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 significant factor in determining violations of environmental laws.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed for quashing the summoning order dated 26th February, 2018 in Complaint Case (CC) No.11996/2017 and the complaint pending in the Court of Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The said complaint was filed by the respondent SEIAA (State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority) under Sections 15/16/19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (EPA) for allegedly starting construction activity (excavation work) at the hotel site before grant of environmental clearance.

2. The petitioner No.1 is an Indian company (petitioner Nos.2-4 being the directors of the company) and 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 part of this process, petitioner No.1 was licensed asset No.10, Aerocity for constructing a four-star hotel. Alongside, number of other assets were licensed to various parties for construction of hotels, malls etc. for developing a hospitality centre. At the time of allotment of asset No.10 to the petitioner company, it was intimated by the licensor DIAL that it had sought the necessary clearance under the EPA. The EC was accordingly granted on 17th January, 2007, 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). 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. The petitioner No.1 through petitioner No.2 moved an application dated 29th May, 2010 to respondent No.3 seeking environmental clearance of the project stating to have a built-up area of approximately 30,000 sq. meters. The respondent No.3 in response intimated vide letter dated 25th November, 2010 to attend a meeting scheduled for 26th November, 2010. Pursuant to the deliberations and after consideration of documents submitted by petitioner No.1, the respondent issued the environmental clearance vide letter dated 06th June, 2011 and the same was approved in the 14th Meeting held on 18th May, 2011. The petitioner continued to carry out the construction of the hotel and after getting the occupancy certificate commenced the business of running the hotel and in the meantime also obtained a consent order from Delhi Pollution Control Committee.

5. To the petitioner's surprise after 7 years a complaint was filed before the Ld. ACMM on 02nd August, 2017 which is impugned herein. The petitioners have assailed this complaint on the basis that the prosecution is based on Chairman's instruction vide OM dated 12th December, 2012 which was later quashed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench vide order dated 07th July, 2015. The Ld. NGT held that the said OM suffered from the infirmity of lack of inherent jurisdiction and held it to be ineffective. Also, the EIA notification dated 14th September, 2006