Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(T) OM dated 16.11.2010 was superseded by OM dated 12.12.2012 which provided revised procedure for grant of EC in violation case. OM dated 27.06.2013 was issued to amend OM dated 12.12.2012. (U) The said application was considered by State Environment Assessment Committee i.e., SEAC in its 66th meeting dated 13-16th February, 2013. Committee suggested proponents to consider adjoining plots of the owner for EC since adjoining plots, built up area increases more than 1,50,000 m2 and, therefore, Environment Impact Assessment was to be prepared. Reply submitted by M/s KUDPL and M/s Kul Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. was considered in the 2nd meeting of SEAC-III, dated 12th to 14th December, 2014, but it was not satisfied and required the above proponents to submit complete chronological information of development on entire plot. Proponents did not submit any information as required. Proposal was considered by SEAC-III in 12th meeting dated 8th to 12th July, 2014 and then in 15th meeting dated 12-14th August, 2014 when it treated the matter as a violation case since construction was already done at the site prior to obtaining EC.

(V) In April 2014, Proponents submitted EIA report which was considered by SEAC-III in 31st meeting. It found that no ToR was given to SEAC-III committee, instead proponents used standard ToR published on MoEF&CC website.

(W) However, SEAC-III decided to appraise EIA report in the next meeting which was considered in 32nd meeting dated 24th to 28th August, 2015. SEAC-III observed that PP has submitted details of total plot area 1,63,986 m2 and BUA 1,99,407 m2 for proposed project namely Kairos, Fun N Fair with existing club house, swimming pool & badminton hall but the total layout consists of 5 was issued, in the EIA report and applied for the entire plot for EC to be made for issuance of ToR; in 39th meeting dated 28th to 30th December 2013 SEAC-III considered but deferred the matter by asking PP to include developments for which prosecution challan was issued in the EIA report and application for entire plot of EC to be made for issue of ToR. Proponents submitted revised proposals for EC having total plot area 1,63,986 m2, built up area 2,79,495 m2 and FSI area 1,32,788 m2 which included construction of 9 no. of residential buildings, having maximum height of 69.85 meter, shops, theatre, banquet, club house and offices.

(X) OMs dated 12.12.2012 and 27.06.2013 were challenged in OA 37/2015, S.P. Muthuraman vs. Union of India and another and vide judgement dated 07.07.2015, this Tribunal declared both these OMs ultra vires of EP Act 1986 and EIA 2006 and quash the same. (Y) In the 43rd meeting dated 23rd to 27th February, 2016 SEAC-III considered project for approval of ToR. In the 51st meeting dated 28th to 30th July, 2016, SEAC-III considered project for EIA. However, matter did not proceed further on the above application dated 19.03.2012 submitted by PPs.

61. Further, referring to above application and letter, it is stated by the applicant that respondents 1, 2 and 4 have (i) damaged natural storm water drain and should be directed to restitute and restore the same by removing built up slabs and dis-allowing use of additional space created for commercial unit; (ii) In para 13, it is said that in the last 10 to 15 years, respondents 1 and 2 have developed various big projects like Kumar Kruti, Saffronia, Cerebrum (6 Commercial Buildings of LB+UB+P+11) in the larger land the said projects were developed without taking prior EC; (iii) matter is pending before SEAC-III Maharashtra; Respondent-proponent has also applied for EC in respect of some other proposed multi-storied residential buildings which is also pending before SEAC-III Maharashtra for sanction and in this regard, reference is made to agenda for 65th meeting on SEAC-III dated 31.05.2018; and ignoring the fact that prior EC was necessary, respondent 4 i.e., PMC granted permission for further construction vide letter dated 08.01.2018 which is in violation of EIA 2006, since no prior EC was granted.