2019 Supreme(SC) 1313

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Keystone Realtors Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Shri Anil V Tharthare & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2019
Decided On : 03-12-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Requirement of an EC at the time of expansion forms a critical step in environmental clearance regime.
(2) In a case where text of provisions requires interpretation, this Court must adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with object and purpose of legislation or delegated legislation as a whole.

Headnote:

(A) Environment Protection – Housing Project – Violation of prescribed regulatory procedure – Direction by NGT to deposit amount of Rupees one Crore with Central Pollution Control Board – EIA Notification seeks to ensure protection and preservation of environment during execution of new projects and expansion or modernisation of existing projects – It imposes restrictions on execution of new projects and on expansion of existing projects, until their potential environmental impact has been assessed and approved by grant of an EC – Even after obtaining an EC if project is expanded beyond limits for which prior EC was obtained, a fresh application would need to be made even if expansion is within upper limit prescribed in Schedule – Lower limit of Entry 8(a) of Schedule is a built up area of 20,000 square metres and upper limit is 1,50,000 square metres – Environmental impact of a construction of 1,50,000 square metres is drastically more than construction of 20,000 square metres – Requirement of an EC at the time of expansion forms a critical step in environmental clearance regime – Any form of expansion necessarily puts a strain on local environment and infrastructure and needs to be carefully evaluated in a holistic manner – EIA Notification was adopted with intention of restricting new projects and expansion of new projects until their environmental impact could be evaluated and understood – As size of project increases, so does magnitude of project’s environmental impact – Court cannot adopt an interpretation of EIA Notification which would permit, incrementally or otherwise, project proponents to increase construction area of a project without any oversight from Expert Appraisal Committee or SEAC, as applicable – NGT has already directed appellant to deposit Rupees one Crore and has set up an expert committee to evaluate impact of appellant’s project and suggest remedial measures – Directions of NGT upheld.[Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974] (Paras 6, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18 and 19)

(B) Interpretation of Statute – Rules of Construction – In a case where text of provisions requires interpretation, this Court must adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with object and purpose of legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:

Appellant is the project proponent of a residential redevelopment, Present Civil Appeal arises from an order dated 11 February 2019 of Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal[NGT]. In its order, the NGT held that the increase in the total construction area of the appellant’s project was an “expansion” under a notification (bearing number S.O. 1533) dated 14 September 2006 [EIA Notification] of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The NGT found that the appellant had undertaken an “expansion” as set out in Paragraph 2 of the EIA Notification without complying with the regulatory procedure prescribed. The appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rupees one Crore with the Central Pollution Control Board. Noting that the construction at the project site had been completed, the NGT appointed a five-member expert committee to study the impact of the appellant’s expanded project and to suggest remedial measures. Central controversy between parties to present dispute is manner in which Paragraphs 2 and 7 of EIA Notification should be interpreted.

Findings of Court:

At the time of the second increase, the total construction area of the Appellant’s project was enlarged from 32,395.17 square metres to 40,480.88 square metres. As a result of the expansion, the appellant constructed sixteen additional flats which were sold at the prevailing market rate. The appellant did not comply with the procedure set out under paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA Notification but rather sought an 'amendment' to the EC. The third respondent did not require the appellant to submit an updated Form 1 nor was the proposal processed and evaluated by the fourth respondent. The 'amendment' to the EC dated 13 March 2014 does not discuss the potential environmental impact of the increase in construction area, but merely records that the construction area now stands at 40,480.88 square metres.

Result : Appeal dismissed.