National Green Tribunal
Saviour Park Apartment Owners ... vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 4 May, 2022
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Item No. 03 (Court No. 1)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
(By Video Conferencing)
Original Application No. 199/2021
(I.A. No. 104/2022)
Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association Applicant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 04.05.2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant: Mr. Shighra Kumar, Advocate
Respondent: Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Advocate for CPCB
Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate for UPPCB
Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate for SEIAA, UP
Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Kohli, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Nalin Talwar, Advocate & Mr. Sunil Tyagi,
Advocate for SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.,R - 10 (PP)
ORDER
[ The Issue - Applicant's case
1. Grievance in this application is against violation of environmental norms in setting up of a construction project - "Saviour Park", Plot No. 108, Katori Mill, Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, by Respondent No. 10 - Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., without valid Environmental Clearance (EC) and without requisite safeguards. It is further stated that EC conditions and environmental norms are being violated.
12. Case set out in the application is that the applicant is association of apartment owners. The project site plan was approved by the Ghaziabad Development Association (GDA) on 21.06.2011. The project falls under category 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. Proposed built up area was 1,55,000.00 sqm. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), UP granted EC dated 04.03.2013. However, in violation of EC conditions, the Project Proponent (PP) started construction and selling of the flats to general public and also handing over possession before completion of construction. Further, EC for expansion was granted on 04.03.2021 without requisite appraisal. The PP has violated EC conditions by constructing 1102 units against 980 units sanctioned vide EC dated 04.03.2021. There is no arrangement for safe disposal of waste water and solid waste and there is violation of EC conditions in use of the diesel generators sets and maintenance of noise emission standards, effluent management and sagacious use of water including ground water and other measures to safeguard adverse impact on environment.
Completion certificate has been granted on 07.04.2018 for Tower D-1 and partial completion certificate for Block- D-2 and Block D-3. The PP has dug out several groundwater extraction borewells to use fresh water in the construction process as well as for drinking purposes without requisite NOC from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA). This is against the statement by the PP in Form-1 and Form-1A dated 03.12.2019 that no ground water will be extracted. Further violations of EC conditions alleged by the applicant are:
"(a) General Condition no 1, 15, 17, 37, 58 --The Project Proponent failed to regularly monitor the parameters related to groundwater, soil, ambient noise and DG sent noise and as pointed out by Dr. Susheel Kumar, the reports related to these parameters should have been sent on a regular basis to the MoEF&CC as part of statutory reporting, however this was never followed.2
(b) General Condition no. 4 & 7 - The Project Proponent failed to submit Land use certificate, surface hydrology report and water regime report to the MoEF&CC.
(c) General Condition no. 11 - The Project Proponent failed to submit STP water bills claimed to be used for construction work to the MoEF&CC for suitable verification.
(d) General Condition no. 12 & 20 - The Project Proponent failed to submit Hazardous waste authorization certificate to the MoEF&CC.
(e) General Condition no 24- The Project Proponent failed to follow the green building concept suggested by the Indian Green Building Council, which is a part of CII-Godrej GBC since 2013.
(f) General Condition no 31 - The Project Proponent failed to place Environmental awareness related hoardings.
(g) General Condition no 38 --The project proponent failed to submit the justification for selecting alternate technologies to chlorination (for disinfection of wastewater) including methods like Ultraviolet radiations, ozonation etc. since 2013.
(h) General Condition no. 39 - The Project Proponent failed to submit detailed plantation details, including the area covered, number and species of trees planted etc. to the MoEF&CC.
(i) General Condition no. 41- The Project Proponent failed to submit structural stability certificate to the MoEF&CC. This is a critical violation as the entire basement area of the project is severely affected with heavy seepage and large number of cracks are visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides. The Residents of the Project have made several complaints to the Respondent No. 9; however, no action has been taken by the Project Proponent or the Respondent No. 9. The said issue has also been highlighted in the local newspapers. Copy of the photos depicting seepage and cracks in the Project is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-19. Copy of the newspaper clippings is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-20.
Copy of the Minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the residents, Project Proponent and Respondent No. 9 on 21.11.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-21.
(j) General Condition no 54 - The project proponent has failed to indicate that the cost of environmental activities is part of the overall project cost and additionally there is complete lack of highlighting the management issues and involvement of residents is completely ignored.
(k) General Condition no. 66 - The project proponent has failed to monitor groundwater downstream of rainwater harvesting pit nearest to STP for bacterial contamination and additionally has failed to provide hand pumps for sampling.
3(l) General Condition no. 72 - The project proponent has failed to undertake Rapid EIA status for three months during the non- monsoon period as per the latest norms of the MoEF&CC.
(m) General Condition no. 72 - The project proponent has failed to obtain ISO: 14001 certification and also failed to include all general and specific conditions mentioned under this in the environmental manual to be prepared for the certification purposes and compliances.
(n) General Condition no 73 -The project proponent has failed to create corpus of funds for implementation plan under social corporate and environmental responsibility of 2% of total project cost. This condition was to be fulfilled by the Project Proponent within 1 month of EC, failing which the EC was deemed to be cancelled. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 not only failed to cancel the original EC of the Project Proponent in spite of the above violation but also grated a new EC for expansion and modification. This clearly shows that the Respondent No. 2 & 3 are hand in gloves with the Project Proponent.
xxx ......................................xxx ..................................xxx
(a) General Condition 29 - The Project Proponent failed to submit a detailed report showing how much power of institution can be provided through solar energy so that use and polluting effect of DG sets can be minimized. The Project Proponent also did not make provision of solar energy as an alternative source of energy with the illumination of common areas, street lighting, gardens.
(b) General Condition 35 - The Project Proponent failed to submit report on the energy conservation measures confirming energy conservation norms finalize by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE)to incorporate details about building materials and technology, R and U factors, etc.
(c) General Condition 46 - The Project Proponent failed to ensure that all street and park lighting area least 50% solar-powered.
(d) General Condition 47- The Project Proponent was under
obligation to install solar water heater with a maximum possible capacity and additionally in spite of repeated requests to the Builder, no provision for centralized water heating system has been made as Residents at an individual level cannot install solar heaters as it requires a centralized facility, such as building rooftops.
xxx ......................................xxx ..................................xxx
(a) General Condition 16 - The Project Proponent has failed to install Wind breaking walls and dust-prevention curtain sat the ongoing construction site which severely affects the air quality of the surrounding area.
(b) General Condition 23 - The project Proponent has installed fully impermeable pavements at various locations across the project area where the provision of interlocking tiles was there for environment protection as the said impermeable pavements do not permit the water to seep through and in turn stops groundwater 4 recharging and also do not allow suitable aeration and nutrition to the trees.
(c) General Condition 32 & 52 - The Project Proponent has illegally sold parking areas with no demarcation of appropriate guest parking and even the approved layout plan does not indicate designated parking areas for guests which in turn creates traffic congestion inside and outside the project area and also leads to air pollution which is in violation of the norms provided by the MoEF&CC and the building by laws.
(d) General Condition 39 - The Project Proponent has failed to follow the green belt norms across the plot boundary. A significant stretch of the project boundary is fully paved with concrete obstructing any possibility of developing a green belt in the future as well. This also compromises the air quality as well as allows noise levels to increase beyond the permissible attenuation factor(s). A copy of the photographic evidence showing violation of green belt norms is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure A-24.
(e) Specific Condition 1 & General Condition 55 - The Project Proponent has failed to provide detailed plans which was to be submitted within 1 month of the EC for safe disposal of STP sludge along with mention of ultimate disposal location, quantitative estimates and measured proposed.
(f) General Condition 61 - The Project Proponent has failed to construct roads in the project area with the use of suitably processed plastic waste.
(g) General Condition 63 - The Project Proponent has failed to give a plan about the safe disposal of biomedical waste arising out of a proposed dispensary at the project site."
3. The applicant filed a representation dated 15.04.2021 to SEIAA, UP with copies thereof to MoEF&CC, State PCB and CGWA but no remedial action has been taken.
Procedural History - investigation of facts independent Committee
4. The matter was earlier considered on 13.08.2021. The Tribunal directed remedial action against violations. Two Committees were constituted - (i) a two-member committee comprising Additional Secretary, MoEF&CC, to be nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, CPCB to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, UP to find out how frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be 5 remedied and (ii) a joint Committee of MoEF&CC, CPCB, SEIAA, UP, State PCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad to verify the factual aspects with regard to the alleged violations by undertaking visit to the site interacting with stake holders including PP.
5. Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-
"1to3...xxx.................................xxx.....................................xxx
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. We have also considered the question whether in absence of an appeal against the EC, the issue raised in the application can be gone into. Learned Counsel submitted that if the Tribunal finds it appropriate, the application may be treated as an appeal against EC dated 04.03.2021 as appeal will be within extended limitation period in view of orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, extending limitation during pandemic. He further submitted that in any case, action against violation of EC conditions is within the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, de hors the appellate jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that there is large scale violation in construction projects. The constructions start before EC, built up area is expanded, groundwater is illegally extracted, proper waste management and other safeguards are not provided, open spaces are not provided and third party rights are created. Inspite of such rampant violations, ex post facto EC is granted without adequate appraisal of mitigation measures. Reference has been made to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI1, Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati2 and Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare3.
Reliance has been placed on order of this Tribunal dated 24.05.2021 in Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein this Tribunal noted rampant and continuous violation of environmental norms in completion of construction projects without valid ECs and the regulatory authorities failing to prevent such violations by requiring demolition or payment of compensation. This is not checked, rule of law cannot be upheld. Reliance has also been placed on order of this Tribunal dated 08.06.2021 in OA No. 13/2021 (WZ), Shashikant Vithal Kamble v. M/s. Key Stone Properties & Ors. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:
"2. The said order further directed disconnection of water and electricity connections of the building. Ignoring these developments, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Maharashtra issued Environmental Clearance (EC) on 24.01.2020 in violation of mandate of prior EC in terms of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and 1 (2018) 18 SCC 257 2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 3 (2020) 2 SCC 666 6 judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati4, Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare5, Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI6 and Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors.7
3. From the above, prima facie it appears that EC has been granted in violation of law and without any application of mind.
This is not for the first time we have come across this situation. Such allegations are frequent. In Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. which was taken up for hearing on 24.05.2021, we directed SEIAA to review its working of mechanically granting Ex-post facto EC, in violation of law. The Tribunal also constituted an expert committee to look into the violations of that particular project and recommend remedial action. The observations therein are:
" xxx.....................xxx.........................................xxx
3. It is submitted that the construction project is illegal being without the mandatory prior EC. Ex-post facto EC is not substitute for prior EC as evaluation of impact on environment cannot be fully gone into as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the same PP viz. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI8. There are further judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the same effect in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati9 and Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare10. If the construction project is without prior EC, the project has either to be demolished or if it is found that environmental damage can be restored, the project can be permitted on payment of assessed compensation on polluter pays principle which needs to be spent for restoration of the environment. The authorities have thus failed to follow the binding law.
4. Since we are coming across the grievance of continuous violation of environment norms in construction projects being completed without prior EC and the SEIAA, Maharashtra is neither requiring demolition nor payment of assessed compensation to comply with the rule of law and protection of environment, it will be appropriate to require the SEIAA, Maharashtra to review its working in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and violations frequently being alleged, including the present case. A proper SOP be laid down for grant of EC in such cases so as to 4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 5 (2020) 2 SCC 666 6 (2018) 18 SCC 257 7 (2020 SCC OnLine SC 328 8 (2018) 18 SCC 257 9 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 10 (2020) 2 SCC 666 7 address the gaps in binding law and practice being currently followed. The MoEF may also consider circulating such SOP to all SEIAAs in the country.
In this regard, we may refer to the directions in the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 1.2.2021 in OA 837/2018, Sandeep Mittal vs. MoEF, wherein it was inter-alia, directed:
"MoEF&CC may give due attention for proper constitution of SEIAAs in the States to ensure the projects of category 'B' and 'B-1' are properly scrutinized."
The MoEF&CC may file its action taken report in the matter before the next date.
5. We also constitute a joint Committee of MoEF&CC, CPCB, and Maharashtra State PCB to look into the present matter and suggest a remedial action plan for the present case, including the quantum of compensation to be recovered, as far as possible within three months. The CPCB and State PCB will be nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Another connected matter between same parties for a different project being Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ) is also being dealt with by a separate order today and this direction will also apply to the said case. Infact, to avoid duplication if the SEIAA, Maharashtra itself reviews all such cases, to avoid unnecessary and repeated litigation. The Committee may conduct proceedings online but if possible, visit the site. The Committee may also interact with the concerned parties. The report of the joint Committee may be filed by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF before the next date. While submitting the report to this Tribunal, a copy of the report thereof be also forwarded to the PP and the applicant who may file their comments, if any, before the next date by e-mail."
4. Since the allegations of this nature are frequently being made before this Tribunal and prima facie there appears to be fundamental flaw in working of the SEIAA in question, resulting in defeating the statutory mandate of prior EC and directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we direct constitution of a two-member Committee comprising Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, Maharashtra to find out how such frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied. The Committee will be free to take assistance from any other expert/institution and interact with the stake-holders. This is necessary for protection of environment. If mechanically ex post facto ECs are granted by SEIAA, the purpose of requiring prior EC will be defeated. The 8 'Precautionary' and 'Sustainable Development' principles considered in the above judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will be rendered nugatory. Precautions during the course of construction and compliance of conditions after constructions will be rendered difficult. EC is not a mechanical exercise. It may be after application of any mind and granted only after evaluation of impact and efficacy of mitigation measures proposed. Conditions imposed must be faithfully observed and monitored. If there is any violation, steps must be taken for restoration of damage at the cost of the project proponent. The persons manning SEIAA who have acted illegally need to be made accountable in civil and criminal law. It is further surprising in the present case that inspite of order of State PCB to disconnect water and electricity, it is not clear how the project is functioning. Present status of compliance of environment norms in the project and remedial action against non- compliances also needs to be ascertained.
5. Accordingly, apart from a Committee for the conduct of functional audit of functioning of SEIAA in the matter of grant of ECs, there is need to conduct audit of compliance of environmental requirements in the project in question by an independent Expert Committee. For this purpose, we constitute a four-member Expert Committee comprising nominees of MoEF&CC, CPCB, IIT Bombay and Member Secretary, State PCB. The Committee will be at liberty to take assistance from any other expert/institution. The CPCB and State PCB will be nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee may visit the site and conduct the proceedings online, wherever necessary and also interact with the stakeholders. The functional audit report as well as the Expert Committee report about status of compliance in the project may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF before the next date with an advance copy to the PP for its response, if any, before the next date. Copy of second report about status of compliance of the project may be furnished to the PP in advance for its comments, if any, before the next date. Copy of the first report about functional audit may be furnished to the MoEF&CC also for its response in terms of action taken before the next date.
6. The first Committee may also consider the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.05.2021 in Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. and Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. inter alia requiring SEIAA, Maharashtra to review its working in the light of Supreme Court judgements and frequent violations alleged in the grant of EC and also in the gaps in compliance of EC conditions. The second Committee may also coordinate and work in tandem with the joint Committee constituted in Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. and Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors."
95. We are of the view that on the pattern of above orders passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ) and OA No. 13/2021 (WZ), apart from considering the remedial action against violations, two-member Committee comprising Additional Secretary, MoEF&CC, to be nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, CPCB need to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, UP to find out how frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied. The Committee will be free to take assistance from any other expert/institution and interact with the stake-holders. SEIAA, UP has to review its working in the light of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in the light of frequent and rampant violations. Considering the report, an appropriate SOP may to be laid down by the MoEF&CC to deal with such ECs which may be circulated to all SEIAAs.
6. Apart from above, remedial action appears to be necessary under Section 15 of the NGT Act after verification of factual position. Accordingly, we also constitute a joint Committee comprising of MoEF&CC, CPCB, SEIAA, UP, State PCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. CPCB and SEIAA, UP will jointly be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Joint Committee may give its report covering issues mentioned in para 2 above and availability of basic infrastructure facilities like sewerage and solid waste management. Meeting of the joint Committee may be held within 15 days from today to take stock of the situation. The joint Committee may visit the site and interact with the stakeholders including the PP to verify the status of compliance. Based on the facts found, the statutory authorities may take remedial action including stopping creation of third party rights and further construction activities, if the same are found to be in violation of law. Needless to say that if adverse action becomes necessary, the same may be taken by following prescribed procedure. The report of the joint Committee report may be furnished to this Tribunal within three months by e- mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF, and if the report is adverse to the PP, a copy thereof may be furnished to PP for its response, if any, before the next date."
Report of the Committee dated 27.1.2022 finding violations and Order of the Tribunal dated 4.2.2022 on consideration thereof
6. The matter was last considered on 04.02.2022 in the light of report of the joint Committee dated 27.01.2022, after undertaking visit to the site confirming the violations. The Tribunal noted that consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were granted before grant of EC and EC for expansion was granted overlooking the expansion work already 10 executed and in violation of conditions of original EC. The Tribunal observed that as per applicable procedure, violation cases were required to be appraised by MoEF&CC and not by SEIAA. The compensation suggested did not cover the pre-expansion period.
7. Thus, it was found that the recommendations of the joint Committee were required to be re-visited after ascertaining the consents with regard to disposal of waste, operation of DG sets, functioning of RWH systems and greenery. Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-
"
7. The report confirms violations of the environmental norms and shows that regulatory authorities have not monitored the project activities. The PP has disregarded environmental laws. However, the Committee has also not mentioned about the existence of sewer line in the area and the mode of disposal of sewage, quantity of solid waste generated and disposed.
8. It is thus prima facie clear that the State PCB has issued consents under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 even before grant of EC. EC for expansion has been granted on 04.03.2021 overlooking the violations which are already undertaken, including expansion work. In such cases, as per the procedure laid down, violation case is required to be appraised by the MoEF&CC. The violations do not end with the procedural aspects. There violations of environmental norms have also been found. The Committee has not responded to all the violations alleged by the applicant noted in the earlier order. Recommendations for the compensation ignore the period of violations and only relate to the period post inspection. In respect of violation of ground water extraction, the violations have been taken only on the date of application to the CGWA. The joint Committee may need to revisit its recommendation accordingly. The Committee may also ascertain the mode of disposal of sewage and solid waste and compliance in operation of DG sets, functioning of RWH systems and maintenance of greenery. The environment compensation should be the liability of the PP and not the flat owners. PP is given opportunity to respond to these observations before this Tribunal as well as before the Committee within one month.
9. In view of prima facie violations of serious nature, mentioned herein above, we restrain the PP from creating any third-party rights till the next hearing."
118. The Tribunal also noted that the report about functional review of SEIAA, U.P has not been furnished which was required to be furnished.
Consideration of the matter today - Further Report of the Committee on factual aspects of violations dated 29.04.2022 and the report of the Committee about functional audit of SEIAA UP dated 02.05.2022
9. In pursuance of above, the joint Committee has filed its revised report dated 29.04.2022. MoEF&CC has filed its report on 02.05.2022 with regard to functional audit of SEIAA U.P. SEIAA, U.P has filed its reply on 20.04.2022. The Project Proponent (PP) has filed I.A No. 104/2022 for re-call of order dated 04.02.2022 and reply to the joint Committee report dated 27.01.2022. We will refer to the same at appropriate place in the order.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record.
11. First question to be considered is the issue of violation of the environmental norms by the PP and remedial action required. Further question is also about the failure of the SEIAA, U.P to function as per the mandate as found in the report in respect of functional audit.
Consideration of issue of violations by the PP and the remedial action
12. With regard to the first question, we take up for consideration the joint inspection report dated 29.04.2022. The joint Committee comprised of the MoEF&CC, CPCB, State PCB, SEIAA, U.P and District Magistrate.
There is no question raised about credibility of the Committee nor about contents of the report. The Committee has undertaken visit to the site after due notice to the PP as well as the applicant. It has also considered the documents furnished by the PP and the applicants. The status of EC 12 violations has been given in a tabular form. The violations include expansion of project without prior EC, violation of EC conditions such as inadequacy of the plantations, absence of safeguards in construction of basement, failure to utilize solar energy, absence of requisite parking, absence of safe disposal of STP sludge, non-functioning of STP, not providing the requisite funds in terms of the EC conditions for out of CSR, illegal extraction of ground water. The Committee recommended levying of environmental compensation for the violations including expanding the project without prior EC, apart from suggested compensation of Rs. 12.80 Crores approx. for violation of maintaining STP and Rs. 7.43 Crore approx.
for illegal extraction of ground water. Relevant extracts from the report are:-
"3. Observations On the basis of inspection of project "Saviour Park" conducted by Joint Committee on 23/09/2021 and going through the submissions made by the applicant and project proponent following observations are made:
a.. M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd has set-up. Saviour Park" at Plot No. 108, Katori Mill, Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.
b. As per the submitted documents by PPs, it has been reflected that PPs have obtained the CTE from UPPCB vide letter no. F08023/C-1/NOC/G-752/2012/6 dated 26.07.2012, before obtaining the Environmental Clearance dated 04.03.2013.
c. PPs have obtained the CTO from UPPCB for previous EC and existing CTO is valid till 31.07.2025. CTE for expansion project is rejected by UP PCB.
d. The documents submitted by the applicant indicate that, PP got the approval for the site plan from Ghaziabad Development Authority on 21.06.2011, followed by Prior Environmental Clearance from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2013 and Environmental Clearance for expansion from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2021.
e. The total project cost of project is 251 Crores after expansion as per EC dated 04.02.2021.
f. PP has informed that approximately 3044.5 Kg of solid waste would be generated per day.
13g.. Approx 800 flats are occupied and 800 families are currently residing in project. Approximately.
h. Assuming four person in one family.
Current Sewage generation and Solid Waste generation are estimated as follows:
A. Assuming Consumption of 135 LPCD Approx. sewage generation is 135*0.8*4*800 = 345.6 KLD B. Approx Solid Waste Generation is 800*4*0.5 = 1600 kg i. Sewage is being discharged into municipal drain.
j. Project Proponent is supplying water to township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA.
k. Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.
Results of sample analysis obtained from pit of RWH is tabulated below:
pH COD BOD TSS NH3 - N PO43- - P TC FC
8.0 155 17 72 09 0.54 16 X 107 35 X 106
l. The 400 KLD STP operated by M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd
in apartment is not functioning properly a. Media was not visible in aeration tank. b. Filter press was found not in use.
c. The sample obtained from STP outlet is not complying the prescribed standards:
pH COD BOD TSS NH3 - N PO43- - P TC FC
Inlet 7.5 325 114 208 11 1.24 17 X 1011 11 X 1011
Outlet 7.3 251 49 73 23 0.87 17 X 106 17 X 106
Standards - 250 30 100 - - - -
As per
m. During the site visit, entire basement area of the
project was found affected with seepage and large number of cracks was visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides.
n. Violation of Environment Clearance Conditions:
As per the available office record, the project was inspected by MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow on 30.05.2019 to review the status of stipulated EC conditions granted by SEIAA, U.P. on 04.03.2013. Subsequently, a letter of non-compliances 14 was sent to PPs vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL- UP/510/2019/422 dated 13.08.2019. The certified compliance report indicating various non-complainces with detailed monitoring report was also sent to PPs with a copy to SEIAA, UP vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL- UP/510/2019/423 dated 13.08.2019. However, no response has been received to IRO, Lucknow against the above mentioned letter. Additionally, PPs have obtained the Expansion EC from SEIAA, U.P. vide letter no. 788/Parya/SEAC/6057-5683/2019 dated 04.03.2021. Further, PAs are irregular in submitting the compliance report to MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow since 2019 onwards.
The detailed status of EC conditions violations, which was alleged by the applicant are given below as:
S. Environmental Clearance Observations of the Joint Committee
No. Conditions of previous EC
Part A - General Condition:
It shall be ensured that all Six monthly Compliance report not
standards related to ambient submitted by Project Proponent since
environmental quality and the 2019. STP outlet water is not complying 1 emission/effluent standards as the prescribed standards. Hazardous prescribed by the MoEF are strictly waste authorization was not obtained by complied with. Project Proponent The proposed land use shall be in Submitted by PP. accordance to the prescribed land 4 use. A land use certificate issued by the competent Authority shall be obtained in this regards.
Surface hydrology and water Project proponent has not been submitted regime of the project area within 10 surface hydrology report and water 7 km should be provided. regime of project but informed that it is submitted before SEAC.
Obtain necessary clearance from Project Proponent has not provided copy of the competent authority on the NOC from CGWA. There are approx. 03-04 11 abstraction and use of ground no s. bore well inside premises .CGWA water during the construction and permissio n has not been obtained by operations phases. project proponent.
Hazardous/inflammable/explosive PAs has not obtained the authorization for materials likely to be stored during Hazardous waste disposal from UPPCB. the construction and operations 12 phases shall be as per standard procedure as prescribed under law, necessary clearances in this regards shall be obtained.
15The emissions and effluents etc. DG set installed with acoustic enclosure. from machines, instruments and Additional DG set found installed without transport during construction and adequate stack height. PP should obtain 15 operations phases should be CTO for all DG set installed in premises.
according to the prescribed standards. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.
Water sprinklers and other dust Partially complied during visi control measures should be undertaken to take care of dust 16 generated during the construction and operation phases. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.
Suitable noise abatement measures No details provided by Project Proponent. shall be adopted during the construction and operation phases in order to ensure that the noise 17 emissions do not violate the prescribed ambient noise standards. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.
20 Hazardous/solid wastes generated Hazardous waste authorization was not during the construction and obtained. Details not provided regarding operations phases should be disposal of STP sludge disposed off as prescribed under law. Necessary clearances in this regards shall be obtained.
Pavements shall be so constructed Not complied as to allow infiltration of surface run-off of rain water. Fully impermeable pavements shall not be constructed. Construction of 23 pavements around trees shall be as per scientifically accepted principles in order to provide suitable watering, aeration and nutrition to the tree.
The green building concept No details provided suggested by Indian Green Building 24 Council, which is a part of CII-
Godrej GBC, shall be studied and followed as far as possible 16 Make suitable provision for using solar energy as alternative source of energy, solar energy application should be incorporated for illumination of common areas, lighting for gardens and street During inspection, Joint Committee not 29 lighting in addition to provision for solar water heating. Present a found solar energy utilization. detailed report showing how much percentage of backup power for institution can be provided through solar energy so that use and polluting effects of DG sets can be minimized.
Educate citizens and other Details not provided. Sufficient hoarding 31 stakeholders by putting up hoarding at different places to create not visible during visit. environmental awareness.
Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from the roads adjoining No arrangement made for internal visitor the proposed project site must be 32 parking causing traffic congestion near avoided. Parking should be fully entry and exit point.
internalized and no public space should be utilized.
A report on the energy conservation measures confirming to energy conservation norms finalize by 35 Bureau of Energy Efficiency should Details not provided. be prepared incorporating details about building materials and technology, R and U factors, etc. The DG sets to be used during construction phase should use low DG Set with acoustic enclosure found. No sulphur diesel type and should 37 information available w.r.t use of low confirm to Environmental Protection Sulphur diesel.
Rules prescribed for air and noise emission standards.
Alternate technologies to chlorination PP has not submitted the STP adequacy (for disinfection of waste water) report till date including methods like Ultraviolet 38 radiation, Ozonation, etc. shall be examined and a report submitted with justification for selected technology.
17The green belt design along the PP has submitted that about 419 nos. of periphery of the plot shall achieve plant species are planted within the attenuation factor confirming to the premises. However, the plantation found day and night noise standards during the site visit was inadequate 39 prescribed for residential land use. around the project premises. PP is The open spaces inside the plot required to submit the details of the area should be suitably landscaped and covered for plantation and should also covered with vegetation of planted the plant species of thick canopy indigenous variety. with long lives.
Seepage observed in basement during The building should be designed so Joint committee inspection. An 41 as to take sufficient safeguards independent structure audit to be carried regarding seismic zone sensitivity out by PP.
It shall be insured that all street and parks lighting is solar powered. 50% No utilization of solar energy was found 46 of the same may be provided with during joint committee inspection dual (solar/electrical) alternatives Solar water heater shall be installed Arrangement/infrastructure for utilization to the maximum possible capacity.
47 of solar energy not found during joint Plans may be drawn up accordingly committee inspection.
and submitted with justification Parking areas should be in accordance with the norms of MoEF, Residents informed that visitor parking is 52 Government of India. Plans may be not provided leading to traffic congestion drawn up accordingly and at entry and exit point. submitted.
18Project Proponent has submitted following information :
" Environmental management plan has been drawn up and is being implemented with a capital cost of 159.0 lakhs and a recurring cost of Rs. 23.0 Lakhs in the following components.
The environment management plan • Solid waste management. Capital Cost should also include the breakup 10.0 Lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 costs on various activities and the Lakhs/year. 54 management issues also so that the • Environmental monitoring. Capital cost residents also participate in the 4.0 lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 lakhs/year. implementation of the environment management plan. • Horticulture/green area. Capital cost 15.0 Lakhs. Recurring 3.0 lakhs/year.
• Fire fighting.Capital cost 20.0 lakhs.Recurring cost Rs. 4.0 Lakhs/year.
• Health safety and Energy. Capital cost15.0 Lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 lakhs/year.
• Sewage Treatment plant.Capital cost95.0 lakhs. Recuring cost 10.0 lakhs/year."
Detailed plans for safe disposal of STP sludge shall be provided along No details provided by PP. Filter press 55 with ultimate disposal location, found in unused condition quantitative estimates and measures proposed.
The DG sets shall be so installed so as to conform to prescribed stack Additional DG set found installed without 58 heights and regulations and also to adequate stack height. PP should obtain the noise standards as prescribed. CTO for all DG sets installed in premises. Details should be submitted.
The use of suitably processed plastic 61 waste in the construction of roads Not complied. should be considered.
Dispensary for first aid shall be 63 No details provided by Project Proponent.
provided.
Ground water downstream of rain water harvesting pit nearest to STP should be monitored for bacterial contamination. Necessary hand No information provided. Contamination 66 pumps should be provided for found in sample obtained from RWH pit. sampling. The monitoring is to be done both in pre and post monsoon season 19 Project proponent shall endeavor to obtain ISO: 14001 certification. All general and specific conditions mentioned under this environmental 72 Not complied.
clearance should be included in the environmental manual to be prepared for the certification purposes and compliance.
2% of total project cost should be reserved to create a corpus of funds for implementing plan under social Not complied. No documentary evidence corporate and environmental submitted for compliance of condition. PP 73 responsibility and proposals has only informed that they have reserved submitted within a month of funds .
issuance of environmental clearance. Failing which the environmental clearance deemed to be cancelled.
Specific Conditions Observation of Joint Committee The project proponent shall be responsible for
Sewage Treatment Plant is not functioning management/disposal of properly and is not treating and reusing sewage/sewage sludge till grey water as per EC conditions. No 1 necessary arrangements are information provided related to Sludge provided by the Ghaziabad disposal and filter press was found in Development Authority. Necessary unused condition plan in this regards may be submitted within a month.
Assessment of environment compensation for the damage to the environment In compliance to the directions of Hon'ble NGT, Joint committee has carried out assessment to calculate lump sum Environmental Compensation as per approved formula. Details of Environment compensation imposed are given below:
4.1 Environmental Compensation for Non complying STPs.
Name of Unit: M/s SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Violation is assumed from Date of Partial Completion certificate, as STP is not complying the prescribed standards and unused filter press indicate violation from long duration.
PP has obtained first Partial Completion certificate on 04/07/2015 and STP was found non complying during visit on 23/09/2021. So Lump Sum Environmental Compensation is calculated for 2274 days' violation .
The Environment Compensation is calculated based on the following formula 20 Environmental Compensation = P.I x N x R x S x LF Where, EC = Environmental Compensation P. I = Pollution Index of Industrial sector = 100 for Red Category N = No of days of Violation = 2274 days approximate (Period from 04/07/2015 to 23/09/2021) R = Factor in rupees = 250, Category of the Unit: RED S = Factor for scale of operation = Scale of the Unit: Large, 1.5 for Large L.F = location Factor = 1.5 for Ghaziabad and nearby area, Environmental Compensation = 100x 2274 x 250 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 12,79,12,500 Rupees. On the basis of above calculations Environmental Compensation of Rupees 12,79,12,500 /-Tweleve Crore Seventy Nine Lakh, Twelve thousand, Five hundred only.) is to be levied on M/s SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
4.2 Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water Assuming violation from date of application in 2010 to CGWA to date of inspection 23.09.2021 for 03 nos. of bore wells), as no other details are available. EC may be increased, till PP obtain approval for bore wells and if additional bore wells found by CGWA/Local authority.
ECGW = Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGW) Pump Yield = 18 m3/hr . (From CGWA application) Daily Consumption = 18 x 7 = 126 m3 (From CGWA application) ECRGW = 45 Rs./m3 (Ghaziabad in over exploitation region) EC to be levied = 45 x 126 = 5670 Rs./day Total time period = 4368 days Then, ECGW = 5670 x 4368 = 24,766,560 Calculated ECGW = 24,766,560 Rs. For one bore well. Total EC for three bore well = 24,766,560 * 3 =7,42,99,680 = Rs Seven Crore, Fourty Two Lakhs Ninty Nine thousand, Six hundred Eighty Only.
Conclusion
1. Applicant claimed, that expansion was initiated before obtaining the Environmental Clearance for expansion from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2021 on the basis of copy of Progress report submitted by the builder to RERA available on portal of UP RERA. CPCB vide letter dated 08/11/2021 has sought details of progress report submitted by Project proponent from UP RERA to verify the allegations and data is received from UP RERA. Based on data received from UP RERA and Project Proponent it is 21 observed that PP has Prima Facie started constructed for expansion project before obtaining EC.
2. Project proponent is extracting Ground Water without permission
3. Project Proponent has not obtained Hazardous waste authorization
4. Project proponent is not operating STP as per consent conditions.
5. Project Proponent is not managing solid waste as per EC conditions.
6. Seepage was observed in basement, which may have affected structural stability of the project. An expert should be engage by Project Proponent to assess structural safety.
7. Parking facility for visitors not allocated and it causes traffic congestions at outside of society.
6.0 Joint Committee's Recommendations Following recommendations have been made by the Joint Committee Members:
i. Project Proponent has prima facie violated Environmental Clearance conditions and has started constructed for expansion project before obtaining EC. Hon'ble NGT may include UP RERA in Joint Committee for further investigation. Hon'ble NGT may impose additional Environmental Compensation as per direction of Hon'ble NGT in 661/2018, 764/2018 and Goel Ganga Developers Vs UOI).
ii. With regard to violation of STP functioning, M/s Savfab
Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.
shall deposit compensation of Rs 12,79,12,500 (Twelve Crore Seventy Nine Lakh, Twelve thousand Five hundred only.(If assuming violation from date of first Partial Completion certificate date 04/07/2015 to date of inspection on 23/09/2021. Environmental Compensation is calculated for 2274 days' violation).
iii. With regard to withdrawal of ground water, M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. shall deposit compensation amount of R s. Seven Crore Fourty Two Lakh Ninty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Only (7,42,99,680) only (Assuming violation from date of application in 2010 to CGWA to date of inspection 23.09.2021 for 03 nos. of bore wells), as no other details are available.EC may be increased if additional borewell found by CGWA/Local authority.
iv. M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd shall engage third party expert for determining structural stability and taking corrective actions.22
v. Project Proponent to comply with all EC conditions and seek approval from CGWA for use of bore well.
vi. Project Proponent to comply with provision of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and EC conditions for Solid Waste Management and to ensure proper collection, segregation, and treatment of biodegradable waste in compost as per EC conditions.
vii. Project Proponent to allot parking for visitors as per norms of MoEF&CC to avoid traffic congestion outside society.
viii. Project Proponent to obtain authorization for Hazardous waste and remove additional gensets (not included in consent and installed in society without adequate stack height).
ix. The grey water should be treated- up to tertiary level in decentralized STP and treated water should be reused as per Environment Clearance conditions.
x. PPs should comply and submitted the compliance status report to MoEF&CC IRO, Lucknow for the stipulated conditions of EC granted by SEIAA, UP for Saviour Park on 04.03.2013 and its expansion project on 04.03.2021 on regular basis.
The Hon'ble Tribunal may issue appropriate directions as it deems fit, which the Committee is bound to comply with."
13. The stand of the PP does not dispute that there are violations as found. However, PP has stated that it has taken certain steps in the matter as follows:-
"
(i) Non Submission of Surface Hydrology Report and Water Regime:
In terms of the EC, the Project Proponent, vide letter, dated 27.07.2019 submitted the land use certificate, surface hydrology report and water regime report with Dr. Susheel Kumar, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
This letter has been duly acknowledged and stamped by the Ministry. Therefore, there is no violation with respect to submission of the above mentioned Reports. True Copy of letter dated 27.07.2019 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-2.
23(ii) Non use of alternate technology for disposal of solid waste:
The Project Proponent has been using two methods for disposal of solid waste-
(a) Solid waste disposed of through STP; &
(b) Solid waste being disposed of through an Organic Waste Convertor (OWC). The Project Proponent has been using the present Organic Waste Convertor since December 2021.
Apart from the above mentioned technologies used, the Project Proponent has also executed Work Order, dated 14.12.2021, wherein the Project Proponent has engaged a vendor for single point collection, secondary segregation and disposal of all solid wastes generated including installing, operating and maintaining Organic Waste Composting Machine for the project. Hence, the answering Respondent is using alternate technology for disposal of solid waste. Photograph of the Organic Waste Convertor is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-3.
True Copy of the Work Order, dated 14.12.2021 is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-4.
(iii) Non use of recycled water and water from local municipal authority and exploiting groundwater for construction and operational purpose:
Firstly, the Project Proponent since November 2015 till February 2018 have been using treated water from STP for construction purpose. Thereafter, the answering Respondent installed a STP at the Project premises. It is submitted that the Project Proponent uses the treated water from STP in its premise for construction activities. True Copy of the invoices for STP water utilized by Respondent No.10 from November 2015 to February 2018 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-5 (Colly).
Secondly, insofar as the groundwater is concerned, it is extracted from borewells. It is pertinent to point out here that the only requirement under the EC for extraction and use of ground water was that the answering Respondent had to obtain clearance from the competent Authority.
On 04.08.2018, the answering Respondent had applied for NOCs to extract water from bore wells with the CGWA. However, the same was rejected on 16.12.2020 by the CGWA on the ground that Uttar Pradesh Government has its own regulations for groundwater and directed the answering Respondent to apply for NOCs from the Ground Water 24 Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 03.09.2021, the answering Respondent submitted applications with the Ground Water Department, Government Of U.P. for permission to extract water from 3 borewells. On 05.01.2022, NOC was issued by the Ground Water Department for 2 borewells. The answering Respondent expects that the NOC for the remaining borewell will be issued shortly. In this manner, the answering Respondent has adhered to the terms of the EC.
Furthermore, the groundwater is not used for construction purpose and only for domestic use by the residents of the Project.
(iv) The Sewage Treatment Plant is not functioning properly and is not treating and reusing grey water. Analytical Results of water samples collected from STP and RWH pit indicate that most of the parameters are exceeding the limit. Mixing of sewage effluent into the storm water drain cannot be ruled out:
As on date, the Sewage Treatment Plant is fully functional. It is submitted that the Project Proponent recycles and uses water from the STP for horticulture and construction activities. Further, the answering Respondent is ready if the samples are collected from STP and RWH pit and tested.
(v) No information provided for sludge disposal and filter press was found in unused condition:
On 13.08.2019, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Central Region) ("MOEFC") sent a Compliance Report to Member Secretary, SEAC, Directorate of Environment for the project developed by answering Respondent. Perusal of Serial No.55 of the Compliance Report makes it evident that the detailed plans for the disposal of STP sludge have been complied with. The tertiary level treated domestic waste-water by STP is used for flushing, gardening and water sprinkling and compost used as manure for horticulture at site.
True Copy of the Compliance Report of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Central Region) are marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-6.
(vi) Maintenance of 3 RWH structures were in poor condition.
All RWHs were choked and analytical results of water samples collected from RWH pit indicate presence of sewage in RWH pit:
It is submitted that there are 6 Rainwater Harvesting systems in the project. The Rain Water Harvesting systems are in compliance with the designs as provided by the Groundwater Department. The Compliance Report of MOEFC (marked 25 Annexure R-6) at Serial 14 states that the answering Respondent has complied with the design.
Further, it is submitted that the Project Proponent regularly monitors the conditions of the Rain Water Harvesting pit. The Rainwater Harvesting Pit is cleaned in the pre monsoon period and after every rain and storm. The answering Respondent is ready for inspection of the RWH pit. However, it is pertinent to point out that a storm line drain which connects to the RWH is there in every balcony. The balconies are not meant to be used for washing clothes or to discharge domestic waste. However, the residents of the Project have connected their washing machines to the balcony and the discharge from the washing machine and other domestic discharges are released into the storm line drain. This may lead to mixing of rain water with domestic effluents. While the Project Proponent regularly and repeatedly advices the residents against such practices, it may be noted that these are manifestations of existing behavioral patterns of society. Any change in such patterns requires regular counseling and time for change. While the Project Proponent continues to work with the residents, it expects that over time these changes will happen.
(vii) Project Proponent has failed to construct roads in project area with the use of suitably processed processed plastic waste:
It is submitted that while one of the terms of the EC is that suitably processed plastic waste in the construction of roads should be considered. However, the internal roads have been constructed as per the Fire Departments norms, taking into account the movement of fire tenders and the requirement of R.C.C. roads designed for a particular pressure (usually, in excess of 60 tonnes per square meter). It is submitted the Project Proponent would have violated norms of Fire Safety had it constructed roads with use of suitably processed plastic waste. Further, the language of the term is directory and not mandatory.
(viii) Spent / Used oil from DG set is the hazardous material generated at the site. Project Proponent has not obtained hazardous waste disposal authorization:
The Project Proponent is a member of Sheetla Waste Management Project (hereinafter referred as "SWMP"), which is an organization the answering Respondent has engaged for the disposal of hazardous and biomedical waste. By virtue of the membership to SWMP, the Project Management has a tie up, dated 18.11.2021 with the SWMP for safe disposal of hazardous and bio medical waste. True Copy of the duly signed form, dated 18.11.2021 for engagement of Sheetla Waste Management Project for disposal of hazardous waste is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-7.26
(ix) Project Proponent has not provided designated visitors parking and instead is allowing visitors parking on common road which is generating traffic congestion near entry and exit point:
It is submitted that parking areas have been provided in the project in terms of the EC. The Compliance Report of MOEFC (Annexure R-6) records compliance of the same in Serial 32 and
52. It is respectfully submitted that the parking facility has been provided as per the sanction lay out plan in accordance with the norms of MOEF.
(x) Project Proponent is not utilizing solar energy for street and park lighting. No source of renewable energy has been observed at project site:
On 17.01.2022, the Project Proponent has installed solar panels generating 40 KW of solar power. The solar power generated from the panels is supplied to the main electricity grid connection of the project. It is submitted that the street and park lighting requires around 25KW of power. The Project Proponent also uses CFL based lighting in the common areas in order to reduce the consumption of power by 20%.
True Copy of the work completion and handing over certificate, dated 17.01.2022 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-8.
(xi) Project Proponent has not submitted report on the energy conservation:
It is submitted that the Project Proponent, as recorded in Serial 35 of the Compliance Report of MOEFC (Annexure R-6), has undertaken to provide the report on energy conservation after the completion of the project. It is submitted that the energy conservation report can only be accurate once the said Project is completely constructed. The answering Respondent undertakes to submit the Report on completion of the project.
(xii) Project Proponent has installed additional Gensets, which are not of adequate stack height:
On the date of the inspection the said Gensets were only being tested and were not fully operational. The Gen sets installed at present are fixed at an adequate height.
Photographs of the gen set are marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-9.
(xiii) Project Proponent has not provided details regarding Environment Management plan and Cost of environmental activities:27
The Project Proponent in its Environmental Impact Assessment Report that was submitted to the SEAC, has provided for certain CSR activities from page 202 onwards of the document. The Project Proponent undertook to provide creche facilities for the construction workers and also undertook to facilitate Corporate Environment Responsibility. The Project Proponent further undertook to plant trees along the main road and median. The Project Proponent has undertaken to spend Rs.213 Lakh till the completion of the project in CSR and CER activities. The answering Respondent undertakes to provide Environment Management Plan and Cost of Environmental Activities as per the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(xiv) Project Proponent has not provided details / copy of agreement with recycler to handle / dispose hazardous waste (waste oil from DG sets) and STP sludge, plastic waste, e-waste and biomedical waste etc., generated at project site:
The alleged violation observed in this Para has been dealt with by the answering Respondent in the previous Paras. The contents of Para 7 (v) and 7 (viii) above may be read as part and parcel of the present para as the same is not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.
(xv) Project Proponent has not provided copy of NOC from CGWA:
(xvi) On 04.08.2018, the answering Respondent had applied for NOCs to extract water from bore wells with the CGWA. However, the same was rejected by the CGWA on the ground that Uttar Pradesh Government has its own regulations for groundwater.
Accordingly, the Project Proponent was directed to apply for NOCs from the Ground Water Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 03.09.2021, the answering Respondent, in terms of the EC, submitted applications with the Ground Water Department, Government Of U.P. for permission to extract water from 3 borewells. On 05.01.2022, NOC bearing No. REG013555 and REG048660 were issued by the Ground Water Department for 2 borewells. The answering Respondent expects that the NOC for the remaining borewell will be issued shortly. In this manner, the answering Respondent has adhered to the terms of the EC. Furthermore, the groundwater is not used for construction purposes and only for domestic use by the residents of the Project.
(xvii) True Copy of NOCs bearing No. REG013555 and REG048660 issued by the Ministry of Ground Water, Government of Uttar Pradesh are marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-10 (Colly.). (xviii) 9. Apart from the above, the answering Respondent has obtained Structural Stability Certificate, dated 05.02.2012, issued by Prof V.K. Gupta from IIT Roorkee. It is submitted that the Project Proponent could not have got the Completion Certificate without the structural stability certificate."
2814. From the above, it is seen that there is no dispute about violations of prior EC which is mandatory. Also, there is no dispute regarding malfunctioning of the STP earlier. Though, about the ground water issue, it is claimed that permission has been granted for extraction on 05.01.2022, the past violations remain undisputed. The permission granted is for two bore-wells while three have been functioning. Moreover, bore-wells are allowed only for drinking purposes and not for commercial/construction purposes. The PP has also filed I.A No. 102/2022 for re-call of order dated 04.02.2022 restraining it from creating third party rights.
Finding and Directions
15. In view of violations of serious nature found by the joint Committee noted above and only stand of PP being subsequent partial compliance which is yet to be verified by the statutory regulators, the PP is held to have violated the requirement of prior EC as well as conditions of EC. The report of the joint Committee is accepted.
Compensation assessed for violating STP norms and illegal ground water extraction is approved. Recommedations for further remedial action be carried by the PP and overseen by the statutory regulators as per law. Apart from liability for being prosecuted as per the provisions of the EP Act, 1986 and to pay compensation determined by the Committee which we have approved, the PP is held liable to pay further compensation for violating requirement of prior EC and CTE on the principles laid down inter-alia in MC Mehta, (1987) 1 SCC 395, Sterlite (2013) 4 SCC 575 and Goel Ganga (2018) 18 SCC 257.
Having regard to the nature and extent of violations and project cost, the compensation is determined at Rs. 40 Crores, taking the project cost at Rs.800 crore. The precise cost of the project is not on record 29 but cost of expansion is mentioned in EC to be Rs. 250 crore. We take the total cost at Rs.800 having regard to the size of the total project (850 flats already constructed) as shown by the report of the MoEF&CC filed on 02.05.2022, as follows:
"
1. Unit has obtained CTE for existing project (Total Built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 26/07/2012.
2. RO, Ghaziabad, UPPCB reported that unit has obtained CTO for existing project (Total 850 flats against 980 flats, built up area 1,55,000sam) vide letter dated 17/09/2020. During inspection for CTOon 26/07/2020, a total of 850 flats were observed as constructed, which is less than as permitted in CTE. No violation was noticed during inspection."
16. The entire amount of compensation be deposited with the State PCB within two months. In case, deposit is not made, it will be open to the statutory authorities to take coercive measures including, black listing of the PP, attaching and selling its property in accordance with law. The PP will not be allowed to create any further third party right till compliance of all the recommendations, verified by authorities and till payment of compensation, which burden will not be passed on those who have already purchased the flats assuming the project to be compliant. We further notice that the built up area of the project is 1550000 sq.m i.e. more than 1,50,000 sq.m, requiring the project to be appraised as category 'B1' project in terms of Entry 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. If the project has been appraised only as 'B' project, the same is violation of norms and atleast ex post facto appraisal may be made taking the project as BI, if not already done on that basis. The PP may ensure compliance with all the deficiencies found in the report within three months 30 failing which, the statutory regulators will be at liberty to levy further compensation and take further coercive measures.
17. It is seen from the analysis reports of samples collected from RWH and STP that there are high FCs in breach of laid down parameters.
Further, sewage is entering into drain and there is no sewerage system. It is possible that such conditions exist in other residential and commercial complexes also. Thus, SPCBs need to carefully grant CTE and CTO, laying down the mode of disposal in the light of draft notification of MoEF&CC dated 25.2.2022.
Report about functional audit
18. We now consider the report of the Committee on functional audit of SEIAA, U.P reproduced as under:-
"Chapter 7 Functional Audit of SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh Data and Information were received from SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh in parts vide E-mails as follows:
Email dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure-7) E-mail dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure-10) and in continuation further vide dated 03.02.2022 E-mail dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure-26) The information and data have been analysed and the details and observations are as follows:
7.1 Existing Mechanism for grant of EC within SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh 7.1.1 Application format It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that the Application Format is the same as prescribed in EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).
7.1.2 Type of Format for Consolidated Statement 31 It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that the Application Formats are as per the categories prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).
7.1.3 Procedure of processing of application It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that procedure as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) is followed for processing of application.
7.1.4 Involvement of SPCB, Local Bodies, Town and Country Planning Department It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that interaction with other enforcement agencies including SPCB, Local Bodies, Town & Country Planning Dept takes place during the appraisal of project. Many a times, it becomes necessary to coordinate with concerned department to verify the factual status of the project. Also, in many cases, litigation against the project is filed in the Hon'ble Court(s) by the social community or by the project proponent itself making the concerned departments as the pro-forma party or may be impleaded as the case may be. Ground status of the project in question is required to be answered in compliance of the Hon'ble Court(s) orders. Hence, other enforcement agencies are coordinated including SPCB, Local Bodies, Town & Country Planning Dept. etc. 7.1.5 Stepwise flowchart and time-lines for issue of Environment Clearance by SEIAA and institutional mechanism for coordination with SPCB, Municipal Bodies, Town Planning and other designated bodies involved in sanctioning building construction projects at local level.
It is stated by SEIAA that the process adopted is as per EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended thereof).
The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
7.1.6 Procedure of sanction of plan by Town and Country Planning. Does the approval process for Building Construction by the Town Planning Department / Municipal Bodies also includes examining whether EC has been granted? Whether there is any requirement of CTE / CTO before sanctioning or issuing of Occupancy certificate by concerned Agencies/ Authorities?
It is stated by SEIAA that the matter is related to Housing and Urban Planning Department UP.
The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
7.1.7 Necessary Clearances/ NOCs/ Licences etc. required for processing application 32 SEIAA, UP submitted that, Clearances/ NOCs/ Licences etc. are required as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).
The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
7.1.8 Coordination /Information Exchange between SEIAA and Local Authorities - Sharing of Environment Clearance Document issued by SEIAA or CTE/CTO issued by SPCB with the Town Planning/ Municipal Bodies or any other designated body responsible for approving the building plan It is stated by SEIAA that EC letter issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project. The copy of the same with enclosure for Information and necessary action are issued to:
Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, JorBagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi.
Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector- H, Aliganj, Lucknow.
District Magistrate (Concerned District). The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, Paryavaran Bhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar,Lucknow.
7.1.9 Prescribed timelines - Max and Min.for issuing of Environmental Clearance Timeline is as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) The Committee felt that the SEIAA has not been able to provide the complete information as desired.
7.1.10 Specific Methodology for Building Projects SEIAA, UP submitted that, Methodology for Building Projects is as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
7.1.11 Mechanism for Compliance Monitoring It is submitted by SEIAA that the mechanism for compliance monitoring has been well defined in the office order issued vide file no. J-11013/10/2009-IA.I dated 30/09/2009 wherein it has been mentioned that:33
"The Monitoring Cell in IA Division is the nodal point for monitoring and compliance of the stipulated conditions imposed on the industrial units/infrastructural projects including CRZ, while granting Environmental Clearance (EC). A copy of the EC is endorsed to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC for monitoring the compliance of the stipulated conditions, besides to the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)."
For the aforesaid purpose, after the grant of EC, letter is issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project and the copy of the same together with enclosure are endorsed to the following for information and necessary action:
Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests& Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment& Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector- H, Aliganj, Lucknow District Magistrate, (Concerned District) The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, Paryavaran Bhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
And more specifically, SEIAA/SEAC, appraises the violation category cases as per the EIA Notification dated14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) read along with notification dated 14/03/2017 and 08/03/2018. The SEIAA/SEAC, stipulates the implementation of Environmental Management Plan, comprising remediation plan and naturaland community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation as a condition of environmental clearance. The conditions stipulates that:
The project proponent is asked to submit bank guarantee of Rs. (The sum levied) equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan within 15 days to the SPCB.
The Committee felt that SEIAA needs to expedite the action in this regard.
7.1.12 Imposition of Environmental Compensation It is stated by SEIAA that, as per CPCB guidelines, compensation is imposed by State Pollution Control Board.
The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
347.1.13 What is the Checklist? Standardized TOR? Is it same for all types of projects or project-wise varies?
It is submitted by SEIAA that, for different categories, Standard ToRs have been prescribed by MoEF&CC. SEAC/SEIAA follows the same. However, in some cases wherein, additional environmental information regarding the project is required which are not covered in the standard ToR's in that case additional ToR is suggested to be carried out during the study for EIA of the project 7.2(i) Why are construction projects of the State not following provisions of EIA Notification, 2006?
It is stated by SEIAA, UP that, every project has to follow EIA Notification, 2006.
The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
(ii) Do other Enforcement agencies take cognizance of requirement of prior EC or EC conditions?
It is informed that, the concerned Regional Office of the Ministry/SPCB takes cognizance of requirement of prior EC or EC conditions.
The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.
(iii) Why are such frequent blatant violations taking place and how can the situation be remedied?
SEIAA, UP has expressed disagreement with the above statement. They have submitted that, SEIAA/SEAC processes more than 700 cases/year and violation have been observed only in 2-3 cases/year which cannot be considered as frequent blatant violations.IT has also been stated that SEIAA is facing shortage of manpower. The situation can be improved only by providing adequate resources to SEIAA. SEIAA/SEAC are the bodies constituted by Govt. of India therefore Govt. of India should take responsibility of providing sufficient resources to discharge their responsibilities in a more efficient and transparent manner which is an incorrect statement considering that the expenses of SEIAA is to be borne by the State government / State Pollution Control Board which has sufficient resources for providing adequate manpower.
7.3 Analysis of Violation Cases received by SEIAA during Window Period Some information has been received from SEIAA, UP in different phases (Annexure 26A, 26B& 26C). Same have been analyzed as follows:
35Table 7.3.1 (a): List of Cases received during window Period i.e. from 14.03.2017 to 13.09.2017 and from 14.03.2018 to 13.04.2018.
S. Project Sector Date Committe Committee Reply Authority Authority Reply Categor Final e Meeting y of N. Title of Decision Received Meeting Decision Received status/Dat Applicatio Date against Date against Violatio e of Grant n for EC query query n raised by raised of EC SEAC Whethe r Expansi on /New 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 8 9 10 14
1. Construction of 8(a) 22/03/201 2/5/2018 Information 30/07/201 16/05/20 Agreed with ... New EC Issued Proposed Group 8 asked from 8 8 on Housing and Building 21/08/201 PP SEAC 14/09/208 Constructi 8 Recommende 31/08/20 Staff Quarters at U on 18 Grant d for EC PSRTC Campus, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.
2. Proposed 8(b) 15/01 19/02 Recommende ............... 03/07/20 Grant ........ Expansi EC Issued d for EC . 19 on on Group Ho Building /2019 /2019 08/04/201 Constructi 9 using Project "KW on Srishti" at Khasra 36 No.- 1125/1, 1125/2 &1125/3,Village-
Noor Nagar, Pargana- Loni, Raj Nagar Extension,District-
Ghaziabad,U.P.,M/s Dingle Buildcons Pvt. Ltd.
3. Proposed Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New ToR's Constructi Group Housing on OR) Granted Project at Plot No.- Application vide letter 139, Block- H, dated Scheme- 1, Received 09/03/201 Fazalganj, Kanpur, dated 9 but EC 12/04/201 Application U.P.,M/s Tapasya 8 Not Received Projects Ltd.
4. Residential Complex Building 21/06/201 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted "Gulmohar Constructi 9 due to non Residency" at on -
Khasra No.-527/1, submission
of reply
519, Village-
Kanawani, District- by
Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s PP/Absent
SVP Builders (I) Ltd.
37
5. Proposed Group Ho Building EC (TOR) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Constructi due to non-
using Project on Application submission
"Platinum Premier" of reply
at Received
dated
Khasra No.- 13/04/201
304,294, 295& 296 8
of Village-
Pehladgarhi&Khasra
No.-194 of Village-
Makanpur Sector- 9,
Vaishali Ext.,
District-
Ghaziabad, U.P.
6. Affordable Housing 8(a) 28/11/201 19/12/201 Defer in view 01/06/202 1/2/2020 Agreed with SEAC New EC Issued
Project located at 9 9 of order 0 26/02/202 Grant on
Plot No.-GH-05, Building passed by 0 25/11/202
Constructi Hon'ble Discussed the P.P. 0
Sector -10, Greater on 01/07/202 letter dated
Noida,District NGT in OA 0 16/06/2020
GautamBudhaNagar
U.P.,M/s Greater No. 21/09/202 and directed
Noida Industrial 1038/2018 0
that the matter
Development Recommende shall be referred to
Authority d for EC MoEF&CC
Directed to take
further
Action as per
decision taken in
SEIAA
38
meeting dated
26/02/2020
7. Affordable Housing 8(b) 27/11/201 19/12/201 Defer in view 01/06/202 1/2/2020 Agreed with 13/07/202 New EC Issued
Project located at 9 9 of order 0 0 on
Village- Building 16/01/202 passed by 26/02/202 SEAC 15/12/202
Constructi 0 Hon'ble 0 30/09/202 0
GohodiBacheda, on Information from 0
NGT in OA 20/08/202 PP
Sector Mu II, Greater 0
Noida, District- No. Information not
1038/2018 15/10/202 satisfactory
Gautam Budha 0
Nagar, U.P.,M/s Recommende Grant
Greater Noida d for EC
Industrial
Development
Authority
8. Affordable Housing 8(a) 29/11/201 19/12/201 Defer in view 01/06/202 1/2/2020 Agreed with New EC Issued
Project located at 9 9 0 on
Plot No.-GH-03A, Building of order 26/02/202 SEAC Grant 25/11/202
Constructi 16/01/202 passed by 0 0
Omicron, Greater on 0 Hon'ble Discussed the
Noida, Di 01/07/202
NGT in OA 0 P.P. letter dated
strict- Gautam 16/06/2020
BudhaNagar,U.P.,M/ No. 1038/20 21/09/202
0 and directed
s Greater Noida
18Recommen
Industrial that the matter
d for EC
Development shall be referred to
Authority MoEF&CC Directed
to take further
action
39
as per
decision taken in
SEIAA
meeting dated
26/02/2020
9. Affordable Housing 8(a) 28/11/201 19/12/201 Defer in view 01/06/202 1/2/2020 Agreed New EC Iss
Project 9 9 0
Building of order 26/02/202 with SEAC ued o
located at Plot No. Constructi 16/01/202 passed by 0
on 0 Hon'ble Grant Discussed n 25/
-GH-02,Omicron 01/07/202 the
NGT in OA 0 11/20
1A, Greater Noida, P.P. letter dated
No. 108/20 21/09/202 16/06/2020 20
District- 0
18 and directed
GautamBudhaNagar Recommende
,U.P.,M/s Greater d for EC that the matter
Noida Industrial shall be referred to
MoEF&CC
Development
Authority Directed to take
further action
as per decision
taken in SEIAA
meeting dated
26/02/2020
10. Affordable Housing 8(a) 27/11/201 19/12/201 Defer in view 01/06/202 1/2/2020 Agreed with New EC Issued
Project located at 9 9 0 on
26/02/202 SEAC Grant
0
40
Plot No.-L & M, Building 16/01/202 of order 01/07/202 Discussed the 25/11/202
Sector- 12 Constructi 0 passed by 0 0
on Hon'ble P.P. letter dated
, Greater Noida, Di 24/09/202 16/06/2020
NGT in OA 0
strict- Gautam and directed that
BudhaNagar, U.P., No. the matter shall be
M/s Greater Noida 1038/2018 referred to
Industrial MoEF&CC
Recommende
Development d for EC Directed to take
Authority further action as
per
decision taken in
SEIAA meeting
dated 26/02/2020
11. Environmental Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Clearance for the Constructi due to non
Ansal Town Project on OR) submission
located at Village - of reply by
Application
Jatoli, Meerut PP/
Bypass, Roorkee Received
Road, Abse nt
dated
13/09/201
Meerut,U.P. -
7
201308 (Under
Violation Notification
da
ted 14th March,
2017) byM/s Ansal
Housing
41
& Construction Ltd.
12. Proposed Affordable Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Housing at Sector- Constructi due to non
22 D,Village- on OR) submission
Ballukhera of reply by
Application
PP/
, YEIDA,Yamuna
Received
Expressway Absent
dated
Industrial 28/07/201
Development 7
Authority, District-
Gautam Budh Nagar
, U.P.
13. Expansion of 8(a) 25/06/201 24/07/201 PP Absent 29/08/201 16/08/201 Agreed with New EC Issued
Logistic Park 9 9 9 9 on
(Warehouse) Project Building Recommende SEAC Defer 24/02/202
at Gata No.-18 Constructi 11/10/201 d for EC 20/11/201 0
on 9 9 in view of order
8 and 198, located passed by Hon'ble
at Village 01/01/202
0 NGT in OA
Sikandrabad Dehat,
District- No.1038/
Bulandshahar, U.P.,(
2018 Grant
Under Violation
Notification dated 1
4 March2017) by
M/s VRY Industrial
Park LLP
42
14. Proposed 8(a) 25/06/201 24/07/201 PP Absent 29/08/201 16/08/201 Agreed with New EC Issued
9 9 9 9 on
Group Housing Building Recommende SEAC Defer in view 24/02/202
Project Constructi 11/10/201 d for EC 20/11/201 of order passed by 0
"VinayakApartment" on 9 9 Hon'ble
at
01/01/202 NGT in OA
Sector- 7B, 0
MajholaYojna- 4, No.1038/2018
Part-II,Delhi Road, Grant
District- Moradabad,
U.P., M/s Maya
Nagar
SahkariAwas Samiti
Ltd,
15. Combined Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Residential and Non- Constructi due to non
Residential Campus on OR) submission
for 32 Battalion PAC, of Reply by
Application
at Kanp ur PP/Absent
Road,District- Received
dated
Lucknow,U.P., M/s
19/08/201
Provincial Armed 7
Constabulary
16. Proposed Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New ToR's
Constructi
Group Housing on OR) Granted
Project "Chimera" vide letter
located at Khasra Application dated
No.- 1134, N 08/08/201
Received
8 but EC
dated
43
H-58, Village- Noo 28/03/201 Application
7 Not
r Nagar Raj Nagar Received
Extension, District-
Ghaziabad, U.P.
,(Under Violation
Notification dated 14
March2017) by
M/sShouryaShubha
m Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd.
17. Proposed Building 04/05/202 ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Expansi Delisted
Constructi 1 on due to non
Expansion of Group on submission
Housing Project of reply
Situated at Khasra by
PP/Absent
No.- 527/4, 528,
549-554,556-559
Village- Ka]nawani,
Indirapuram,
District- Ghazaibad,
U.P. prom
ted by M/s Niho
Construction Ltd
44
18. Proposed Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Constructi due to non
Group Housing on OR) submission
Project "Assotech of reply
Winder Court" at Application
GH-04/A, Sector- by
Received
78,Noida, Di PP/Absent
dated 13-
strict-GautamBudh 09-2017
Nagar,U.P., dev
eloped by M/s
Assotech Ltd
.
19. Revised 8(a) 01/09/201 19/02/201 Recommende 7/3/2019 Information asked 04/08/20 New EC Issued
9 9 d for E by PP Grant 19 on
Group Ho Building 07/05/201 10/09/201
Constructi C 9 9
using Project located on
at Khasra No.-
322 & 324, Village
-Noor Nagar,
District- Ghaziabad,
U.P., by M/sDiya
Ang els Realtors Pvt.
Ltd.
20. Commercial 8(a) EC (TOR) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Complex "Galaxy due to non
Diamond Plaza"at Building Application submission
Plot N Constructi of reply
on Received
dated
45
o.- C-1 A Sector- 10/09/201 by PP/
7
04, Greater Noida, Absent
District-
GautamBudh Nagar,
U.P. AS
PER "SO804(E)"
dated 14.03.2017
by M/sAsteroid
SheltersHomes Pvt.
Ltd.
21. Environment 8(a) 21/03/202 04/06/202 Recommende 18/06/202 Refer 28/09/20 New EC Issued
Clearance for 0 0 d for EC 0 20 on
Building back to SEAC 15/01/202
Group Housing Constructi 19/08/202 Recommende 15/09/202 1
Project "Vrinda City on 0 d 0 Information asked
located at by PP Grant
28/12/202
Plot No.GH- 2 0
Sevtor- PHI-4
Greater Noida,
Uttar Pradesh by
M/s Central and
State Employees
SahakariAwasSamiti
Limited under the
46
provisionof Central
Government,Gazette
Notification
dated 14,March
2017-Violation case.
22. Environmental Building EC (TOR) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Clearance for (for Constructi due to non
Violation) Group on Application submission
Housing Project of reply
Received
"Orchid Heights"
dated by PP/
apartments at
13/09/201
Village Uttardhauna
7 Absent
District and Tehsil
Lucknow,
Uttar
23. Environmental Building EC (TOR) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Clearance for (for Constructi due to non
Violation) Goel on Application submission
Heights Apartments, of reply
Received
Gro
dated 1 by PP/
up Housing under
3/09/2017 Absent
pahadi Sahkari A
was Samiti Ltd. At
Khasra no.-
761,762,763 (b)
Village- Anaura,
47
Chinhat Faizabad
Road,District-
Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh.
24. Environmental Building EC (TOR) ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ New Delisted
Clearance for (for Constructi due to non
Viola on Application submission
of reply
tion) Group Housing Received
Project "Green dated by PP/
Park" apartments 13/09/2017 Absent
at
VillageUttardhauna
District and Tehsil
Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh.
25. Environmental Building EC (T ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ ........ Expan Delisted
Clearance for Constructi due to non
Expansi on OR) sion submission
of reply
on of "Swami Application
VivekanandSubharti by PP/
Received
University"Project at
dated Absent
Khasra No.- Vill- 13/09/201
Ghatt 941,947, 7
94950/1/2/3,951,9
52, 953/1/2, 954-
959,963, 964,
974/2,
48
977, 978, 980, 98
1, 982,984, 985,
960, 961, Vill-
Mallyana-
1625,1628, 1629,
1630-1633, 1635,
163
6, 1637,1638, 1650,
1651, 1653, 1654,
165
5/2, 1656,
1657, 1606, 1634,
1652, 1653 Vill
Panchali-522, 531
-537, 540, 545, 5
48, 549,550located
at village-Ghatt,
MaliyanaPanchali,
Meerut Bypass
Road, Meerut, Uttar
Pr adesh (under
violation
Notificationdated 14
March 2017) by M/s
Subharti K.K.B
charitable Trust.
49
26. Proposed Group Ho 8(a) 10/09/201 12/12/201 Recommende 28/12/201 Grant New EC Issued
8 8 d for EC 8 on
using Project "San Building 23/01/201
Constructi 9
char Arcade on
SahkariAwasSamiti
Ltd."at Khasra No.-
236& 237, Village-
Mo
rta, District-
Ghazaibad, U.P
., M/s Sanchar
Arcade
SahkariAwasSamiti
Ltd.,
27. Proposed Residential 8(a) 13/07/201 08/08/201 Recommende 18/09/201 Grant New EC Issued
Colony "AnsalBa 9 9 d for EC 9 on
Building 16/07/202
sera City" at Village- Constructi 0
Buda,District- on
Kanpur By Pass
Road, District-
Jhansi, U.P.
28. Proposed 3(b) 21/09 26/09 Recommende 8/11/2019 Information asked 19/11/20 EC Issued
d for E by PPGrant 19 on
"Cement Grinding Industry /2019 /2021 03/01/202 24/02/202
C 0 0
Unit" Project at
Village- Dhauhan,
Pargana-
Saktesgarh,
50
Tehsil- Chunar,
District- Mirzapur, U
.P. M/s Uddyam
Cement Pvt. Ltd.
29. Proposed 8(b) 26/11 20/12/201 Recommende 04/09/201 8/1/2019 Information asked 24/0/201 - EC issued
8 d for EC 9 by PP Information 9 on
Project "Gomti River Building /2018 09/03/201 asked by PP Refer 21/08/202
Front Constructi 11/07/201 Information 27/01/202 9 back to 04/0/201 0
Channelization on 9 asked by PP 0 9
Project from Harding 01/07/201 SEAC Agreed with
to Gomti Weir, 20/11/201 Information 9
District- Lucknow, 9 asked by PP SEAC Agreed with
Recommende 01/08/201
U.P.
28/02/202 d for EC 9 SEAC Grant
0
20/12/201
9
09/05/202
0
30. Proposed Group 8(a) 13/06/202 17/08/202 Information 29/10/202 5/10/2021 Agreed with New Under
1 1 asked by PP 1 Process
Housing "Grand Building Recommende 31/12/202 SEAC Defer in view
Forte Apartments" at Constructi 21/12/202 d for EC 1 of SOP OM Stay
Plot NO.- 76, Sigma- on 1 byMadras
IV, Greater Noida, HighCourt
District- Gautam
Buddha Nagar
, U.P.,M/s
SatililaSahkari Awas
Samti
51
Table 7.3.1(b): Summary of Cases received during Window Period [from 14.03.2017 to 13.09.2017 and from 14.03.2018 to 13.04.2018] Sector Total EC EC Granted Pending Applications received Building 29 14 15 Construction Industry 01 01 00 Total 30 15 15 52 Observations:
It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that, during violation period total 30 no. of application were received. But, from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. However, out of them 15 were granted EC and 15 no. were not granted EC. Out of 30 projects there are 29 construction projects and 01 is industry project. Details status of the projects follows:
Table 7.3.2 (a): Detailed status of the Projects under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021 for which EC has been granted (In context to Applications received during Window Period) S Project Title Sector Date of Category Action of Violation Final Total no BG Current . Applicatio of status/Dat of Days released status of N n forEC Violatio Under Bank Reme e taken the o n diatio for (YEs/ No) Section1 Guarante n Plan of Grant of project . whether
5 of EP), EC granting Act Imposed Expansi on/New of EC 53 Construction of Proposed 8(a) 22/03/201 New Action 1,25,00,0 Submitte EC Issued 176 N/A Under Group Housing and Staff 8 d constructio Quarters at UPSRTC Building under 00/- on n Campus, Vikas Nagar, 14/09/208 Constructio section Copy of bank Kanpur, U.P. n guarantee 15 of E( submitted by PP P) Act initiated to SEIAA o vide n 26/07/2 letter dated 018 02/07/ 2018 Proposed Group Housing 8(b) 15/01/201 Expansio Action 5,02,000/ Submitte EC 932 No Completed Project "KW Srishti" at Building 9 n d Khasra No.- 1125/1, under - Issued on 1125/2 Constructio n section Copy of bank 08/04/201 &1125/3,Village- Noor guarantee 9 Nagar, Pargana- Loni, 15 of E( submitted by Raj NagarExtension, PP District Ghaziabad, P) U.P.,M/s Dingle to SEIAA on Buildcons Pvt. Ltd. Act 05/03/2019 initiated 10,00,000 vide /-(additional letter Information;
dated as provided by SPCB) 54 28/03/20 19 Affordable Housing 8(a) 28/11/201 New Action 90,00,000 Submitte EC 363 No Under Project 9 d constructio Building under /- PP vide Issued on n located at Plot No.-GH- letter dated 05, Sector - 10, Greater Constructio section 5/11/2020 Noida, District n 16/06/20 15 of E( GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. 20 have re ,M/s Greater Noida P) Industrial Development quested for Act the Authority initiated exemption of vide bank Guarantee letter Letter sent to dated MoEF&CC 09/11/20 on 20 07/07/2020 for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PPto SEIAA 55 on 16/09/2020 Affordable Housing 8(b) 27/11/201 New Action 1,10,48,0 Submitte EC 384 No Under Project Building 9 d constructio Under 00/- Issued on n located at Village- Constructio section 15 GohodiB n of E( P)Act Copy of bank 15/12/202 initiated guarantee 0 acheda, Sector Mu II, vide letter submitted by Greater Noida, District- dated PP GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. ,M/s Greater Noida 09/11/20 to SEIAA o Industrial Development 20 n 19/10/2 Authority 020 Affordable Housing 8(a) 29/11/201 New Action 1,10,00,0 Submitte EC 362 No Under Project 9 d constructio Building Under 00/- Issued on n located at Plot No.-GH- section 03A Constructio 15/11/202 n 15 of E(P) 0 , Omicron, Greater Noida, Act PP vide letter initiated dated District- vide letter GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. 16/06/20 dated ,M/s Greater Noida 20 have re 09/11/20 quested for 20 the exemption of bank Guarantee 56 Letter sent to MoEF&CC on 07/07/2020 for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 16/09/2020 Affordable Housing 8(a) 28/11/201 New Action 1,10,00,000 Submitte EC 363 No Under Project 9 /- d constructio Building Under Issued on n located at Plot No.-GH- section vide letter 02, Constructio dated 25/11/202 n 15 of E(P) 0 Omicron 1A, Greater Act 16/06/20 Noida initiated vide letter 20 have re , District dated GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. quested for s Greater Noida 09/11/20 the Industrial Development 20 exemption of bank Authority Guarantee 57 Letter sent to MoEF&CC on 07/07/2020 for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 09/09/2020 1,03,20,0 00/(addition al Information;
as provided
by SPCB)
Affordable Housing 8(a) 27/11/201 New Action 50,00,000/- Submitte EC 364 No Under
Project 9 d constructio
Building Under vide letter Issued on n
located at Plot No.-L &M, section dated
Sector- 12, Greater Constructio 05/11/202
Noida, n 15 of E(P) 16/06/20 0
Act
initiated 20 have re
58
District- vide letter quested for
GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. dated the
,M/s Greater Noida exemption of
Industrial Development 09/11/20 bank
Authority 20 Guarantee
Letter sent to
MoEF&CC
on
07/07/2020
for
clarification
regarding
exemption of
bank
guarantee
Copy of bank
guarantee
submitted by
PP to SEIAA
on
16/09/2020
Expansion of Logistic 8(a) 26/09/201 Expansio Action 22,50,000/- Submitte EC 253 Yes completed
Park 8 n d
Building Under Copy of bank Issued on
(Warehouse) Project at section guarantee
Ga Constructio submitted by 06/06/201
n 15 of E(P) PP to SEIAA 9
ta No.-188 and 198, Act o
locate initiated
59
d at Village- vide letter n
SikandrabadDehat, dated 25/03/2019
District- Bulandshahar,
U.P.,(Under Violation 07/05/20 5,00,000/
Notification dated 14 19
- (additional
March
Information;
2017) by M/s VRY as provided
Industrial Park LLP by SPCB)
Proposed Group Housing 8(a) 25/06/201 New Action 33,00,000/- Submitte EC 244 No Constructio
Project 9 d n stopped
"VinayakApartment" Building Under Copy of bank Issued on
section guarantee
at Sector- 7 B, Constructio submitted by 04/02/202
MajholaYojna- 4, Part-II, n 15 of E(P) PP 0
Delhi Road, Act
initiated to SEIAA on
District- Moradabad, vide letter 05/02/2020
U.P., dated
11/02/20 150000
M/s Maya Nagar 19 (additional
SahkariA Information;
as provided
wasSamiti Ltd, by SPCB)
Revised Group Housing 8(a) 01/09/201 New Action 3,35,000/- Submitted EC 241 No Completed
Project located at Khasra 9
No.- 322 & 324, Village- Building Under Issued on
Noor section
Constructio Copy of bank 01/09/201
Nagar, District- n 15 of E(P) guarantee 9
Ghaziabad Act submitted by
initiated PP to SEIAA
60
, U.P., by M/s Diya vide letter on
Angels dated 08/07/2019
08/07/20
Realtors Pvt. Ltd. 19
Environment Clearance 8(a) 21/03/202 New Action 20,05,000/- Submitte EC 300 No Completed
for 0 d
Building Under Issued on
Group Housing Project section
"Vrinda City located at Constructio Copy of bank 15/01/202
Plot No GH- 2 Sevtor- n 15 of E(P) guarantee 1
PHI-4 Gre Act submitted by
initiated PP to SEIAA
ater Noida, Uttar vide letter on 18/06/2
Pradeshby M/s Central dated
and State Employees 15/10/20 020
SahakariAwasSamiti 21
Limited under the pro
vision of Central
Government, Gazette
Notification dated 14,
March 2017-Violation
case.
Proposed Group Housing 8(a) 10/09/201 New Action 24,44,000/- Submitte EC 135
Project "Sanchar Arcade 8 d
SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd." Building Under Copy of bank Issued on
at Khasra No.- 236 & section guarantee
Constructio submitted by 23/01/201
237, Village- Morta,
n 15 of E(P) PP to SEIAA 9
District- Ghazaibad, U.P.,
Act on
M/s Sanchar Arcade
initiated 28/12/2018
SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd.,
vide letter
dated
61
21/09/20
19
Proposed Residential 8(a) 13/07/201 New Action 5,00,000/- Submitte EC 369
Colo 9 d
Building Under Copy of bank Issued on
ny "AnsalBasera City" at section guarantee
V Constructio submitted by 06/07/202
n 15 of E(P) PP 0
illage- Buda, District- Act
Kan initiated to SEIAA o
vide letter
pur By Pass Road, dated n 03/07/2
District- 09/07/20
020
20
Jhansi, U.P.
Proposed "Cement 3(b) 21/09/201 Action 4,86,000/- Submitte EC
Grinding Unit" Project at 9 d
Village- Industry Under Copy of bank Issued on
section guaran tee
Dhauhan, Pargana- submitted by 07/11/201
Saktesgarh, Tehsil- 15 of E(P) PP to SEIAA 9
Chunar, District- Act on
Mirzapur, U.P. M/s initiated 07/11/2019
Uddyam Cement Pvt. vide letter
Ltd. dated
12/02/20
20
Proposed Project "Gomti 8(b) 26/11/201 - Action Letter dated EC 625
River Front Building 8 07/08/
Channelization Project Under Issued on
from Harding to Gomti Constructio section 2020 sent
n 21/08/202
Weir, District-Luckno
15 of E(P) to MoEF& 0
Act
62
w, U.P. initiated CC for
vide letter exemption of
dated
09/08/20 bank
20 guarantee
being a govt.
project
Table 7.3.2(b): Summary of EC Granted under violation Category w.e.f.
01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021 (In context to Applications received during Window Period) S.N Table No. Categ Action of Viol Time Taken to Grant E Construction status o 7.3.2(b): of ory Summary ation in Nu C of EC Proj of ects mber ( from date of Applicati Granted violati under on for EC) n violation Category wheth Under Damage Remedia within betwe bet bet betwe Comple Under Wo No w.e.f. er Section tion en 1to ted construc rk Assessm 1 year we we en 4 tion inf ent Plan e e t 63 01.04.201 Expas 15 of Quantifi 2 n2 n3 o5y St om 7 to ion E(P) Act ed years op ati 31.07.202 to to ears pe on 1 /New YE N YE N YE N 3 4 d in s o s o s o (In context Numb yea yea to er rs rs Applicatio ns received during Window Period) 1 Buil 14 Expan 02 - 02 - 02 - 01 - 01 - - 02 - - -
s ding ion: 0 Constructi on 2 64 Observation:
It is reported that, ECs have been issued to 15 projects and actions under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 have been taken against all these 15 projects. Most of these ECs have been issued within a period of 01 year from the date of application. Out of the 15 aforesaid cases; damage assessments have been made in respect of 14 cases . However, this exercise of damage assessment has not been undertaken for the remaining 1 project belonging to the government sector. Same observations have been made in context of preparation of Remediation Action Plan. In some cases, it has been found that, two types of Bank Guarantees have been imposed. In such cases, one information has been provided by SEIAA itself and another information has been provided by SPCB. Clarification in these regard has not been provided. Project completion status as provided by SEIAA in respect of these 15 projects are as follows:
7. Completed - 04 Projects
8. Under construction - 06 Projects
9. Work stopped - 01 Project
10. No information - 04 projects Table 7.3.3(a): Ground status of Projects to Whom ECs were not granted (Under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021) 65 S. Project Sector Date of Category Action of Violation Final Total no BG Current N. Title Application of status/Date of of released status of for EC Violation Grant days (Yes/No) the project whether Under Section Bank Remediati of EC Expansion 15 of E(P), Act Guarantee on /New Imposed Plan
1. Proposed Group Building EC (TOR) New -- -- -- ToR's Granted vide -- N/A Completed Housing Project at Constructi Application letter dated Plot No.- 139, Block- on Received 09/03/2019 but EC H, Scheme- 1, dated Application Not Fazalganj, Kanpur, 12/04/2018 Received U.P.,M/s Tapasya Projects Ltd.
2. Residential Complex Building 21/06/2019 New -- 5,20,000/ -- Delisted due to non -- No Completed "Gulmohar Constructi - submission of reply Residency" at on (additional by PP/Absent Khasra No.-527/1, Informatio 519, Village- n; as Kanawani, District- provided Ghaziabad, by SPCB) U.P.,M/s SVP Builders (I) Ltd.
3. Proposed Group Building EC (TOR) New --- -- -- Delisted due to -- N/A Completed Housing Project Constructi Application submission f reply "Platinum Premier" on Received by Absent at Khasra No.- 304, dated 294, 295 & 296 of 13/04/2018 Village-
Pehladgarhi&Khasr a No.-194 of Village-
Makanpur Sector- 9, Vaishali Ext., District- Ghaziabad, U.P. 66
4. Environmental Building EC (TOR) New -- 500000/- --- Delisted due to non -- No Completed Clearance for the Constructi Application (additional submission of reply Ansal Town Project on Received Informatio by PP/Absent located at Village - dated n; as Jatoli, Meerut 13/09/2017 provided Byepass, Roorkee by SPCB) Road, Meerut, U.P. -
201308 (Under Violation Notification dated 14th March, 2017) by M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.
5. Proposed Affordable Building EC (TOR) New -- --- --- Delisted due to non -- N/A Under Housing at Sector- Constructi Application submission of reply construction 22 D, Village- on Received by PP/Absent Ballukhera, dated YEIDA,Yamuna 28/07/2017 Expressway Industrial Development Authority, District-
GautamBudh Nagar, U.P.
6. Combined Building EC (TOR) New -- --- --- Delisted due to non -- No Completed Residential and Constructi Application submission of reply Non- Residential on Received by PP/Absent Campus for 32 dated Battalion PAC, at 19/08/2017 Kanpur Road, District- Lucknow, U.P., M/s Provincial Armed Constabulary
7. Proposed Group Building EC (TOR) New -- --- --- ToR's Granted vide -- No Completed Housing Project Constructi Application letter dated "Chimera" located at on Received 08/08/2018 but EC 67 Khasra No.- 1134, dated Application Not NH-58, Village- Noor 28/03/2017 Received Nagar Raj Nagar Extension, District-
Ghaziabad, U.P. (Under Violation Notification dated 14 March 2017) by M/s Shourya Shubham Infra-structure Pvt.
8. Proposed Expansion Building 04/05/2021 Expansion -- --- --- Delisted due to non -- N/A Under of Group Housing Constructi submission of reply construction Project situated at on by PP/Absent Khasra No.- 527/4, 528, 549-554,556- 559 Village-
Kanawani, Indirapuram, District- Ghazaibad, U.P. promoted by M/s Niho Construction Ltd.
9. Proposed Group Building EC (TOR) New -- 10,00,000 --- Delisted due to non -- No 78% Housing Project Constructi Application /- submission of reply Constructio "Assotech Winder on Received (additional by PP/Absent n done. 28% Court" at GH-04/A, dated 13-09- Informatio Under Sector- 78, Noida, 2017 n; as construction District- provided Total Tower GautamBudh Nagar, by SPCB) proposed-
U.P., developed by 05,
M/s Assotech Ltd Constructio
n done-4
tower (744
flats)
Under
construction
-01 tower
68
(208 flats)
At present
330 flats
Occupied
10. Commercial Building EC (TOR) New --- 1000000/ --- Delisted due to non --- No Under
Complex "Galaxy Constructi Application - submission of reply construction
Diamond Plaza" at on Received (additional by PP/Absent
Plot No.- C-1 A, dated Informatio
Sector-04, Greater 10/09/2017 n; as
Noida, District- provided
Gautam Budh by SPCB)
Nagar, U.P. AS PER
"SO 804(E)" dated
14.03.2017 by M/s
Asteroid Shelters
Homes Pvt. Ltd.
11. Environmental Building EC (TOR) New --- -- -- Delisted due to non- -- NA Completed
Clearance for (for Constructi Application submission of reply
Violation) Group on Received by PP/Absent
Housing Project dated
"Orchid Heights" 13/09/2017
apartments at
Village Uttardhauna
District and Tehsil
Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh.
12. Environmental Building EC (TOR) New --- 3000000 --- Delisted due to non -- Yes Completed
Clearance for (for Constructi Application (additional submission of reply
Violation) Goel on Received Informatio by PP/Absent
Heights Apartments, dated n; as
Group Housing 13/09/2017 provided
under pahadi by SPCB)
Sahkari Awas
Samiti Ltd. At
Khasra no.-
761,762,763 (b)
69
Village- Anaura,
Chinhat Faizabad
Road, District-
Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh.
13. Environmental Building EC (TOR) New --- 1000000 --- Delisted due to non -- Yes Completed
Clearance for (for Constructi Application (additional submission of reply
Violation) Group on Received Informatio by PP/Absent
Housing Project dated n; as
"Green Park" 13/09/2017 provided
apartments at by SPCB)
Village Uttardhauna
District and Tehsil
Lucknow, Uttar
Pradesh
14. Environmental Building EC (TOR) Expansion --- --- --- Delisted due to non -- No Not started
Clearance for Constructi Application submission of reply
Expansion of on Received by PP/Absent
"Swami Vivekanand dated
Subharti University" 13/09/2017
Project at Khasra
No.- Vill-Ghatt 941
,947, 949,
950/1/2/3,951,
952, 953/1/2, 954-
959, 963, 964,
974/2, 977, 978,
980, 981, 982, 984,
985, 960, 961, Vill-
Mallyana- 1625,
1628, 1629, 1630-
1633, 1635, 1636,
1637, 1638, 1650,
1651, 1653, 1654,
1655/2, 1656,
1657, 1606, 1634,
1652, 1653 Vill-
70
Panchali- 522, 531-
537, 540, 545, 548,
549, 550 located at
village- Ghatt,
Maliyana Panchali,
Meerut Bypass
Road, Meerut, Uttar
Pradesh (under
violation Notification
dated 14 March
2017) by M/s
Subharti K.K.B
charitable Trust.
15. Proposed of Group 8(a) 13/06/2021 New --- 4,86,000/ -- Under Process ---
Housing "Grand Building -
Forte Apartments" at Constructi Copy of
Plot NO.- 76, Sigma- on bank
IV, Greater Noida, guarantee
District- Gautam submitted
Buddha Nagar, by PP to
U.P.,M/s Satilila SEIAA on
Sahkari Awas Samti 05/01/20
22
71
Table 7.3.3(b): Summary of Projects to Whom EC has not been Granted under violation Category (w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021) (In context to Applications received during Window Period) Project No. of Category Action against Violation Construction status Sector Projects (e.g.Industry, Of violation Under Section 15 Damage Remediation Completed Under Not started No Mining, whether of E(P) Act Assessment Plan construction information Building Expansion/New Quantified Construction (Nos.) Yes No Yes No Yes No Building 15 Expansion: 02 00 02 00 02 00 02 - 01 01 - Construction New:13 00 13 07 06 00 13 09 03 - 01 Total 15 15 00 15 07 08 00 15 09 04 01 01 Observations:
Observations are as follows:
Out of 30 project proposals, ECs have not been granted to 15 projects. Out of these 15 projects to whom ECs are yet to be issued:
o 09 nos. of projects have been completed
o 04 are under construction.
o 01 project is yet to be started
o No information has been made available regarding remaining
o 01 project.
o Action Under Section 15 of E(P) Act has not been taken even for a single project
72
o Damage assessment has been carried out only for 07 projects and remediation action plan has not been formulated for any of the projects.73
7.4 Detailed status of violation cases which were received after the window period SEIAA, UP, submitted that only one project has been received after window period (Annexure 26 D). Details are as follows:
S Project Title Se Dat Da te Categ Under S Bank Gu Remediatio Final Remark cto e of of Gr ory of ection 1 5 arantee nPatlan Stus .N r App ant of Violat of E(P ), Act Imposed . lica EC ion w tio hethe r n Exp for ansio EC n/ New Expans The application Proposed ion was submitted 6- Action under Project 21-08- Letter sent to 11- sect "Gomti River 8(b 20 to EAC on 01/03/ 1 Front 201 ion 15 of ) Bui 20 MoEF&CC 2018 which 8 E(P) Act Channelizati ldi ng for was Submitted EC on Project initiated exemption transferred to Co from Harding vide letter of bank Issued nst SEIAA, UP as to Gomti dated guarantee Weir, Di ructi being a per notification 07/08/202 dated strict- on govt.
Lucknow, 0 project 08/03/2018
U.P.
But, from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects, date of application for EC are beyond the window period.
7.5 Details of projects for which post-facto ECs are granted, including the ECs for expansion projects which were in violation of existing EC:
UPPCB informed that, these information are included in Annexure- 14A. Same is represented in Table 7.3.2(a).
7.6 Consideration of Disciplinary / Legal Action by other Enforcement Agencies As per information provided by SEIAA, it is submitted that before grant of EC, they have informed that action under section 15 of the E(P) Act have been taken and UPPCB has also initiated disciplinary / legal action in such cases against the project proponent.
7.7 Details of the Agency which is monitoring the remediation action plans 74 The reply of SEIAA, UP is reproduced here-below:
The mechanism for compliance monitoring has been well defined in the office order issued vide file no. J-11013/10/2009-IA.I dated 30/09/2009 wherein it has been mentioned that:-
"The Monitoring Cell in IA Division is the nodal point for monitoring and compliance of the stipulated conditions imposed on the industrial units/infrastructural projects including CRZ, while granting Environmental Clearance (EC). A copy of the EC is endorsed to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC for monitoring the compliance of the stipulated conditions, besides to the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB)."
For the aforesaid purpose after the grant of EC letter issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project, the copy of the same is endorsed with enclosure for information and necessary action to:
Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi.
Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow. District Magistrate, (Concerned District). The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, ParyavaranBhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.
And more specifically, SEIAA/SEAC, appraises the violation category cases as per the EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) read along with notification dated 14/03/2017 and 08/03/2018. The SEIAA/SEAC, stipulates the implementation of Environmental Management Plan, comprising remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation as a condition of environmental clearance. The condition implies as given below:
"The project proponent is asked to submit bank guarantee of Rs.(the sum levied) equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan within 15 days to the SPCB.
It is observed by the Committee that the reply of SEIAA doesn't make it clear that the SPCB or the Regional Office have verified the progress of implementation of Remediation Action Plan or the Natural and Community Resource Augmentation Plan.
7.8 Types of Projects and Time Taken by SEIAA to Grant Environmental Clearances 75 The data provided by SEIAA was processed to assess types of projects coming up in the State and time taken for grant of Environmental Clearance to these projects. Data are presented in the following Tables No. 3.8.1 to 3.8.4:
Table 7.8.1: Project category-wise dealt with regard to granting of Environmental Clearances (Period 01.01.2017 - 25.12.2021) Sl. No. Project Sector No. of Projects 1. 494 Building Construction 2. 21 Cement 3. Highway 3 4. 104 Industry
5. 1483 Mining Total 2105 Table 7.8.2: Status of Granting of Environmental Clearances (Period 01.01.2017 - 25.12.2021) Sl. No. Status of Processing of the Application No. of Projects
1. Absent 1
2. Closed 149
3. Delisted 241
4. EC issued 1486
5. EC revoked 1
6. Exemption Letter 1
7. Information SEAC 82
8. TOR issued 5
9. Under process 139 Total 2105 Table 7.8.3 (a): Time Taken by SEIAA to take decision on EC Applications 76 (Period 01.01.2017 - 25.12.2021) Sl. No. Nos of days taken No. of Sl. No. Nos of days No. of for making EC taken for making EC decision Appln. decision Appln.1. 129 21 4
0-30 601-630 2. 278 22 2 31-60 631-660 3. 230 23 3 61-90 661-690 4. 251 24 4 91-120 691-720 5. 135 25 1 121-150 721-750 6. 86 26 1 151-180 751-780 7. 50 27 1 181-210 781-810 8. 75 28 1 211-240 811-840 9. 72 29 0 241-270 841-870 10. 45 30 1 271-300 871-900 11. 29 31 2 301-330 901-930 12. 331-360 30 32 931-960 2 13. 361-390 21 33 961-990 0 14. 391-420 9 34 991-1020 0 15. 421-450 20 35 1021-1050 2 16. 451-480 5 36 1051-1080 0 17 481-510 4 37 1081-1110 1 18. 511-540 3 38 1111-1140 0 19. 541-570 0 39 1 20 571-600 6 1141-1170 Total Nos. of Projects - 1504 77
Table 7.8.3(b): Time Taken by SEIAA to Grant Environmental Clearance (Period 01.01.2017 - 25.12.2021) Sl. No. Nos of days No. of Sl. No. Nos of days No. of taken to Grant EC taken to Grant EC EC Granted EC Granted 1. 127 20. 6 0-30 571-600 2. 272 21. 4 31-60 601-630 3. 227 22. 2 61-90 631-660 4. 249 23. 1 91-120 661-690 5. 134 24. 4 121-150 691-720 6. 86 25. 1 151-180 721-750 7. 49 26. 0 181-210 751-780 8. 75 27. 1 211-240 781-810 9. 72 28. 1 241-270 811-840 10. 45 29. 0 271-300 841-870 11. 29 30. 1 301-330 871-900 12. 30 31. 2 331-360 901-930 13. 21 32. 2 361-390 931-960 14. 9 33. 0 391-420 961-990 15. 20 34. 0 421-450 991-1020 16. 5 35. 2 451-480 1021-1050 17. 4 36. 0 481-510 1051-1080 18. 3 37. 1 511-540 1081-1110 19. 1 38. 0 541-570 1111-1140 Total:1486 Observations are as follows:78
i. For the Period of 01.01.2017 - 25.12.2021, a total of 2105 project applications were received &dealt with by SEIAA, UP for issue of EC. Out of them, EC have been issued to 1486 projects. Ground status of remaining 601 projects as on date is not intimated. ii. During aforesaid period, mining projects predominated in the State. This was followed by building construction projects. iii. In 745 cases, the ECs were granted within reasonable time (105 days) period.
iv. In 86 cases, the time taken to grant ECs varied from 1yr to more than 4 years. Possibility of initiation of the construction activities in such cases without obtaining EC, cannot be ruled out. v. Delay in granting EC: Decisions have been taken by SEIAA within reasonable time for majority of the projects, but justification for the cases where inordinate delay has taken place, is not in order.
7.9 Brief Details of the NGT Matter under reference - information about the Project namely M/s Saviour Park Apartment, Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad.
In context of project under reference following observations have been made:
o PP got the approval for the site plan from Ghaziabad Development Authority on 21.06.2011.
o PP has obtained the CTE from UPPCB vide letter no. F08023/C- 1/NOC/G-752/2012/6 dated 26.07.2012, before obtaining the Environmental Clearance.
o Environmental Clearance was received for project under reference vide dated 04.03.2013.
o As per record, the project was inspected by MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow on 30.05.2019 to review the status of stipulated EC conditions granted by SEIAA, U.P. on 04.03.2013. Subsequently, a letter of non- compliances was sent to PPs vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL- UP/510/2019/422 dated 13.08.2019. The certified compliance report indicating various noncompliance with detailed monitoring report was also sent to PPs with a copy to SEIAA, UP vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL-UP/510/2019/423 dated 13.08.2019. However, no response has been received by IRO, Lucknow against the above mentioned letter. Further, no compliance report has been received in the MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow since 2019 onwards. o Additionally, PPs have obtained the Expansion EC from SEIAA, U.P. vide letter no. 788/Parya/SEAC/6057-5683/2019 dated 04.03.2021.
o PP had obtained the CTO vide dated 17/09/2020 from UPPCB which is valid till 31.07.2025.
Following violations have been reported by the five Member Committee in this matter.
79 Project Proponent is supplying water to Township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA. Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.
The STP operated by M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd in apartment is not functioning properly. Sample obtained from STP outlet is not complying with the prescribed standards. During the site visit, entire basement area of the project was found affected with seepage and large number of cracks were visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides.
However, Joint committee also observed that, various measures with respect to EC conditions have not been taken by the PP. Compliance of EC conditions was not ensured in 'letter & spirit'.
It was observed from the records submitted by PPs and records of project as available with UP RERA that construction of Phase II towers / flats had been started before grant of EC for Phase II.
In the matter under reference following additional information have been received from SEIAA, UP:
When was the violation noticed in the above case? Is there any gap in the appraisal process adopted by SEIAA or SPCB?
SEIAA submitted that violation has not been established as the matter is still sub-judice in Hon'ble NGT. There is no gap in the appraisal process adopted by SEIAA/SEAC.
It would be worthwhile to mention that the aforementioned project has already been categorized as a violation case by the Joint Inspection Team.
Was CTE/CTO issued in this case? Was the violation not noticed at the time of grant of CTE and CTO?
Following points are intimated by SEIAA:
1. Unit has obtained CTE for existing project (Total Built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 26/07/2012.
2. RO, Ghaziabad, UPPCB reported that unit has obtained CTO for existing project (Total 850 flats against 980 flats, built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 17/09/2020. During inspection for CTO on 26/07/2020, a total of 850 flats were observed as constructed, which is less than as permitted in CTE. No violation was noticed during inspection.
It is observed by the Committee that reply of SEIAA is not satisfactory. Further, UPPCB didn't take cognizance of operation of tube-wells in the society without permission from CGWA. Many other non-compliances such as poor 80 performance of STP have been observed by the Joint Inspection Committee, were not recorded by UPPCB during its routine inspections.
Chapter 8 Overall observations of the Committee 8.1 Overall observations of the Committee It is observed that applications in respect of a total of 2105 Projects have been received during 01.01.2017 to 25.12.2021. Further details in this matter are as follows:
o Applications processed: 2105 o ECs granted: 1486 o Present Ground status of remaining 619 projects are not known.
o Possibility of their continuation or completion of such projects cannot be ruled out.
During aforesaid period, mining projects predominated in the State. This was followed by building construction projects.
o In some cases, the ECs are granted within reasonable time period.
o In many cases, the time taken to grant ECs varied from 1 yr to more than 4 years. Possibility of initiation of the construction activities in such cases without obtaining EC, cannot be ruled out.
o Delay in granting EC: Decisions have been taken by SEIAA within reasonable time for majority of the projects, but justification for the cases where exorbitantly higher time have been taken is not in order. SEIAA, UP has mentioned about the Parivesh Portal and procedure in this regard.
It is intimated by SEIAA, UP that, during window period, a total of 30 nos. of application were received. Out of these 30 projects, there are 29 construction projects and 01 is industry project. Although, these cases are received during Window Period but from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects, the dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. Further, out of 30 applications, ECs have been granted to 15 projects ECs to remaining 15 nos. of projects could not be granted due to various reasons. Further details in respect of those 15 projects to whom ECs have been granted, are as follows:
o Actions under section 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 have been initiated for all these 15 Projects.81
o Time-lines for grant of ECs were as follows:
Within 01 year - 10 Projects 1 to 2 years - 4 Projects 2-3 years - 1 Project o Completion of Damage Assessment - 14 Projects only. It could not be undertaken for remaining 01 Project as it belonged to the category of Government Project. Same observation was found in context to Remediation Plan. o In some cases it is found that, two types of Bank Guarantees have been imposed. In such cases, one information has been provided by SEIAA itself and another information has been provided by SPCB. Clarification in these regard have not been provided. o Out of these 15 projects:
04 projects have already been completed 06 are under construction 01 project is stopped No information is provided in respect of 04 projects Further details in respect of those 15 nos. of projects to whom ECs are yet to be issued, are as follows:
o 09 nos. of projects have been completed
o 04 are under construction.
o 01 project is yet to be started
o No information regarding remaining 01
project.
o Action Under Section 15 of E(P) Act have not
been taken for a single project
o Damage assessment has been made only
for 07 projects and Remediation Action Plan is not at all formulated for any of the project.
Lack of coordination amongst various Agencies concerned for issuing Permissions, Clearance, Consents etc. have been noticed as mentioned in the foregoing paras. Concerned Agencies are not following the Notifications issued from time to time which is leading to violations in many cases. Further, compliance verification and monitoring could not be performed from time to time.
o The Committee feels that SEIAA could have paid greater attention as regards the following:
o Processing of EC applications including reasons having quoted for delay.
o Actions under Section 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 against violation projects 82 It is observed by the Committee that this action of monitoring of action plan undertaken recently by SEIAA through UPPCB could have been undertaken long back in these "Violation Category " i.e. immediately after submission of such plans by the violator PPs.
Violation of stipulated procedure has taken place during the process of grant of Expansion EC in the matter of M/s Saviour Park Apartment. Possibility of similar violation in other cases can't overruled.
It emerged from the replies furnished by SEIAA UP that there was:
o Lack of adherence to the Stepwise flowchart and time-lines for issue of Environment Clearance by SEIAA and lack of institutional mechanism for coordination with SPCB, Municipal Bodies, Town Planning and other enforcement agencies / designated bodies involved in sanctioning building construction projects at local level. o Absence of well laid down procedure regarding examination of EC and sanction of plan by the Town Planning Department. It is not clear whether the approval process for Building Construction by the Town Planning Department / Municipal Bodies also includes examining whether EC has been granted and whether there is any requirement of CTE / CTO before sanctioning or issuing of Occupancy certificate by concerned Agencies/ Authorities?
o Lack of clarity regarding requirement of necessary Clearances/ NOCs/ Licenses etc. required for processing application for EC.
o Lack of clarity regarding methodology to be following for building projects or imposition of Environmental Compensation for building projects.
Besides, no specific information has been received from SEIAA, UP.
o Information with respect to Application format o Procedure adopted for processing of application o Reasons for blatant violations taking place and how can the situation be remedied?
8.2 Identification of Issues leading to Blatant Violation After careful examination of the information received from SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh issues leading to violation have been identified as follows:
i. Wilful violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 by the Project Proponents ii. Suppression of the information by the Project Proponents.83
iii. Processing of applications received for getting EC is not upto mark. This is including scrutinization of necessary NOCs / Licenses / Clearances from other concerned departments iv. Time-lines prescribed for processing the EC applications are not followed.
v. Lack of coordination among the various Agencies concerned for issuing Permissions, Clearance, Consents etc. vi. Lack of surveillance in the State especially by UPPCB, T&C Planning Department and Local Bodies.
Chapter 9 Recommendations
9.1 Recommendations 9.1.1 For Project Proponent Project Proponents may be made aware of the concerned Environmental Regulations and Environmental Norms. Periodic workshops may be organized with the related Associations, Organizations and key Institutions so as to apprise them about the extant provisions of Acts, Rules, OMs, Procedures and the Dos and the Don'ts as far as Environmental Clearances and adherence to Environmental Safeguards are concerned.
9.1.2 For SEIAA, UP
1. It was observed that Member Secretary of UPPCB is also the Member Secretary, SEIAA, UP. However, this does not appear to have translated into better synergy and convergence. It is, therefore, suggested that institution mechanism for sharing information between SEIAA and UPPCB may be established to ensure efficient and effective monitoring and implementation of environmental safeguards.
2. It is found that, during window period for most of the projects dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. SEIAA, UP may provide clarification in this regard.
3. It was observed that out of the 15 projects received during Window Period for which ECs were not granted, constructions of 09 nos of projects have been completed, and 04 are under construction. Action needs to be taken in these cases by SEIAA, UP and UPPCB.
4. Action u/s 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 against all the projects falling under violation category may be initiated by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh.
5. It is observed that applications in respect of a total of 2105 Projects have been received during 01.01.2017 to 25.12.2021. All the 2105 Applications have been processed and ECs are granted to 1486 projects. Inspection of remaining 619 projects may be conducted to assess their current status. Action against defaulter projects needs to be initiated as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, as amended and E(P) Act, 1986. Further, Environmental Compensation also needs to be imposed as per orders issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble National Green Tribunal.
846. SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh needs to follow the Rules/Provisions of 'Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 including its amendments' in 'letter & spirit' for considerations of the applications received for obtaining EC. Timelines for grant of EC need to be adhered to.
7. SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh may work in close coordination with State Government agencies including Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Town & Country Planning Department, Municipal Corporations, Ground Water Board, City Development Authority and other organization like CPCB (Regional Directorate) and IITs. This will facilitate transparency in the matter and effective enforcement of Legal Framework.
8. SEIAA may consider utilising the features of PARIVESH and also independently use the available IT Tools to assess the situation on the ground based on the latitude and longitude mentioned in the application submitted on the PARIVESH portal to ensure that construction of the Project/Activities for which EC has been asked for has not started so as to avoid grant of EC in a routine manner to "Violation Category" of Projects.
9. Taking a cue from the analysis of the Violation cases, it may be seen that delay in deciding upon the application for grant of ToR and processing for grant of EC may lead to a situation where the Project Proponent may be emboldened to start the Project which may result in compromising with the environmental safeguards which need to be observed. It may be worthwhile to explore the possibility of devising a method whereby PARIVESH Portal, through its own IT tool seamlessly flags the cases where there are delays beyond the specified time of 45 days post the recommendations of SEAC as mentioned in the EIA Notification,2006, as amended and generates alerts not only for SEIAA but also for the Ministry so that such cases are dealt with on priority and corrective/remedial actions are undertaken by SEIAA/EAC in the best interest of protection of the environment.
10. SEIAA, UP may also take support of Technology viz. Parivesh for tracking of the process of issuing EC.
11. ECs issued by SEIAA may be given wider publicity by posting it on the relevant Portals/Websites so as to bring in transparency and keep the stakeholders informed.
9.1.3 For SPCB Stake-holder consultation in the State along with the State Environment Depts., may be conducted to avoid wilful violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 by the Project Proponents.
9.1.4 For all Agencies Coordination amongst concerned State level Agencies may be established. These Agencies include SEIAA, UPPCB, Town & Country Planning Department and Local Bodies so far as Construction Projects are concerned and similarly amongst the key stakeholders for other Projects/Activities. There is a need for exchange of knowledge and understanding the issues of enforcement.
85 Surveillance activities in the State especially by UPPCB, T&C Planning Department, Public Health Engineering Department and Local Bodies may be improved for effective monitoring of EC conditions without causing undue interference in the execution of Projects /Activities by the Project Proponent. Monitoring and assessment of compliance of Environmental Regulations including EC conditions and Remediation Action Plans may be conducted on regular basis by the Integrated Regional Offices. Random inspection by Integrated Task Force comprising of the Officers from these departments may be conducted for surveillance in the State and execution of illegal / unauthorized projects in the State.
9.2 Additional recommendations are as follows:
SEIAA may co-opt Member from Town and Country Planning, Local Bodies and other concerned agencies for processing of EC applications as per need.
EC must be issued in transparent fashion and area wise database be uploaded for the information of all concerned."
Finding about functional audit of SEIAA
19. On due consideration, we see no reason not to accept the report based on verified data by credible committee. We accept the report. We find it disappointing to note the failures found on the part of SEIAA, U.P to act as per mandate of law. If the statutory regulators fail in their duties, it is difficult to understand how the Rule of Law will be protected. Let remedial measures be taken as recommended. The MoEF&CC may oversee further steps so as to ensure compliance of the recommendations within three months.
Further Directions about audits of other SEIAAs and regulators
20. In light of experience of above functional audit report, there is every reason to apprehend unsatisfactory functioning other SEIAAs and other regulators in other States/UTs, to the detriment of environmental rule of law which the country can ill afford. Such functional audits in respect of SEIAAs is thus called for which may be undertaken within one year by preparing a time bound action plan by the MoEF&CC. The MoEF&CC may 86 create a dedicated cell in the Ministry for such functional audit which should not stop with the first such audit but should be a regular feature, to be undertaken periodically. All such audit reports may be placed in public domain and remedial action overseen in the light of such reports.
Similar functional audits may be undertaken in respect of functioning of other statutory regulators under the MoEF&CC, including CZMAs in a like manner. Though the report of functional audit has identified violations, it has failed to suggest specific remedial action against the incumbents manning the SEIAA, which aspect may now be looked into by the MoEF&CC. Further, SEIAA should be run by the technically qualified and experienced members rather based on only administrative experience.
They must have their own surveillance backup to monitor the compliances till it reaches to CTO stage instead of depending on PCB who are unable to monitor compliances, in absence of effective mechanism. This is resulting in failure of environmental rule of law to that extent, defeating the object of laying down EC conditions. Thus, necessary steps are required to be taken by MoEF&CC.
The Application is disposed of.
A copy of this order be forwarded to the MoEF&CC, all SEIAAs and Coastal Zone Management Authorities by email for compliance.
Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP Sudhir Agarwal, JM Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM May 04, 2022 OA No. 199/2021 (I.A. No. 104/2022) AB 87