National Green Tribunal
M/S Achalare Realtors Pvt Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment Forest And ... on 7 April, 2025
Item No.4 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2025 (WZ)
M/s Achalare Realtors Pvt. Ltd. ... Applicant
Versus
MoEF&CC & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of Hearing : 07.04.2025
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate
Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/SEIAA
and R-3/CPCB
Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-4/MPCB
ORDER
01. By our previous order dated 21.03.2025, we had directed respondent No.2 - SEIAA, represented by learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, to submit its response, particularly in respect of the fact as to whether the project of the applicant lies in the jurisdiction of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) and is at a distance of 5 kms from the border of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC) area. An allegation was made by the applicant that its project was deferred for consideration by respondent No.2 - SEIAA without appreciating that the CEPI score of the PCMC does not fall within the severely or critically polluted areas. But no reply has been filed by respondent No.2 - SEIAA. Learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, appearing for the SEIAA states that the issue involved in the present application is not related to environment. Hence, this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction, which is Page 1 of 5 being rebutted by Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, learned counsel for the applicant, who has taken us through several documents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to page 237 of the paper-book, which is an information sought by the CREDAI, Pune Metro from CPCB in respect of latest CEPI status and related information from PCMC and in it, it is recorded that as per CEPI revised methodology 2016, PIA are classified based on CEPI Score as follows:
S.No CEPI Score Categorization of
. Industrial Areas
1 70 and above Critically Polluted
Areas
2 60 and above - Severely Polluted
below 70 Areas
3 Less than 60 Other Polluted
Areas
It is further recorded that the CEPI Scores of Pimpri-Chinchwad (Maharashtra) area as per the CPCB monitoring conducted during 2018 is 52.16 and is under Other Polluted Areas.
3. A query was raised to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the said area of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation is under critically polluted area or severely polluted area, to which reply by him was as per CEPI Scores of Pimpri-Chinchwad area is 52.16, which is not covered under CPA/SPA score. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Central Zone Bench of this Tribunal in Original Application No.93 of 2024 (CZ), which is annexed at pages 47 to 80 of the paper-book, wherein in paragraph No.41, following is recorded:
"Accordingly, we direct the MoEF&CC to strictly enforce the notification dated 14.09.2006 attached to Category 8 in the note general conditions and we direct the MoEF&CC to appraise all those building and construction projects that are located in whole or in part within 5 km. of the protected areas notified under the Wildlife Page 2 of 5 (Protection) Act, 1972, critically polluted areas and severely polluted areas as identified by the CPCB, eco-sensitive areas notified under Section 3(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, and the projects located at inter-state boundaries as Category A projects and to be appraised by the central level by the Sectoral Expert Appraisal Committee."
4. Pursuant to above directions of the Central Zone Bench of this Tribunal, respondent No.1 - MoEF&CC issued a notification dated 29.01.2025, which is annexed at pages 127 to 129 of the paper-book, which is to the following effect:
"In exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (29 of 1986), read with sub-rule (3) of rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Environment and Forests, number S.O.1533€, dated the 14th September, 2006, namely:-
In the said notification, in the Schedule, for item 8 and the entries relating thereto, the following item and the entries shall be substituted, namely:-
Project Activity Category with threshold Conditions if
limit any
A B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
"8 Building or Construction projects of Area Development Projects and
Townships
8(a) Building and >20,000 The term "built up area"
Construction sq.m and < for the purpose of this
projects 1,50,000 notification is defined
sq.m of as the built up or
built up covered area on all
area floors put together,
including its basement
and other service areas,
which are proposed in
the building or
construction projects.
Note1. - The projects or
activities shall not
include industrial shed,
school, college, hostel
Page 3 of 5
for educational
institution, but such
buildings shall ensure
sustainable
environmental
management, solid and
liquid waste
management, rain
water harvesting and
may use recycled
materials such as fly
ash bricks.
Note.2 - General
Conditions shall not
apply.
8(b) Towships and Area Covering A project of
Development an area > Township and
Projects 50 ha Area
and/or Development
built up Projects
area > covered under
this item shall
1,50,000
require an
sq.m
Environment
Impact
Assessment
report and be
appraised as
Category `B1'
Project.
Note.- General
Conditions
shall not apply.
5. This notification was thereafter challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.166 of 2025 (Vanashakti Vs. Union of India), wherein following order was passed on 24.02.2025:
"Issue notice returnable on 28th March, 2025.
In the meanwhile, there will be stay of operation and implementation of the impugned Notification dated 29th January, 2025 (Annexure P-
24) as well as Office Memorandum dated 30th January, 2025 (Annexure P-25)."
6. Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - SEIAA states that because of the direction issued by the Central Zone Page 4 of 5 Bench of this Tribunal, pursuant to which respondent No.1 - MoEF&CC had issued notification dated 29.01.2025, which notification upon its being assailed, has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consideration of the application for grant of EC was deferred as the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the issue involved before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not relevant for deciding the pending application for grant of EC. Here the question is whether the area is falling under Severely Polluted Area or Critically Polluted Area, which obviously does not fall in Critically Polluted Zone, as per the information submitted at page 237 of the paper-book.
8. Since learned counsel for respondent No.2 - SEIAA states that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to entertain this application, we would like him to file a written reply for consideration of the same. Even if he raises this issue as preliminary issue to be decided, we would like him to file an affidavit as to whether the area, where the permission has been sought for EC, is lying in Critically Polluted Area. Respondent No.2 shall file its reply-affidavit, as directed above, before the next date, with a direction to serve copy thereof to all other parties in advance.
9. Put up this matter for next consideration on 30.04.2025.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM April 07, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.38 OF 2025 (WZ) npj Page 5 of 5