Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Discussion and directions

13. We have interacted with the officers present. It has come out during interaction with the CEO, NOIDA that as against claim of STPs of 72 out of 95 group housing societies being functional, the stand of State PCB is that only 12 were compliant. There is also contradiction in the narrative in the report of the NOIDA Authority on the one hand and details mentioned in the annexures to the report. By way of illustration, in one of the charts at serial no. 77, STP is said to be working at Air Force Naval Housing Board (Jalvayu Tower), while in another annexure at serial no. 9 against the same complex, status of STP is mentioned as not constructed. The report of the NOIDA Authority mentions that sewer of complexes where STP were non-compliant have been connected to NOIDA sewer line. Number of such complexes is mentioned as 07, while it should have been 83, if only 12 out of 95 are functional and compliant. The impact of connecting sewers of group housing societies, which were required under the law to set up their STPs, will increase the load of NOIDA sewer line. It is not clear how such load will be sustained. From Annexure B, it is shown that various sewer lines are lying chocked or/are overflowing which obviously results in water pollution. This situation can hardly be held to be satisfactory though colour of compliance has been given which on scrutiny can hardly be called compliance. On the other hand, this amounts to absolving the non-compliant Project Proponents (PPs) of statutory obligations under the EC/Consents and profiteer by law violation which inter-alia amounts to an offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA Act, 2002) read with paragraphs 25 and 26 of Part A of the Schedule to the Act. This will also be against the 'Polluter Pays' principle as the PP has to be held accountable to meet the cost of restoration for the damage caused in violation of statutory mandate. Compensation in this regard has to be as per principles laid down in M. C. Mehta & Anr. v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395, Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 575 and Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI, (2018) 18 SCC 257. Compensation has to have deterrent element having regard to financial capacity so that the law violation is not encouraged. Compensation amount needs to be credited to a separate amount for restoration and improvement of the environment.

compliant. Compliance is proposed in distant future extending upto four years, without specifying the accountability/liability of the PP responsible for the situation for continuing violation in the meantime.

15. Though learned CEO has stated that she will personally monitor compliances, it may not be practical unless there is a dedicated monitoring cell manned by qualified environmental professionals, taking of performance guarantees/deposits for performance from PPs before permitting commencement of the project and also before giving occupancy certificate, engagement of accredited agencies to assist such monitoring, and effective community involvement. The Inspector General of Police, Meerut Range submitted that IPC offences are not registered due to provisions of special law - EP Act. This can be no excuse as IPC offence are also committee and taking of such action does not violate the special law. Further, Section 133 Cr.P.C. can be also invoked wherever necessary. Since earning money by committing offences under Air, Water, EP Acts amounts to offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, 2002, the Enforcement Directorate needs to look into the matter to proceed against violators and colluders in such offences, as per the mandate of law.