SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(SC) 850

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the National Green Tribunal)
R. SUBHASH REDDY, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
M/s. Sai Baba Sales Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2021 With Civil Appeal No. 5768 of 2021
Decided on : 26-11-2021

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, Saurabh Kulkarni, Ivo. D’Costa, Nitin Lonkar, Sonali Suryawanshi, Shankey Agrawal, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Aishwarya Bhati, Ld. Archana Pathak Dave, Ruchi Kohli, Sughosh Subramaniam, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Mukesh Verma, Shashank Singh, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Qurratulain, Brij Kishor Sah, Aditya S. Jadhav, Nitin Lonkar, Sonali Suryawanshi, Shankey Agrawal, Advocates

Headnote:

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 – Section 22 – Environmental Impact Assessment – Two appeals are filed under Section 22 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 assailing judgment and final order in OA No. 83/2019 – Under impugned judgment, NGT held that further construction cannot be made without environment impact assessment, but protected constructions already made by appellant, Sales Pvt. Ltd. on basis of Environmental Clearance issued Municipal Corporation as per notification – Original Applicant, on other hand, is aggrieved by decision of NGT to protect standing construction and limiting impact of impugned judgment on further construction to be made by project proponent – Held, Project Proponent is not expected to anticipate changes in EC regimes, especially as a result of judicial interventions, and keep revisiting sanctioned clearances by competent authority or even raze down validly constructed structures – Neither can it be expected to knock doors of an authority, not empowered at relevant time, to process its applications – Such a scenario would render process akin to a Sisyphean task, eternally inconclusive and never ending – It is, however, made clear that if any further construction is proposed by appellant with sanctioned layout, same should not be done on strength of EC granted by PCMC – In other words, if Project Proponent wishes to construct remaining buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from competent authority, as per currently applicable framework – It is ordered accordingly – Appeals disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Hrishikesh Roy, J.

1. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 595/2021. Mr. Lonkar Nitin representing the Original Applicant before the National Green Tribunal. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appears for the Ministry of Environment & Forest.

The Government of Maharashtra and the State Pollution Control Board are represented by Mr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel respectively.

2. These two appeals are filed under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “the NGT Act”) assailing the judgment and final order dated 18.1.2021 in the OA No. 83/2019. Under the impugned judgment, the NGT held that further construction cannot be made without environment impact assessment, but protected the constructions already made by the appellant, M/s Sai Baba Sales Pvt. Ltd. (“Project Proponent”) on the basis of the Environmental Clearance (“EC” for short) issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (“PCMC” for short) as per the notification dated 9.12.2016. The Original Applicant, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the decision of the NGT to protect the standing construction and limiting the impact of the impugned judgment on further construction to be made by the project proponent.

3. The main issue that arises for consideration in these matters is whether the Project Proponent herein possesses a validly granted Environmental Clearance (EC) under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) notification dated 14.9.2006. The 2006 EIA notification provided that the projects above 20,000 sq. meter and below 1,50,000 sq. meter should obtain an EC from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC).

4. For deciding the issue, the necessary facts in brief are that the Project Proponent initially conceived a project of 15,040 sq. mtrs. (below the EC threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs.) and it approached the PCMC for a lay out order which was a prerequisite, to obtain an EC from the SEIAA of the MoEFCC. The application was processed and the Building Permission Department of the PCMC granted the commencement certificate to the Project Proponent for an area of 15,040 sq. mtrs. and approved the plan under the sanction letter dated 14.5.2013. With such permission, the Project Proponent could construct the permitted structures, and since the built up area was less than the threshold limit of 20000 sq. mtrs., the EC permission was not needed for the intended construction.

5. The Project Proponent builder then applied and was granted additional FSI as it intended to expand the project to one with built up area of 49,012 sq. mtrs. and for this they approached the PCMC for a lay out order, which as noted earlier was essential to obtain an EC from the SEIAA of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). The required approval was issued by the Corporation on 28.11.2016.

6. Under the Ministry’s notification dated 9.12.2016, the EIA regime was altered to indicate that the EC could be obtained from the Environmental Cell of a local authority, such as the PCMC. The State of Maharashtra opted for the new regime and adopted the environmental condition stipulated in the MoEFCC notification dated 9.12.2016. This was followed by the communication of the MoEFCC on 7.7.2017 which clarified that separate environmental clearance is not required for projects upto 1,50,000 sq. mtrs. built up area in respect of municipal corporations in Pune and Konkan division.

7. The Project Proponent then filed an application for EC under the 2016 notification which was considered by the Environmental Cell of the PCMC which appraised the project, as contemplated in the notification dated 9.12.2016. The necessary permission for construction to the builder was issued on 28.11.2017, stipulating the environmental conditions for buildings and constructions and th

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top