Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anish Dayal, J.
Caddie Hotels Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Delhi – Respondent
W.P.(Cr) 629 of 2019 & Cr.M.A. 4489 of 2019
Decided On : 28-03-2023
Environment Protection Act - Quashing of Summoning Order - Section 15/16/19 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Summary: The court discussed the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, particularly Sections 15, 16, and 19, and their application to the case. It highlighted the process of obtaining environmental clearance, the implications of the original clearance obtained by DIAL, and the subsequent application by the petitioner/company. The court emphasized the bona fide belief of the petitioner and the lack of mala fide intent in the construction process. The judgment ultimately quashed the summoning order and the related complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash a summoning order and the complaint case itself, alleging violation of Section 15/16/19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The petitioner had obtained environmental clearance for a hotel project, but was later prosecuted for alleged violations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had obtained environmental clearance for the project and operated the hotel in good faith. It concluded that the summoning order and complaint were not tenable, as there was no mala fide intention or violation of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the summoning order and the complaint, the interpretation of environmental clearance provisions, and the alleged violations of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the genuine belief of the petitioner in the validity of the environmental clearance obtained by DIAL, the lack of mala fide intent, and the completion of the project with consent to operate. It emphasized the impracticality of prosecuting the petitioner after such a long period.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned order and quashed the complaint, along with the related proceedings.
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed for quashing of summoning order dated 26th February, 2018 passed in Complaint Case No. 4558/2018 and also the complaint case itself. The petitioner/company was summoned as an accused for alleged violation of Section 15/16/19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Environment Clearance Notification dated 14th September, 2006.
2. The petitioner herein is an Indian company having its registered office in New Delhi and is engaged in the business of constructing hotels. An entity called the Delhi International Airport Private Limited (DIAL) was incorporated and engaged by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) to operate, maintain, develop, design, construct, upgrade, modernise, finance and manage the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI) at Delhi. Land was leased by AAI to DIAL on 25th April, 2006. DIAL envisaged the development of a hospitality district on this leased land referred to as Delhi Airport Aerocity, where the earmarked area for approximately 45 acres was divided into 13 parts for development of assets including hotels in terms of the Operation, Management and Development Agreement (OMDA) dated 04th April, 2006. By means of a competitive bid process, DIAL selected bidders which included the petitioner/company for the purpose of developing, designing, constructing, owning, operating and maintaining hotels within the Aerocity.
3. As per the petitioner, DIAL applied for an environmental clearance for the expansion of the airport including the Aerocity area and the application was submitted for the entire 5,106 acres which included the airport, commercial establishments and its ancillary developments. The EC was accordingly granted on 17th January, 2007, as per this application, for the entire project, which by implication included the Aerocity area as well. This was also apparently corroborated by the acknowledgement of the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) in its meeting held on 29th March, 2010. Accordingly, no separate EC was required as long as the construction was carried out within the leased land for which EC had already been granted to DIAL. Even during the bidding process when queries have been asked by bidders, DIAL replied that the entire airport premises which included the hotel projects had received environmental clearance.
4. In addition, for abundant caution, the petitioner/company applied for a separate EC vide application dated 20th November, 2009/23rd November, 2009 for the proposed hotel. This application was sent by the petitioner to DIAL which pursued the same with the environmental authorities. A response to a letter dated 12th February, 2010 by the SEAC was sent by DIAL on 22nd February, 2010. The petitioner/company was then intimated vide letter dated 18th March, 2010 regarding the proposal of granting EC that was being considered, and for that purpose the site inspection by two members of the SEAC was to be carried out. On 13th May, 2010, an inspection was carried out. The SEAC recommended granting of EC on 14th May, 2010 and asked for a submission of a detailed note for starting construction work. However, the petitioner in its bona fide reply vide letter dated 09th June, 2010 stated that the construction had already started based on the original approval of the EC given to DIAL. EC was granted for the petitioner's project on 22nd July, 2010, subject to conditions. However, the SEIAA in its meeting held on 04th July, 2017 decided that the petitioner/company had to be prosecuted under provisions of Section 15/16/19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. After more than 7 years from the date of grant of EC to the petitioner/company, the complainant/authority State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) filed complaint dated 30th January, 2018 before the ACMM, Central, Tis Hazari Courts alleging these violations. Consequently, by the impugned order, the Ld. ACMM took cognizance of the complaint which has been
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of genuine belief and lack of mala fide intent in the context of environmental clearance and alleged violations of the Environmen....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that obtaining necessary environmental clearances and approvals is crucial for construction activities, and the absence of mala fide intention is a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that prosecution under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 may be considered an abuse of process of law if environmental clearance is granted af....
The court established that statutory exemptions for industrial sheds, along with undue delay in prosecution, render the charges unsustainable.
Criminal proceedings under the Environment (Protection) Act may be quashed if no requisite environmental clearance is mandated due to construction area being below the statutory threshold.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fresh appraisal and prior clearance for changes in the scope of construction projects, as well as the applicability of penal pr....
Criminal proceedings for violation of environmental clearance requirements under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, are liable to be quashed once a post-construction environmental clearance has ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
