National Green Tribunal
Anupkrishnan ... vs Head Of Business Operations(Tn) M/S ... on 20 July, 2023
Author: Satyagopal Korlapati
Bench: Satyagopal Korlapati
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI
Original Application No. 21 of 2021 (SZ)
&
I.A. Nos.181 of 2021 (SZ) & 11 of 2022 (SZ)
(Through Video Conference)
IN THE MATTER OF
Anupkrishnan V.
Flat 7173, Tower 7, Prestige Bella Vista,
Ayyappanthangal Village, Mount Poonamallee Rd.,
Kanchipuram District, Chennai- 600056.
...Applicant(s)
Versus
1. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change,
Represented by its Director, MoEF&CC (SEZ)
HEPC Building, No. 34, Cathedral Garden Road,
Nngambakkam, Chennai- 600034.
2. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority,
Represented by its Member Secretary,
3rd Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet,
Chennai- 600015.
3. CMDA
Represented by its Member Secretary,
Thalamuth Natarajan Building,
No.1 Gandhi Irwin Road, Chennai- 600008.
4. M/s Prestige Estates Project Ltd,
Represented by Chairman & Managing Director,
Falcon House, No.1 Main Guard Road,
Bangalore-1 Karnataka- 560001.
5. M/s Prestige Estates Project Ltd, Chennai,
Represented by Head of Buisness Operations,
Prestige Polygon- Top Floor, 471, Anna Salai,
Nandanam Chennai- 600035.
6. The Chairman,
Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board,
No. 76, Anna Salai, Guindy,
Chennai- Tamil Nadu- 600032.
...Respondent(s)
For Applicant(s): Dr. Anupkrishnan V (Party in Person)
For Respondent(s): Mr. G.M. Syed Nurullah Sheriff for R1 & R2.
Ms. Manisha represented M/s. Veena Suresh
for R3.
1
Mr. Sathish Parasaran, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Arjun Suresh, Mr. B. Kishore for R4 & R5.
Ms. Aarti represented Mr. Sai Sathya Jith for R6.
M/s. Rank Associates for R7 & R8.
Judgment Reserved on: 7th March, 2023.
Judgment Pronounced on: 20th July, 2023.
CORAM:
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SATYAGOPAL KORLAPATI, EXPERT MEMBER
JUDGMENT
Delivered by Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member.
1. The applicant is one of the owners of the apartment in Prestige Bella Vista project which was developed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5, herein. Alleging certain violations in the Environmental Clearance conditions, the above Original Application is filed seeking direction to respondent nos. 4 and 5 to stop operating the incomplete residential complex and direct them to comply with the conditions stipulated in the Environmental Clearance and take action against them for the non-compliance of the conditions in the environmental Clearance dated 16.10.2012.
2. According to the applicant:
(i) the respondent nos. 4 and 5 had obtained completion certificate for 25 blocks out of the 33 blocks whereas those blocks were having only partial completion certificate which is not legally valid. Eight of the blocks which were mentioned as ready for occupation were already occupied even in the year 2016. There was non-compliance of the condition even with respect to the open car park. It is stated that the 2 Environmental Clearance mandated 3769 car park spaces to be provided in the project whereas the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have provided only less than 2,000 car park spaces in the residential complexes.
(ii) In addition the applicant also complains that there were blatant violations committed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 which the respondent nos. 1 to 3 did not notice. The respondent nos. 4 and5 had encroached the public road, pedestrian pathways and illegal water treatment plant constructions, emergency DG sets and piped gas lines etc., were not in accordance with the Environmental Clearance granted.
(iii) The project proponent also said to have not provided adequate drinking water for the residential project. It failed to construct adequate borewell to procure 856 KLD of fresh water and establish a water treatment plant with additional RO water treatment facility to filter the drinking water. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 though promised to establish a STP with capacity of 1610 KLD to generate 1133 KLD of treated water, the same is not been done.
(iv) As per the MoM held on 24.03.2019, 04 borewells were working with a yield of 250 KLD water with no RO water treatment facility. The project was getting another 350 KLD of water from Chennai Metro Water, totalling 600 KLD of water instead of 1650 KLD as has been mentioned in the Environmental Clearance. The respondent also had failed to install 26 numbers of 750 KVA DG sets for emergency power back up. The installed only 13 numbers of 500 KVA DG sets.
(v) The open spaces inside the project was converted to car parks, tennis courts or illegal piped gas banks, thus violating the 3 green belt design along the periphery of the plot as per the Environmental Clearance.
(vi) The solar energy water heating is only for top two floors and they were also not working for the last two years. The solar energy was not used at all in the project for illumination of common areas, lighting for gardens and street lighting etc.
(vii) The Environment Management Cell is not established in the residential project.
(viii) The Six monthly compliance report as mandated in the Environmental Clearnce also had not been complied with by the project proponent.
On the above said complaints the Original Application has been filed for taking action against them for not complying with the conditions.
3. This Tribunal on the above said allegations had constituted a Joint Committee comprising of the Director, MoEF&CC, Assistant Environment Engineer, SEIAA, Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board besides ordering notice to all the respondents.
4. The Joint Committee was directed to find out whether there was any violation in the Environmental Clearance conditions, whether the permission has been obtained for the purpose of establishing ETP or STP and the damage that has been caused on account of the non-compliance of the conditions imposed and also to assess the compensation.
4
5. The above said Joint Committee inspected the site on 20.04.2021 and observed as follows:
(i) The Environmental Clearance was issued by MoEF on 16.12.2021 for the development of residential complex at Sy.
No. 1/1,2 etc., of Ayyapanthangal Village, Sriperumbudhur Taluk. The total land area of the project is 1,00,199 sqm i.e. 24.76 acres and the total built up area was 4,78,003 sqm. The proposal involved construction of 20 blocks of residential buildings and 01 block of club house.
(ii) The consent for establishment was obtained from the Pollution Control Board on 28.06.2013 for the construction of residential apartment with total built up area 4,58,341 Sq.m comprising of 33 Blocks in 20 Tower of Residential buildings with two basements and 01 block of club house, each tower having two basements plus Ground plus 16 Floors.
(iii) Consent to operate was obtained by Respondents on 26.11.2018 for residential complex comprising of 25 Blocks in 17 Towers with 2083 dwelling units plus 01 block of club house with total built up area of 3,38,661 Sq.m and to discharge 376 KLD-Flushing, 216 KLD Gardening and 237 KLD-CMWSSB Decanting point.
(iv) The Joint Committee had observed that the respondent nos. 4 and 5 have constructed Residential Building Complex comprising of 33 Blocks in 20 Towers.
6. The allegations made by the applicant were also observed by the Committee which are as follows:
5
(i) Regarding the allegation that half yearly statements were not sent as required by the project proponent. It was found that the respondent nos. 4 and5 have submitted the half yearly report to the MoEF&CC regularly from June, 2014 till September, 2020 both by the electronic mode and physical mode.
(ii) Regarding the non providing of sufficient car parking area as per the Environmental Clearance, it was observed that as per the CMDA approved plan the space provided for car parking is 2215 numbers and the space provided for two wheeler parking is for 600 numbers and there is deviation in the approved plan and inadequate ECS was noticed which is a violation.
(iii) Sufficient water supply mechanism is not provided in the residential project. In this regard the Joint Committee has found that the total water requirement of the project is 1659 KLD (fresh water is 856 LD and recycled water from STP is 803 KLD) shall be sourced from borewells after getting NOC from the competent authority. The developer also has furnished the approval letter from the CMWSSB for supply of fresh water 2.0ML vide letter dated 15.06.2016. Presently, the total fresh water requirement is 800 KLD in which 500-600 KLD of fresh water is being supplied by the CMWSSB and the remaining fresh water 200 KLD is outsourced through the tankers. The developer has not obtained ground water clearance for the extraction of water from the existing 04 borewells from the competent authority. Due to high iron content 6 present in the bore well water existing 04 bore well are used as harvesting structure.
(iv) No provision for Reverse Osmosis plant. In this regard, it is stated that the water for the domestic purpose was being sourced from the CMWSSB which is being treated by 03 numbers of water treatment plants installed at the project site. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 have not provided RO treatment technology for drinking purpose in the residential complex as mentioned in the Environmental Clearance. As the water is procured from CMWSSB through private tankers they are treated in the existing treatment system.
(v) Construction against the plan and permission granted and the violating the Environmental Clearance conditions. The joint committee has found that the total built up area constructed was only 4,43,738.16 sqm which is less than the approved built up area of 4,78,003 sqm as mentioned in the Environmental Clearance. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 also obtained first partial completion certificate from the CMDA on 08.01.2016 for the construction of 14 blocks out of 33 blocks with 1346 dwelling units. The second partial completion certificate from the CMDA was obtained on 16.03.2016 for the construction of 11 blocks out of 33 blocks and club house with 737 dwelling units. Further, the final completion certificate was not issued by CMDA for the remaining 08 blocks and few blocks were found to be occupied.
(vi) Regarding the emergency DG sets as per the Environmental Clearance condition 26 DG sets of 750 KVA 7 have to be installed. It is stated that the project proponent have provided DG sets as power back comprising of 725 KVA- 10 numbers, 600 KVA- 05 numbers and 500 KVA- 05 numbers with total capacity of 12.75 MVA for the project site. Hence, the joint committee found that the number of DG sets provided to meet out the back up power supply.
(vii) Regarding the treatment facility provided for treatment of the waste generated in the complex. The Environmental Clearance has mandated setting up of organic waste convertor for processing of 4.24 tonnes per day of biodegradable wastes converting into manure. The respondent nos. 4 and 5 have installed organic waste convertor of capacity 500 kg/hr and the total waste generated from the residents is segregated into biodegradable and non-biodegradable at source. The segregated wastes are being collected and the biodegradable wastes are being treated in organic waste convertor and the manure converted is utilised for the green belt.
(viii) Regarding the sewage treatment plant. The total sewage generated from the project site is 1133 KLD for which three numbers of STPs having total capacity of 1550 KLD is installed in the project site and the STP adequacy report was furnished by the Anna University on 24.09.2018. The treated sewage generated from the STP is being analysed by an NABL accredited laboratory and the results are found within the discharge standards prescribed by Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The 8 treated water is being used for toilet flushing, green belt development etc.
(ix) The next observation by the Joint Committee is regarding solar water heater for the top two floors of 30 blocks and the solar light existing poles along the internal roads and garden area of the project site were noted as violations.
7. In this regard after noticing the above violations, a notice was issued by the Pollution Control Board on 23.09.2020. The residential complex was inspected on 20.04.2021 again and found that most of the conditions were not complied with and certain conditions were still in the process of compliance. In view of the above, the environmental compensation was calculated and assessed at Rs. 95,97,656/- (Ninety Five lakhs ninety seven thousand six hundred fifty six).
8. The 1st respondent, namely, MoEF&CC, filed its affidavit responding to the allegations stating that by virtue of notification no. 637 (E) dated 28.02.2014, the powers vested in it has been delegated under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to all the State and Union Territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority. In the present case also the Environmental Clearance granted only by SEIAA.
9. The SEIAA, who is the 2nd respondent, had inspected the site on 25.01.2023 to ascertain whether the Environmental Clearance conditions have been violated by the project proponent which are:
(i) Installation of the Sewage Treatment Plant, the project proponent had obtained the adequacy certificate for the 9 installed STPs from Anna University. The treated sewage Discharge of treated sewage is being analyzed through TNPCB Laboratory & its ROA t reveal that all the parameters are within Board the limit prescribed by the Board.
(ii) Regarding the car washing in the complex and also the Pollution measures for fugitive emissions. The SEIAA has stated that is no shopping mall established within the premises for providing the same.
(iii) Regarding the drinking water facility based on the RO Plant. Though the Project proponent has not provided any Reverse osmosis plant for the treatment of drinking water, the project proponent is sourcing potable water of 2MLD from CMWSSB which is treated through WTP. In this regard, it is to be noted that in O.A No. 134 of 2015 by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal has directed prohibition of the use of RO plants across the states where Total TDS in water is less than 500mg/l.
(iv) Regarding rain water harvesting, the project proponent has constructed collection sump to store the runoff from terrace. Also the percolation pits are installed along the storm water drains to augment the ground water level.
The Project proponent has provided silt trap as a pre treatment to remove suspended matter, oil & grease.
(v) The generated solid wastes are being collected/segregated before disposal to the city municipal facility. In-house organic waste convertor is installed and it is in operation. The compost material is used as a manure for the green belt.
10
(vi) It is stated that the project proponent has not complied with the hazardous waste including biomedical waste as per the norms. The SEIAA has observed that the hazardous waste/waste oil generated from the DG set has to be disposed to the authorized recyclers and it needs HWA under the Hazardous and Other Waste (Management &Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016. The Project proponent has not obtained authorization from the above referred authority.
(vii) Regarding the green belt, the project proponent has provided green belt in the periphery of the project site and also maintained green cover in OSR land and open spaces inside the plot.
(viii) Regarding the general conditions also the SEIAA has observed that the project proponent had been filing Six monthly compliance reports regularly and there is no change in the scope of the project for fresh appraisal.
(ix) The other statutory clearances such as the approvals for storage of diesel from Chief Controller of Explosives, Fire Department etc., are all complied with. The project proponent has obtained necessary statutory clearances such as clearance from the Civil Aviation and Fire Department. The clearances such as Chief Controller of Explosives, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Central Ground Water Authority, Coastal Regulatory Zone Authority are not applicable to this project.
(x) The project proponent has also shared the copy of the Environmental Clearance with the local authorities, namely, Iyyappanthangal Municipality who had uploaded 11 on the website of the company. As per the post environmental clearance monitoring condition, advertisement was given in both English and Tamil languages by the project proponent.
(xi) The other stipulations to be enforced under the provisions of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 etc were also agreed to comply by the project proponent.
10. According to the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA), who is the 3rd respondent, two partial completion certificates were issued for completed 11 blocks out of 33 blocks and club house block. While so the CMDA examined the 3 rd and final completion certificate for 08 blocks and was advised to remit the balance premium FSI and I&A charges of Rs. 84,93,90,000/- (Eighty Four core ninety three lakhs and ninety thousand) subject to the outcome of the order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said amount was not remitted by the respondent nos. 4 and 5, instead they have filed a curative petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. Based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29.07.2019, the respondent nos. 4 and5 were advised to remit the balance premium FSI changes to the 3rd respondent within 15 days time followed by a reminder letter dated 22.04.2021. However, in view of the curative petition that is pending the demand for the premium FIS are kept in abeyance. Further, the CMDA has sent letter dated 22.04.2021 to the respondent nos. 4 and 5 informing 12 that the pendency of the curative petition does not absolve their liability to pay the outstanding amount on premium FSI charges.
12. In the subsequent report filed by the CMDA dated 03.01.2023, it is stated that the curative petitions filed by the respondent nos. 4 and 5, herein, were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.05.2022, therefore the project proponent was directed to pay the balance premium FSI charges of 80,76,75,000/- along with interest amount of Rs.95,85,88,211/- till 11.07.2022 by demand notice dated 13.07.2022. Accordingly, the project proponent has remitted the charges.
13. The CMDA has further stated that as mandated in the development regulations and specified in the annexure under the head parking requirements, the required car parking was worked out as 2212 numbers and issued the planning permission for the project. Finally, the promoter has provided 2215 numbers onsite, hence there is no violation of car parking requirement. Regarding the completion certificate, was pending with the CMDA for non- payment of FSI charges. Now that the said amount along with interest was paid by the respondent nos. 4 and 5 the CMDA had recommended to issue the final completion certificate based on the MoEF letter dated 15.02.2019 for 33 blocks. Accordingly, the final completion certificate for the remaining 08 blocks was issued on 08.12.2022.
14. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 who are the Project Proponents have filed their response to the application as well as to the reports of the official respondents. The respondents had specifically objected 13 to the maintainability of the Original Application before this Tribunal which related to the purported violations concerning planning permission, car parking spaces, built up areas, etc., as these issues do not have any nexus to the environment. These violations may be of the Town and Country Planning laws or the other local laws, for which, the applicant can have his remedy before the appropriate forum. As per the EC granted, the project was to be constructed as a residential complex comprising 20 blocks/towers. As stipulated in the EC, there are only 20 towers that have been constructed and each of these towers comprises one or more blocks aggregating to a total of 33 blocks. The construction was also made well within the built up area as envisaged in the EC. Hence, there is no violation of the EC conditions.
15. The respondents had applied for the planning permission under the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971 before the 3rd Respondent. The same was granted on 13.02.2013 for the construction of Multi Storied Building. The building permit was also issued on 23.04.2013. The respondents had developed and constructed the project with a total built up area of 4,49,971 Sq.M. (inclusive of FSI and non-FSI areas) and 4,43,738.16 Sq.M. excluding the non-FSI area, along with facilities such as clubhouse, parks, open spaces, car parking, etc. It is stated that they had complied with all the conditions of the EC and also had filed the half-yearly compliance report to the 1st Respondent which is evident from the report of the Joint Committee. The 3 rd Respondent had issued two completion certificates on 08.01.2016 and 16.03.2016, totalling 25 blocks which were complete in all 14 respects on the date of issuance of such certificates. Therefore, the allegation of the applicant that these certificates were obtained fraudulently is false and the same cannot be sustained. The applicant is residing in Tower No.7 in Block 11, for which, the completion certificate was issued on 08.01.2016 itself. The remaining 8 Blocks were also completed on 12.02.2016 before the date of expiry of the planning permit. Though the project proponent had made an application for a completion certificate for the 8 Blocks, the 3rd Respondent/CMDA had not approved the same and the same was withheld citing the pendency of the unconnected dispute between the project proponent and the 3 rd Respondent for the demand of premium FSI charges before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The non-issuance of the completion certificate for the balance 8 Blocks was not on account of any violation of norms/planning permit, but it is only for the reasons stated above.
16. It is now stated that the Curative Petitions filed by the project proponent before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were also dismissed on 13.05.2022. Pursuant to which, the project proponent had remitted the balance of the premium FSI charges along with the interest till 11.07.2022. Thereafter, the project proponent had applied to the CMDA for the issuance of the completion certificate for the remaining 8 Blocks and they are following up with the CMDA to obtain approval of the same. Therefore, non-issuance of the completion certificate by the CMDA for the remaining 8 Blocks is not due to a violation of any plans/ permissions/EC, but for the reasons stated above. Even presuming that the completion 15 certificate is not yet obtained by the project proponent, the said issue would not come within the purview of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
17. Regarding car parking, it is stated that more than the adequate number of parking lots for the residents as per the CMDA norms have been provided. The project proponents have also allotted 2215 car parking spaces and 600 two-wheeler parking spaces under the project. These parking lots have been provided as open and covered so that no public spaces were utilized and without obstructing the common utilities within the premises. Therefore, the said allegation by the applicant is also rejected.
18. The next allegation of violation and encroachment of the public road and pedestrian pathway is also denied by the project proponent. The parking of the vehicles by the residents on the roads and pathways despite the allotted parking spaces for each of them cannot be attributed to the project proponent and the project proponent is not accountable for the same. The Water Treatment Plant (WTP) construction, DG sets, and the piped gas banks are also constructed only in accordance with the CMDA norms/EC conditions. Hence, there is no violation as alleged by the applicant.
19. The next allegation regarding the water requirement of the project which was estimated at 1659 KLD (i.e. 856 KLD of fresh water and recycled water from STP of 803 KLD) will be sourced from the bore wells and metro water supply. Considering the built up area of 4,78,003 Sq.M., the total requirement of water for the said project is approximately 1,000 - 1,300 KLD per day which would vary on 16 weekdays, weekends and holidays. Hence, the project required freshwater of about 525 - 600 KLD and 600 - 750 KLD of recycled water on a daily basis. To meet the above requirement, the project proponent claims to have obtained 2 MLD (2000 KLD) of freshwater from the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB). Besides, considering the fact that some of the apartments are not still occupied, the current demand for water supply at the project is much less than the maximum demand. Additionally, it is stated that the recycled water from the project is treated and used for gardening, flushing and greenbelt development. As such, the project proponents are duly complying with the requirements and there are no violations in respect to the undertaking provided in the EC so far as the water supply is concerned.
20. Respondents No.4 and 5 have further stated that as per the G.O. (Ms.) No.142 dated 23.07.2014, the NOC has to be obtained to draw groundwater for domestic purpose by any project only in case of non-availability of surface water. As the project is located within the Chennai Corporation region and the project proponent is not using the bore wells, it is able to meet the requirements from the recycled water generated from the 3 STPs set up in the residential complex. Regarding the water supply also, the project proponent had explained in its counter that the water supply by the CMWSSB is treated by 3 WTPs installed within the project which is having a total capacity of 67.5 M3/Hour containing pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter as well as disinfected by chlorination. Moreover, the water supply by the CMWSSB is of potable quality which does not require the RO plant 17 which is also specifically prohibited by the order passed by the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi.
21. The next aspect concerns the sewage generated from the project which is estimated to be 1133 KLD, for which, the project proponent had installed 3 STPs having a total capacity of 1550 KLD. It is stated that presently the total inflow of water is less than the estimated range indicated in the EC, as some of the units are not yet occupied. As stated earlier, the recycled water from the STPs is used within the project for gardening, flushing and greenbelt development. The surplus water is decanted to the CMWSSB's pumping station. The STP also comprises primary treatment such as a bar screen chamber and equalization tank followed by biological treatment comprising Fixed-bed bioreactors (FBBR) and settling tank followed by an activated carbon filter and ultraviolet system for disinfection. Hence, there cannot be any complaints about the STPs.
22. Regarding the power requirement of the project, it is estimated as 10.5 MVA, for which, the sub-station and transformer yard has been installed within the project site by obtaining prior approval from the TNEB. The project proponents have also installed 20 DG sets with a total capacity of 12.75 MVA to meet the power backup supply for the project which was also observed to be adequate by the Joint Committee. The disposal of used or waste oil discharged from the DG sets is also being disposed of by any agency approved by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The DG sets also complied with the emission parameters as per the environmental norms. Regarding the plot utilization, it is stated that only 21.67% 18 is used for the project and offset of 10% and the remaining area of approximately 68% is allocated towards open space which includes roads, hardscaping, parks and greenbelts. The greenbelt development is also in conformity with the standards of the residential project. The project proponents have also planted indigenous and native varieties of plants and trees in the greenbelt area and in the open space of the project which are being maintained on a day to day basis to ensure that the plot is suitably landscaped with vegetation. Thus, the project proponent had submitted that the entire project was developed in strict adherence to the conditions, obligations and directions as issued by the authorities/norms/guidelines.
23. Respondent Nos.7 & 8 are the Managing Committee of the Flat Owners Welfare Association represented by the Secretary and the President respectively. The said welfare association has also filed its objections to the application. It is stated that the said welfare association is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act bearing Reg. No.321/2013. They were impleaded as respondents as per order dated 25.08.2021 in I.A. No.94 of 2021 (SZ) at the instance of the applicant to state that the association is not managing the common area in spite of signing the MOM dated 22.01.2021. The Association has stated that the developer had not handed over the complex to the Association yet and is being administered and maintained by the developer through Property Management Services from the beginning. It is pointed out that even the Pollution Control Board also stated in their report about the same. Hence, it was pleaded that they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings. However, it is to be noted 19 that the Association is active and has been represented by the President and Secretary who are periodically being elected. In their objections to the application, the Association has stated that the applicant and a few owners of the flats have not come forward to pay even a single month's Common Area Maintenance charges ever since 2016 when they occupied their respective flats which is also affecting the quality of the maintenance. The Association has specifically stated that the persons like the applicant are enjoying all the facilities at the cost and benevolence of other flat owners, though he is a total defaulter and had breached the agreement signed by him.
24. From the above facts, it is to be decided whether the applicant is entitled to the reliefs sought for in the application.
25. The major complaint of the applicant is that a. Respondents Nos.4 and 5/Project Proponent had not obtained the completion certificate.
b. There are violations committed by the project proponent of the planning permit and building permit.
c. Having not provided adequate drinking water for the residential project.
d. The procurement of water as directed in the EC. e. Open space, covered car parking, etc. f. Non-compliance of filing six monthly reports as mandated in the EC.
26. To start with, the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal had categorically stated that half-yearly statements have been furnished by the project proponent to the MoEF&CC regularly from 20 June 2014 till September 2020 both by electronic and physical modes.
27. Regarding the car park, it is complaint by the applicant that adequate car park space was not provided in the project. More than 100 vehicles are being parked illegally on the pedestrian way and hence, it was complained that the project proponent had not provided the required number of car parking. In this regard, the 3rd Respondent/CMDA who had approved the plan of the project had categorically stated in its report that the total number of car parking to be provided is 2212 Nos. and as on site, the car parking available is 2215 Nos. and therefore, the complaint of the applicant is prima facie not acceptable. The CMDA has specifically stated that as per the Development Regulations specified in Annexure - XVI under the head "Parking Requirements", the required car parking was worked out as 2212 Nos. and issued the planning permission for the project. Finally, the builder/promoter had provided 2215 Nos. as on site and there is no violation of the car parking requirement. Therefore, on this ground also, the applicant has failed to establish his allegation.
28. The report of the Joint Committee is relevant here which has stated that the sewage generated from the project site is 1133 KLD, for which, 3 No. of STPs having a total capacity 1550 KLD are installed on the project site and the STP adequacy report was furnished by Anna University on 24.09.2018. The treated sewage from the STP is being analyzed and results are found within the discharge standards prescribed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board. The treated water is also being used for toilet flushing, 21 greenbelt development and the remaining treated sewage water whenever generated in excess is being sent to the Nesapakkam decanting point for disposal. The necessary documents in this regard are also produced by the Project Proponent before the Joint Committee. Even the Pollution Control Board has stated that the unit has provided electromagnetic flow meters at the inlet and outlet of all the STPs which are under operation. The developer has not yet disposed of any excess sewage to the CMWSSB's Nesapakkam decanting point and the entire treated sewage is utilized for toilet flushing and greenbelt development. Therefore, in terms of the capacity of STP also, the Joint Committee as well as Pollution Control Board had found that the STPs installed are of the required capacity. It is stated further that the developer had applied for CTO for expansion which was not processed for want of completion certificate from the CMDA. Subsequently, the CMDA also issued the completion certificate on 08.12.2022 for all 33 Blocks in 20 Towers. Therefore, the CTO is yet to be obtained by the project proponent.
29. In the report of the Pollution Control Board dated 03.01.2023, it is specifically stated that:
(i) The project proponent had provided 20 DG sets comprising of 725 KVA, 600 KVA and 500 KVA with a total installed D.G. set capacity of 12.75 MVA for the entire residential project as backup power supply.
(ii) Regarding the developer sourcing the potable drinking water from the CMWSSB for the entire project for domestic purposes and the same is being treated through 3 WTPs comprising of Pressure Sand Filter and Activate Carbon Filter within the 22 project site. The test analysis of the treated sample reveals that the drinking water parameter is within the norms.
(iii) Regarding the solar water heater in 30 blocks, the developer has installed Solar Photo Voltaic Panels in the terrace of 11 Blocks with a total capacity of 75 KW and awaiting the approval of the TNEB for commissioning.
(iv) An organic waste converter having a capacity of 175 Kg/Hr to handle organic wastes generated from the residential houses was in an operable condition.
(v) Regarding the CTE and CTO, the CTO was issued by the Pollution Control Board only for 25 Blocks in 17 Towers and for the remaining, the CTO was not obtained by the project proponent which is in violation of the condition. It is also found that of the 33 Blocks, 25 Blocks have been occupied by the residents and the remaining 8 Blocks were partially occupied. Regarding the STP, it has already been discussed that the required capacity is being installed. For the balance of 8 Towers, the CTO is yet to be granted, as it was waiting for the completion certificate to be issued which was once again subject to the disposal of the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
30. From the reports filed, it is now evident that the appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is disposed of, pursuant to which, the CMDA has granted the completion certificate. Based on the same, it is for the Pollution Control Board to consider and grant the CTO if otherwise, in order. For violation of operating without CTO, the regulatory body viz., the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has already taken appropriate steps by issuing the show cause notice and also had levied environmental compensation.
31. The Pollution Control Board also issued directions to the developer to apply for a fresh CTO for the entire project. The violation found as such is CTO was issued to Respondents No.4 & 5 for treatment 23 and disposal of sewage of 829 KLD generated from the residential building with built up area of 3,38,361 Sq.M. The balance of the 8 Blocks which are partially occupied by the residents makes an increase in the generation of sewage as against the permitted quantity which is deemed as a violation of the CTO, for which also, a show cause notice was issued on 23.09.2020. For the other violations, an Environmental Compensation of Rs.95,97,656/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty Six only) was levied by the Pollution Control Board against the developer.
32. So far as the application is concerned, the requirement or demand made by the applicant is not coming within the purview of this Tribunal. However, having entertained the same, it has proceeded this far.
33. The regulatory bodies also have been put on notice about the shortcomings and they have reported that everything is within the norms prescribed in the EC. For certain of the violations, the Pollution Control Board had already made note of and taken action. The Association which has to take care of the interest of the residents itself has stated that the applicant is a defaulter in terms of payment of maintenance charges to the Association. Though the Association/Project Proponent, in its counter, has stated that the developer had not yet handed over the residential complex to the Association and it is being administrated and maintained by the developer through Property Management Services, the Association has been collecting the maintenance charges from the other flat owners. The applicant who is also one of the owners is 24 said to have not paid the maintenance charges from 2016 i.e. from the date of occupying the premises. The complaints which are raised by the applicant should be on behalf of all the residents. However, no other resident or even the Association supported the case of the applicant. The complaints raised in the application by the applicant per se are not maintainable before this Tribunal. The complaints against the project proponent are pursuant to the contract/agreement entered into by the applicant with the builder. In the event of any breach according to him of the contract/agreement, he has to proceed with in the manner known to law.
34. The relief sought for in the application is to stop the operation of the incomplete residential complex developed by Respondent Nos.4 and 5 for violating the EC conditions dated 16.10.2012 and as per Section 14 (3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, "No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose".
35. In this regard, it is relevant to note that the EC was granted on 16.10.2012 and the project itself was completed in 2016. The applicant has not specifically stated as to (i) in which block he has purchased his apartment, (ii) whether for the said block or tower, the completion certificate has been obtained or not and (iii) when did the cause of action arise for filing of this application, etc. The application was entertained considering the fact that the applicant had appeared in person. As it is an allegation of violation of the EC 25 conditions, the same should have been filed within six months. Even presuming that it is a continuous cause of action, in the absence of anything being stated in the application, the applicant does not deserve any relief especially he being owner of one of the units.
36. It is to be noted that the regulatory bodies have already taken appropriate action in this regard and we direct the Pollution Control Board to follow it up and bring the proceedings to a logical conclusion.
37. So, in view of the above, the application deserves to be disposed of and accordingly, the Original Application [O.A. No.21 of 2021 (SZ)] is disposed of with the above directions.
38. In view of the disposal of the above Original Application, the I.A. Nos. 181 of 2021 and 11 of 2022 are also disposed of.
............................................................J.M. (Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana) .......................................E.M. (Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati) Internet - Yes/No All India NGT Reporter - Yes/No O.A. No.21/2021(SZ)& I.A.No. 181/2021(SZ)& I.A. No. 11/2022(SZ) 20th July, 2023.(AM) &(MN) 26 Before the National Green Tribunal Southern Zone (Chennai) O.A. No. 21 of 2021 & I.A. Nos. 181/2021 & 11/2022 Anupkrishnan V. Vs. MoEF&CC and Ors.
O.A No. 21/2021(SZ)& I.A. No. 181/2021(SZ)& I.A. No. 11/2022(SZ) 20th July, 2023. (AM) 27