG, Delhi, ii.) Dr K.S. Kavi Kumar, Professor, MSE, Chennai, iii.) Dr. Yogesh Dubey, Associate Professor, IIFM, Bhopal, iv.) Shri Sundeep, Director, MoEF&CC, Delhi and v.) Shri A. Sudhakar, Additional Director, CPCB, Delhi
188. Report was considered by Tribunal vide order dated 17.08.2020. Report said:
"8. The Committee considered two approaches:
(I) Approach 1: Direct Compensation based on the market value of extraction, adjusted for ecological damages. (II) Approach 2: Computing a Simplified NPV for ecological damages.
9. In the first approach, the criteria adopted is:
Exceedance Factor (EF).
Risk Factor (RF).
Deterrence Factor (DF).
10. Approach 1 is demonstrated by Table 1 as follows: Table No. 01: Approach 1
Permitted Total Excess Exceedance Compensation Quantity Extraction Extraction in Charge (in MT or (in MT or (in MT or Extraction: (in Rs.) m3) m3) m3) X Y Z=Y-X Z/X D* (1+RF+DF) Where D=Z x Market Value 177 of the material per MT-or-m3 DF = 0.3 if Z/X = 0.11 to 0.40 DF = 0.6 if Z/X = 0.41 to 0.70 DF = 1 if Z/X >= 0.71 RF = 0.25, 0.50. 0.75, 1.00 (as per table 2)
11. Approach 2 is demonstrated by following formula:
"Total Benefits (B)=Market Value of illegal extraction: D(refer Table 1) Total Ecological Costs (C) = Market Value adjusted for risk factor: D * RF (refer Table 1)."
12. Final recommendation is as follows:
"Thus, it is recommended that the annual net present value (NPV) of the amount arrived at after taking the difference between the costs and the benefits through the use of the above approach, maybe calculated for a period of 5 years at a discount rate of 5% for mining which is in a severe ecological damage risk zone. The rationale for levying this NPV is based on expert opinion that reversal and/or restoration of the ecological damages is usually not possible within a short period of time and rarely is it feasible to achieve 100% restoration, even if the sand deposition in the river basin is restored through flooding in subsequent years. The negative externalities of the mining activity are therefore to be accounted for in this manner. Ideally, the worth of all such damages, including costs of those which can be restored should be charged. However, till data on site-specific assessments becomes available, this approach may be adopted in the interim. In situations where the risk categorization charged. However, till data on site-specific assessments becomes available, this approach may be adopted in the interim. In situations where the risk categorisation is unavailable or pending calculation, the following Discount Rates may be considered:
Severity Mild Moderate Significant Severe
Risk Level 1 2 3 4
Risk Factor 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0
Discount 8% 7% 6% 5%
Rate
189. Here, in both the approaches, element of illegality committed by PP in carrying on mining was not considered at all. For example, if EC and/or consent is not obtained. Similarly, cost of remediation/restoration was also not taken into consideration.178
190. In some cases, compensation has been awarded by Tribunal on lump sum basis without referring to any methodology. For example: (i) in Ajay Kumar Negi vs. Union of India, OA No. 183/2013, Rs. 5 Crores was imposed. (ii) In Naim Shariff vs. M/s. Das Offshore Application No. 15(THC) of 2016, Rs. 25 Crores was imposed (iii) Hazira Macchimar Samiti vs. Union of India, Rs. 25 crores was imposed.
191. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (2014)6SCC590, Supreme Court relied on Samaj Parivartana Samudaya & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others (2013)8SCC209 and held that ten per cent of the sale price of iron ore during e-auction should be taken as compensation. To arrive at the above view, Court observed that this was an appropriate compensation given that mining could not completely stopped due to its contribution towards employment and revenue generation for the State. Further, Court directed to create a special purpose vehicle, i.e., "Goan Iron Ore Permanent Fund" for depositing above directed compensation and utilization of above fund for remediation of damage to environment.
192. In Goel Ganga Developers vs Union of India and Others, (2018)18SCC257, Tribunal imposed 195 Crore compensation since project was executed without EC. Supreme Court made it 100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher. Supreme Court also upheld Rs. 5 crores imposed by Tribunal vide order dated 27.09.2016. Thus, total amount exceeded even 10% of project cost.
193. In Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation & Others, (2019)18SCC494, Supreme Court affirmed imposition of environmental compensation by Tribunal, considering cost of the project, where there was violation regarding EC/consent and proponent proceeded 179 with construction activities violating provisions relating to EC/Consent.
Tribunal determined environmental compensation at 5% and 3% of project cost of two builders. 5% of project cost was imposed where PP had raised illegal constructions while 3% was imposed where actual construction activity was not undertaken by PP and only preparatory steps were taken including excavation and deposition of huge earth by creating a hillock. Besides, Tribunal also directed for demolition and removal of debris from natural drain at the cost of PP.
194. In Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (supra), where illegal extraction of minerals was involved and in Goel Ganga Developers India vs. Union of India (supra), where a construction project was carried out without EC in violation of EIA 2006, Supreme Court permitted computation of environment compensation at 10% of the project cost. In fact, in Goel Ganga case, exemplary cost of Rs. 100 Crores were imposed, and Court said that developer would pay 100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is higher.
195. On the issue of assessment of compensation for damage to environment in the matter of illegal mining, recently Supreme Court in Bajri Lease LOI holders Welfare Society vs. State of Rajasthan and others, SLP (Civil) No. 10584 of 2019 (order dated 11.11.2021) has said that compensation/penalty to be paid by those indulging in illegal sand mining cannot be restricted to be value of illegally mined minerals. The cost of restoration of environment as well as the cost of ecological services should be part of compensation. 'Polluter Pays' principle as interpreted by this Court means that absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate victims of pollution but also cost of restoring environmental degradation. Remediation of damaged environment is part of the process of "sustainable development" and as 180 such the polluter is liable to pay the cost the individual sufferers as well as the cost of reversing the damaged ecology.
196. The above discussion led to an inference that ordinarily, where environmental laws and norms are violated by a construction project/activity and environmental compensation has to be assessed, project cost should be the basis, in absence of any other substantial basis for this purpose. Further, project cost disclosed in application submitted for grant of EC may be one of the several materials, if available, which can be relied on. If there is any other credible material available, there is no bar in considering such material. Moreover, cost of project disclosed in application for grant of EC is an estimated cost and hence provisional. If actual construction activities have undergone, such actual cost of project has to be taken into consideration for assessment of environmental compensation. In fact, it is the time when compensation is to be determined, such time is crucial for finding out cost of project. If execution of project has delayed, the resultant inflation has to be given effect. Similarly, if approved plan has been violated/deviated resulting impact on cost of project, the same has to be given credit, and so on. Normally, environmental compensation should upto 10% of the project cost.
197. Next question, in the present case, would be, whether compensation should be determined at 10% of the project cost or should be higher or lower.
198. We find that in Goel Ganga case (supra), PP was found guilty of multiple illegal acts including violation of the laws relating to EC, consent, etc.; and raised even otherwise illegal construction for the purpose of commercial project. Similarly, in Goa Foundation (supra), also illegal extraction was found by private proponents for commercial gains. 181
199. In Goel Ganga Developers India Private Limited vs. Union of India, (2018)18SCC257, Supreme Court observed that normal rule is that 5% of project cost should be environmental compensation which can be enhanced if there are some other relevant factors justifying such enhancement. In Goel Ganga (supra) as already said, Supreme Court imposed 10% of project cost or 100 Crores whichever is higher as environmental compensation. Rs. 5 Crores were imposed for not obtaining EC. PPs in the present cases have substantial similarities with facts as were in Goel Ganga (supra). Therefore, dictum laid in Goel Ganga (supra) would be apt to be followed in the present cases.
200. Earlier Tribunal considered inspection report dated 16.07.2019 and by order dated 23.10.2019 recommended interim compensation as under:
Sl. Name of the Units Interim
No. Compensation
1. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, (For TDI Rs. 10 Crores
Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road,
Sonipat-
2. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, Rs. 2.5 Crores
Sector-60, Sonipat.
3. M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan City, Rs. 2.5 Crores
Sector-58, Sonipat-
4. M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Rs. 2.5 Crores
Towers), Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
5. M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Rs. 2.5 Crores
Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat.
6. M/s Narang Constructions & Financiers Rs. 2.5 Crores
Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height), Sector-62, Kundli,
Sonipat.
201. It also constituted a Committee to suggest realistic compensation to be recovered apart from other actions to be taken.
202. The joint Committee consequently submitted report in the Tribunal on 21.02.2020, recommending environmental compensation as under: 182
S. Name of No. EC for Solid Total
No Banquet of violation Waste non- Environmental
. Days (in Rs.) compliance Compensation
EC (in Rs.) (in Rs.)
1. M/s TDI 2826 15,63,13,125 2,85,95,040 18,49,08,165
Infrastructure
Ltd. (For TDI
Kingsburry
Apartment),
G.T. Road,
Sonipat
2. M/s TDI 815 4,50,79,687.5 11,77,104 4,62,56,792
Infrastructure
Ltd., My Floor
2, Sector -
60, Sonipat
3. M/s TDI 2022 11,18,41,875 23,60,966.4 11,42,02,841
Infrastructure
Ltd. Tuscan
City, Sector -
58, Sonipat
4. M/s CMD 658 3,63,95,625 1,77,120 3,65,72,745
Built-Tech
Pvt. Ltd.
(Ushay
Towers),
Sector - 61,
Kundli,
Sonipat
5. M/s Parker 830 4,59,09,375 11,79,360 4,70,88,735
Estate
Development
Pvt. Ltd.,
Sector - 61
Kundli,
Sonipat
6. M/s Narang 966 5,34,31, 875 16,06,656 5,50,38,531
Construction
& Financiers
Pvt. Ltd. (Max
Height),
Sector - 62,
Kundli,
Sonipat
203. However, approach of the joint Committee in computation of compensation was not appreciated by Tribunal in its order dated 28.09.2021 and, therefore, in the report dated 12.04.2022, Committee has stated that 5% of the project cost in some matters like M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. is lesser than the compensation earlier suggested while in respect of M/s. CDM Built Tech Pvt. Ltd. (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.), compensation would increase substantially and in respect of M/s. 183 Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., compensation would increase marginally. This has been shown in the following chart:
S. Project Environmental Project cost EC
No. Proponent Compensation (in lacs) estimated
Estimated by at 5% of
Committee in project
2020 (in Rs.) cost (in
Crores)
1 M/s TDI 18,49,08,165 14402.28 7.20114
Infrastructure Ltd,
(For TDI
Kingsburry
Apartments), G.T.
Road, Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI 4,62,56,792 1401.72 0.70086
Infrastructure Ltd,
My Floor 2, Sector-
60, Sonipat.
3 M/s TDI 11,42,02,841 13017.11 6.508555
Infrastructure Ltd,
Tuscan City,
Sector-58,
Sonipat-
4 M/s TDI City Not assessed 45477.02 22.73851
(respondent in by Committee
O.A. No.
155/2020)
5 M/s CMD Built- 3,65,72,745 18592.52 9.29626
Tech Pvt. Ltd.
(Ushay Towers),
Sector-61,
Kundli, Sonipat-
6 M/s Parker 4,70,88,735 9913.75 4.956865
Estate
Development
Pvt. Ltd., Sector-
61, Kundli,
Sonipat.
7** M/s Narang 5,50,38,531 Project cost
Constructions & is not
Financiers Pvt. provided by
Ltd. (Max Height), Town &
Sector-62, Kundli, Country
Sonipat Planning
Department,
Haryana
Note: In the matter of M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), Sector
-61, Kundli, Sonipat- and M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd, Sector
-61, Kundli, Sonipat stay has been granted by Hon'ble Supreme Court.
204. The Committee, therefore, in the report dated 12.04.2022, after re- visiting the amount of compensation, took a view that the highest of the compensation shall be retained and thus has recommended environmental compensation as under:
184
S. Project Proponent Environmental
No. Compensation (in Rs.)
1 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, (For TDI 18,49,08,165
Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road,
Sonipat-
2 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, My Floor 2, 4,62,56,792
Sector-60, Sonipat.
3 M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd, Tuscan 11,42,02,841
City, Sector-58, Sonipat-
4 M/s TDI City (respondent in O.A. No. 22,73,85,100
155/2020)
5 M/s CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay 9,29,62,600
Towers), Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat-
6 M/s Parker Estate Development Pvt. 4,95,68,650
Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat.
7 M/s Narang Constructions & 5,50,38,531
Financiers Pvt. Ltd. (Max Height),
Sector-62, Kundli, Sonipat.
205. In our view, even this approach is neither just nor legal nor justified. A uniform common principle should be applied to all the PPs involved in these cases. Similarly situated person should not be dealt with differently. Environmental compensation assessed as such is not a penalty but applying the principle of 'Polluters pay', the proponent who has violated environmental laws is made to pay environmental compensation comprising the cost of damage to environment it has caused, cost that would be required for remediation/restoration/rejuvenation of the environment and it also involves a deterrent factor so that the proponent itself and others may not get encouraged to commit such violation in future and instead find it adequately detrimental and costly enough to take away profit if any, such violator may have, by violation of environmental laws/norms.
206. From the above report dated 12.04.2022, we find that the project cost shown in respect to various projects appears to be substantially lower and may have been taken from the applications submitted for EC in 2006 or 2007 or 2008 as the case has been in the case of PPs in question. From report, it does not appear that joint Committee has ascertained current cost of project by considering relevant material so as to 185 suggest/recommend adequate and appropriate environmental compensation in respect of PPs in question.
207. For example, in respect of TDI Kingsburry Apartment of M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. which is a project developed in Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat, report dated 16.07.2019 shows that 2999 flats were already constructed whereof 2050 flats were occupied. There were 22 residential blocks in the entire project. Here initially, EC was issued on 14.11.2007 and the project cost shown in the application submitted prior thereto must have been much less in comparison to the cost which would have been incurred in completion of the above units in respect whereto Completion Certificates were issued upto 2017. In Goa Foundation (supra), compensation was directed to be determined on sale price. In a project which takes a decade and so in construction for the purpose of compensation, the cost which the project has at the time when compensation was to be determined must be taken and this is what the law if we read the judgment of Supreme Court in Goel Ganga (supra) along with Goa Foundation (supra).
208. In report dated 12.04.2022, project cost has been shown as just Rs. 144.0228 Crores. However, information available in public domain and particularly, TDI Infrastructure web portal placing information in public domain discloses price range of Rs. 48 lakh to Rs. 65 Lakh for 2 BHK and 3 BHK residential units in Kingsburry Apartments. Even if we go by the lowest price tag of Rs. 48 lakhs, the cost of 2999 flats would come to Rs. 1439.52 Crores. This is only the cost of residential units. Besides, there are several other constructions and developmental activities like lift, club house, swimming pool, gymnasium, kids play area etc. and project cost is much wider including everything i.e. the general utility area, public amenities etc. If we take 25% cost under these heads, then the project cost 186 would come to about Rs. 1800 Crores. If we simply take 5% of this cost for environmental compensation, it will come to Rs. 90 Crores.
209. Environmental violations by this PP, are also very serious i.e. illegal construction after expiry of EC dated 14.11.2007 since there was no renewal or new grant of EC till 04.09.2017 while substantial completion/Part Completion Certificates were issued earlier thereto; STPs were not functional, hence untreated pollutants were being discharged illegally on land in the vicinity of the unit; effluent exceeded the parameters provided under Water Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder and there was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. All these violations, if taken separately for the purpose of compensation, a very huge amount of compensation would arrive to be imposed upon this PP. If we apply the dictum laid down in Goel Ganga (supra), it would be justified to determine environmental compensation at the rate of 10% of the cost of project. However, considering the fact that some part of the project was partly completed by 2012 and later upto 2017 giving margin for old project, we find it justified to assess environmental compensation at 4% of the project cost, we computed above. The amount of environmental compensation is computed accordingly to Rs. 72 Crores.
210. Similarly, in respect of the project My Floor 2 developed by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., in the report dated 12.04.2022, project cost has been taken as Rs. 14.0172 Crores. Here also, EC was granted to project on 14.11.2007. It expired after five years as per para 9 of EIA 2006 i.e., on 13.11.2012. PP commenced construction activities on 06.03.2012 (since CTE was granted in that date) and Occupation Certificate was issued on 28.08.2017. The report dated 16.07.2019 shows existence of 540 flats as per information given by PP himself, out of which 274 were already occupied. Here also, residential units by themselves do not constitute the 187 entire project. Information placed in public domain by TDI Infrastructure Web portal shows that in this project of My Floor 2, several amenities like club house, health facilities, maintenance staff, rain water harvesting, water storage, community hall, helipad, cafeteria, covered and open parking for residents, visitors parking, landscaped park etc. are provided. The details of flats with reference to rooms are not available but it appears that flats configuration vary from 2 BHK to 4 BHK and penthouse etc. The price range is Rs. 25 lakhs to more than Rs. One Crore. If we take the average price of Rs. 40 lakhs per residential unit, for 540 flats, it would come to Rs. 216 Crores. If 25% cost towards other amenities etc. is added, it will come to Rs. 270 Crores. If this project cost is taken and 5% thereof is computed as environmental compensation it will come to Rs. 13.5 Crore.
211. Here also, serious violations have been found in as much as after expiry of EC in November 2012, construction has continued without any valid EC, STP was not found functional and lying abandoned, pollutants were being discharged illegally and exceeded the parameters prescribed under Water Act 1974 and there was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. If the dictum laid down in Goel Ganga (supra) is applied, since serious violations have been committed by this proponent, computation of EC at 10% would be fully justified. However, giving some margin to the fact that some part of construction may have undergone before expiry of EC, and taking an overall balanced view in this matter, we find it appropriate to compute environmental compensation at 4% of the project cost as we determined above. Accordingly, we compute environmental compensation payable by this PP as Rs. 10.8 Crores.
212. The condition in respect to the project Tuscan City developed by M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. is more serious in as much as there was no CTO obtained by PP; no STP was provided, untreated sewage was 188 discharged directly on open land in utter violations of Water Act, 1974 read with EP Act, 1986; effluent exceeded the parameters provided under Water Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder and no compliance was made of SWM Rules, 2016. As per report dated 16.07.2019, 615 flats were found constructed out of which 234 were occupied. The project cost in the report dated 12.04.2022 has been shown as Rs. 130.1711 Crores. On the web portal of TDI Infrastructure, the price range of 2 BHK to 4 BHK is found from Rs. 31 lakhs to Rs. 55 lakhs. Since the project cost is much wider and there are several amenities like swimming pool, cafeteria, multipurpose court, multipurpose hall, yoga/meditator area, rain water harvesting, club house, gymnasium etc., if we take Rs. 40 lakhs as the average price in respect to residential unit, for 615 units, it would come to Rs. 246 Crores. 25% towards amenities and other part of the project if added, it will come to Rs. 307 Crores. Computation of environmental compensation at 5% of the above computed cost of the project would arrive at Rs. 15.35 Crores.
213. In this project also, environmental violations are very serious as already noted in as much as CTE was granted on 06.03.2012 but no CTO was issued yet units were sold and possession was handed over, STP was not installed, hence untreated sewage water was discharged illegally on open land causing serious pollution; effluent exceeded the parameters provided under Water Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder and no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016 was found. Here also as per the dictum of Supreme Court in Goel Ganga (supra), even more than 5% environmental compensation would have been justified but since half of the constructed units in this project are occupied by third parties; taking a balance view in the matter, we compute environmental compensation at 189 4% of the project cost computed above. We accordingly, compute environmental compensation as Rs. 12.28 Crores.
214. In respect of project Parker Residency developed by M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., as per report dated 16.07.2019, 342 flats were found constructed out of which 270 were occupied. As per web portal of developer of Parker Residency, Kundli, Sonipat, the project has 5 towers with 12 floors each and total 342 dwelling units. The project is spread over an area of 7.5 acres and one of the spacious housing society in Sonipat region. The configuration of dwelling unit is only 4 BHK and 5 BHK apartments with sizes 1900 sq. ft. and 3500 sq. ft. respectively. The price starts with Rs. 70 lakhs with 4 BHK and Rs. 1.3 Crores for 5 BHK. If we take an average cost of Rs. One crore, the project cost in respect of dwelling units would come to Rs. 342 Crores. The web portal also mentions various amenities available in Parker Residency like lift, swimming pool, yoga/meditator area, jogging track, club house, sports area, children play area, multipurpose room, rain water harvesting etc. 25% of cost towards other aspects is added to the project cost of only dwelling units, it would come to Rs. 427.5 Crores (342 Crores + 85.5 Crores). If we compute environmental compensation at 5% of the above project cost, it would come to Rs. 21.35 Crores.
215. Here also, serious violation were found i.e. no valid CTO was obtained; project was running illegally; various deficiencies were found in STP; effluent discharge did not conform to the parameters prescribed under Water Act, 1974 and Rules framed thereunder and there was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. Applying the dictum of Goel Ganga (supra), the deficiencies of this project justify imposition of environmental compensation at higher rate of 10%. However, since more than 50% of dwelling units are already occupied, taking a balanced view, we find it 190 appropriate to compute environmental compensation at 4% of the cost of project as computed above. We accordingly, compute environmental compensation as Rs. 17.1 Crores.
216. Similar is the position with the project Ushay Towers developed by M/s. CMD Built Tech Pvt. (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.). From the report dated 16.07.2019, we find that the project has 16 towers where against 8 were already constructed comprising 375 flats and 200 were at possession stage. However, there appears some subsequent progress also in as much as the developer's web portal gives information in public domain that the project has 16 towers with 11 floors each and 736 units on offer. It is ready to move housing society and configuration is 2 BHK to 4 BHK apartments with sizes 1000 sq. ft. and 1515 sq. ft. and 2391 sq. ft. respectively. The price range starts from Rs. 34 lakhs for 2 BHK, Rs. 51 lakhs for 3 BHK and Rs. 77.27 lakhs for 4 BHK. The project comprises several other facilities like swimming pool, schools, shopping centre, indoor games, jogging tracks, club house, landscape garden etc. For the purpose of computing project cost, if we take average price at Rs.55 lakhs per dwelling unit, the total cost of dwelling units would come to Rs. 404.80 Crores. If 25% cost towards other activities is included, it could come to Rs. 506 Crores. The environmental compensation if computed at 5% of the project cost computed above, it would come to Rs. 25.30 Crores.
217. The environmental violations found in this project are also very serious in as much as EC granted on 12.06.2008 expired after 5 years as per para 9 of EIA 2006 i.e., 11.06.2013, still construction activities continued in as much as at the time of inspection on 19.06.2019, only 8 towers and 375 flats were constructed but remaining have been constructed thereafter; there was no consent obtained from HSPCB at any point of time and project run illegally; even occupation of flats was allowed 191 to the residents without requisite clearance/Consent/NOC; STP was not found working properly and effluent discharge exceeded the parameters prescribed under Water Act, 1974 read with Rules as framed thereunder; there was no compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. In the circumstances, dictum laid down in Goel Ganga (supra) aptly apply justifying computation of environmental compensation even at higher rate of 10% of the project cost. In this case, we find no reason to take any sympathetic approach particularly, for the reason that during pendency of this OA, construction activities have continued and, therefore, we compute environmental compensation at 8% of the project cost computed above. We accordingly, compute environmental compensation as Rs. 40.48 Crores.
218. In respect of project Max Height developed by M/s. Narang Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sector-62, Kundli, Sonipat, no revised compensation has been determined since project cost was not available. Earlier amount of compensation was Rs. 5.5038531 Crores. The major violation on the part of this PP is in respect to non-compliance of SWM Rules, 2016. The other two violations have not resulted in any pollution since the sample has been found within permissible limits. Therefore, taking a lenient view in this matter, we find it appropriate to impose environmental compensation of Rs. One Crore.
219. Issue III is answered accordingly.
220. We, accordingly, dispose of OA 774/2018, OA 155/2020 and all pending IAs and MAs with following directions:
(i) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for TDI Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 72 Crores as environmental compensation.192
(ii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for My Floor 2, Sector-60, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 10.8 Crores as environmental compensation.
(iii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for Tuscan City, Sector-58, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 12.28 Crores as environmental compensation.
(iv) M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 17.1 Crores as environmental compensation.
(v) M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.) Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat shall pay Rs.
40.48 Crores as environmental compensation.
(vi) M/s. Narang Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sector-62, Kundli, Sonipat, shall pay Rs. One Crore as environmental compensation.
(vii) The above amount shall be paid within three months with HSPCB by PPs. However, we make it clear that if there is any otherwise order by Supreme Court or High Court in regard to the present matters, the same shall operate and above direction would be subject to interim order/final decision of such Court.
(viii) This amount shall be utilized for rejuvenation/restoration of environment in the area concerned on the recommendation of a joint Committee comprising Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development, Haryana; Additional Chief Secretary, Environment Haryana; CPCB; HSPCB and District Magistrate, Sonipat who shall prepare a plan within three months and execute the same within further six months from the date of deposit of environmental compensation by PP. District 193 Magistrate, Sonipat and CPCB shall be the nodal authority for this purpose.
(ix) PPs i.e. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers) (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s. Narang Constructions Pvt. Ltd shall not create any further third party rights in the questioned projects unless and until environmental laws and norms are complied with.
(x) PPs shall not undertake any further activities of development in projects in question unless the requisite clearances/NOCs/permissions under environmental laws from Competent Authorities are obtained and other provisions of environmental laws requisite to be observed before commencement of construction proceedings are complied with.
(xi) PPs are directed to take necessary steps in consultation with
HSPCB and HUDA for discharge of sewerage,
complying/maintaining the prescribed standards under Water Act 1974 and Rules framed thereunder.
(xii) HSPCB and District Magistrate, Sonipat are directed to ensure that untreated sewage water generated in the premises of questioned projects, is not discharged on open lands by transporting the same by tankers.
(xiii) HSPCB shall ensure that the diesel generators are not allowed to run in the questioned areas unless the provisions of Air Act 1981 are complied with and all precautions to maintain standard of air are observed/taken.
(xiv) Since environmental laws are notified and included in schedule I of PMLA 2002 as discussed by Tribunal in OA No. 194 64/2016 (WZ), Akhil Bhartiya Mengela Samaj Parishad vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Ors. and constitute an offence under the said Act, let a copy of this order be sent to Enforcement Directorate for appropriate action against violators under PMLA 2002.
221. A copy of this order shall be forwarded to Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development, Haryana; Additional Chief Secretary, Environment Haryana; CPCB; HSPCB; TCPD Haryana; Chief Secretary, Haryana; District Magistrate, Sonipat; and Directorate of Enforcement headquarter at Delhi by e-mail for information, necessary action and compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Chairperson Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member Prof. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member July 15, 2022 OA No. 764/2018 & OA No. 155/2020 R 195