Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Be that as it may, the NGT found that KEYSTONE had carried out construction without CTE from 05.06.2013 to 17.08.2020; had continued construction between 04.09.2019 and 17.08.2020 despite a closure notice; had proceeded without CTO, and had handed over possession to occupants, issuing the first possession letter on 18.03.2016. These acts were held to constitute distinct and serious violations of environmental norms.

10. As a corollary, the NGT observed that the Joint Committee had correctly quantified the environmental compensation at Rs. 4,47,42,188/-. Consequently, KEYSTONE was directed to deposit the said amount with the MPCB within two months.

12.1. It was urged that in conformity with the said notification, RHYTHM had obtained an EC from the PMRDA, the designated local authority, and that the construction was commenced only thereafter. According to Mr. Mishra, these steps clearly evinced RHYTHM’S bona fide intent to comply with the prevailing regulatory framework. 12.2. It was further submitted that uncertainty arose only after the NGT stayed the notification dated 09.12.2016 on 08.12.2017. In response thereto, suo motu, RHYTHM applied to the MPCB for CTE. It was contended that despite RHYTHM having already obtained EC from the PMRDA and having furnished all relevant project particulars to the MPCB, a show cause notice came to be issued alleging absence of EC. It was argued that owing to the intervening nationwide lockdown commencing on 24.03.2020, the MPCB did not conduct a site inspection, and without verification of the documents placed on record, declined the application for CTE by order dated 06.07.2020. 12.3. It was brought to our notice that thereafter, RHYTHM submitted a fresh application for CTE on 10.02.2021, which was granted by the MPCB on 12.05.2021 after due site inspection and verification of records, including the EC obtained under the notification dated 09.12.2016. Pursuant thereto, RHYTHM furnished a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,00,000, as directed, and a restart permission was issued by the MPCB on  14.08.2021. Mr. Mishra contended that these material developments were not accorded due consideration by the NGT while passing the impugned order.

42. The criticism, as levelled, that the NGT abdicated its adjudicatory functions by mechanically adopting the report of the Joint Committee does not withstand close scrutiny. The record unmistakably reveals that the NGT was alive to the limited role of the expert bodies and consciously undertook an independent assessment of liability and quantum. In the case of KEYSTONE, the NGT expressly distinguished between violations already subsumed under the one-time violation window, towards which remediation and augmentation costs had been secured by way of a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,76,00,000/- and distinct statutory infractions relating to prolonged construction without CTE, continuation of work despite a closure direction, and occupation without CTO. Likewise, in the case of RHYTHM, the NGT did not accept the compensation recommended by the Joint Committee at face value but examined the scale of the project, the admitted deviations, the continuation of construction despite regulatory restraint, and the overall project cost before consciously enhancing the amount. These determinations were preceded by consideration of the objections raised by the project proponents, including the challenge to the applicability of the CPCB methodology. That the NGT ultimately concurred with the Committee’s conclusions in part, or departed from them so far as quantum is concerned, does not imply surrender of judicial function; rather, it evidences an exercise of informed discretion, wherein expert findings were gauged, filtered, and integrated into a  reasoned adjudicatory outcome. To characterise such an exercise as abdication would be to conflate reliance on technical assistance with absence of independent application of mind-a proposition that finds no support either in law or on the facts of the present case.

46.3. Insofar as KEYSTONE is concerned, the NGT drew a clear distinction between violations already subsumed under the one-time violation window and separate statutory infractions relating to prolonged construction without CTE, continuation of activities despite closure  directions and occupation without CTO, and, upon independent consideration of the nature, duration and gravity of such violations, accepted the Joint Committee’s computation based on the CPCB methodology as an appropriate measure of environmental compensation.