Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India, (hereinafter referred to as “CREDAI”) – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 3119 of 2020
Decided on : 13-05-2021
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 3 - Sub- section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) - Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 - Rule 5 clause (d) of sub-rule (3) of - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 - Section 22 - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Real Estate Developers’ Association of India - Stoppage of all construction activities - Impugned notices issued to its members which are said to be issued in compliance of direction of NGT, Delhi as contained in order directing them to stop all ongoing construction activities till EC is obtained – Challenged.
Finding of the court: it is evident that impugned notices have been issued to members of petitioner by Town Planner, Municipal Corporation, Ranchi/Executive Officer, Municipal Council, just to comply order of NGT - Members of petitioner were informed by the said notices that if they were carrying on construction activities without obtaining EC, same must be stopped in view of said direction of NGT. It is admitted case of petitioner that its members have not obtained EC in terms of EIA Notification, 2006 before commencing construction activities. In view of specific direction of NGT as contained in order, Town Planner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi/Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Ramgarh had no option but to comply the same - As such, challenge to impugned notices on ground of violation of principles of natural justice, is not sustainable in eye of law - Court not inclined to grant relief to petitioner as prayed in present writ petition - It cannot sit idle by only complying part order leading to a situation that the projects of members of petitioner for grant of EC have not been processed despite they being ready to comply all conditions that may be imposed upon them for grant of EC.
Result: Writ petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Shankar, J. :
The judgment is being pronounced today through virtual mode.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:-
ii. For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to issue necessary direction to the respondent no. 4-State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand to take up the matters of the members of the petitioner for processing of applications made for Environment Clearance and process the same within a period of one week.
iii. For quashing the notices (Annexure-1 series to the writ petition) issued by the instrumentalities of Urban Development and Housing Department (respondent no.3) on different dates for stoppage of all construction activities in the projects listed therein.
iv. For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4 to decide the proposal for grant of Environment Clearance already filed, within a period of one month and for the fresh proposal, within a period of 90 days.
3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Confederation of Real Estate Developers’ Association of India (CREDAI) is the apex body of private real estate developers and the petitioner-CREDAI, Jharkhand is its member comprising of the real estate developers of the State of Jharkhand. The respondent no.1 vide notification dated 14.09.2006 formulated the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification, 2006) which mandates for requirement of obtaining prior Environmental Clearance from the concerned regulatory authority to initiate construction activities for the projects falling under the Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006. On 14.03.2017, the respondent no. 1 issued notification to deal with the cases of alleged violation of the environmental laws by ensuring immediate arrest of environmental damage and bringing the enterprises in compliance regime rather than letting it go unregulated and unchecked. As such by this notification, a process was established by the respondent no. 1 for appraisal of cases of violation as well as for prescribing adequate environmental safeguards so that it would deter violation of provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and damage to environment may adequately be compensated by restoring the ante-original state. The said notification opened a window for a period of six months for the projects which failed to obtain a prior EC in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of notification dated 14.03.2017 was filed before the High Court of Madras and the implementation of the said notification was stayed and finally vide order dated 13.10.2017, the said stay was vacated by upholding the validity of the notification dated 14.03.2017. Thereafter, the respondent no.1, vide notification dated 08.03.2018, amended the earlier notification dated 14.03.2017 and delegated the power to the States for appraisal of category ‘B’ proposals which are under violation of EIA Notification, 2006. The respondent no.1 issued another notification dated 15.03.2018 for implementation of the notification dated 08.03.2018. One R.K Singh approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Delhi by making an application before it, assailing non-implementation of EIA Notification, 2006 in the State of Jharkhand in respect of building construction and the said application was registered as Original Application No. 45/2019/EZ. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 09.09.2020, issued several di
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
