IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
M/s Jain Housing & Constructions Ltd., (Presently M/s Jain Housing) Rep.by its Managing Director, Thiru.Sandeep Mehta, Chennai & Others - Appellant
Versus
The Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, Rep.by its District Environment Engineer, Kancheepuram - Respondent
Crl.O.P. No. 29928 of 2019 & Crl.M.P. Nos. 16169, 16171 of 2019 & 1671 of 2020
Decided On : 02-08-2022
Water and Air Pollution - Violation of Environmental Laws - Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 - Sections 25, 21, 19, 44, 47, 49, 37, 40, 43, 15, 16 - The court discussed the violations of environmental laws by the petitioners, including failure to obtain necessary environmental clearances, construction of additional dwelling units without clearance, and non-compliance with sewage treatment and waste management requirements. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments based on circulars and judgments, emphasizing the need for fresh appraisal and prior clearance for changes in the scope of the project. The court also highlighted the applicability of penal provisions and the impact on the environment due to the changes made by the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, a construction firm and its directors, were accused of violating environmental laws by constructing additional dwelling units without obtaining necessary environmental clearances and failing to comply with sewage treatment and waste management requirements. The violations were brought to light by a buyer of the dwelling unit, leading to a complaint filed by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpattu.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had violated environmental laws by failing to obtain necessary environmental clearances for the changes made to the construction projects, including the construction of additional dwelling units and alterations to the building plan. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments based on circulars and judgments, emphasizing the need for fresh appraisal and prior clearance for changes in the scope of the project. The court also highlighted the applicability of penal provisions and the impact on the environment due to the changes made by the petitioners.
Issues: The primary issues revolved around the petitioners' violations of environmental laws, including the failure to obtain necessary environmental clearances, construction of additional dwelling units without clearance, and non-compliance with sewage treatment and waste management requirements. The court also addressed the applicability of circulars, judgments, and the need for fresh appraisal and prior clearance for changes in the scope of the project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the clear violations of environmental laws by the petitioners, emphasizing the need for fresh appraisal and prior clearance for changes in the scope of the project. The court also highlighted the applicability of penal provisions and the impact on the environment due to the changes made by the petitioners.
Final Decision: The Criminal Original Petition for quash the complaint was dismissed as devoid of merits, and the connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in the complaint filed by the respondent in C.C.No.234 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu and quash the same.)
1. The 1st petitioner is a Firm involved in the construction of Multistoried residential Buildings. The 2nd petitioner is its Managing Director. The 3rd petitioner is the Power Agent and the 4th petitioner is its Power Agent – Manager.
2. The respondent/the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board has filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C against these petitioners to prosecute them under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 (in short “ the Water Act”), Section 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981 (in short “the Air Act”) and Section 19 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 for offences punishable under Sections 44, 47 and 49 of the Water Act , Sections 37, 40, and 43 of Air Act and Section 15 and 16 of Environment( Protection) Act.
3. The sum and substance of the complaint:
The 1st accused Firm sought for Environmental Clearance (EC) from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu for its Multi-storied Residential Complex Project to construct 412 Nos. of dwelling units in 51,020.61 sq.m of total build-up area comprising stilt + 4 floors of 12 blocks at S.No 384/6B, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 396/4B, 5C, 5D, 397/1, etc at No: 48, Okkiyam Thoraipakkam Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kanchipuram District.
4. Considering the extent of the land, number of dwelling units proposed and its build-up area, total water requirement, daily fresh water requirement and its source expected solid waste generation and sewage treatment plant proposed, the Environmental Clearance was accorded on 27/04/2009, subject to the strict compliance of terms and conditions mentioned in Part-A and Part-B of the said proceedings. Part-A of the Environmental Clearance list out specific conditions consisting of two parts, viz Construction Phase and Operation Phase. Part-B of the Environmental Clearance list out General Conditions. In the said proceedings, it is specifically stated that the request for Environmental Clearance is considered as per the procedure prescribed under Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 and the project activity covered in 8(a) of the Schedule and it falls under B2-category.
5. Couple of years later, the 1st accused made another application to the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for Environment Clearance for its Phase-II project adjacent to the existing Phase-I project mentioned above i.e 412 Nos. of dwelling units in 12 blocks.
6. This application was for proposed construction of a Residential Building of 8 blocks of Stilt + 4 Floors consisting 396 dwelling units with expected occupancies – 2178 persons, in total build-up area of 48,115,.17 sq.m at S.No. 386/8 (386/1D2), 393/2C, (393/2), 3, 4, 394/1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E, 1F1, 2A, 2B1, 2B2, 2C, 2D1, 2D2, 2E1, 2E2, 2E3, 3A, 3B1, 3B2, 395/1A2, (395/1A), 395/3B, (3B1, 3B2), 4, 5A, 5B, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10A, 10B (395/10), 11 396/6, (6A, 6B), 7 & 397/2(397 pt) of Okkiyam Thoraipakkam Village, Shollinganallur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
7. Considering the expected daily fresh water requirement, source of water supply, expected sewage after treatment, projected solid waste generation and the commitment letter given by the proponent i.e, the petitioners, Environmental Clearance for the second project was granted on 01/04/2015 by SEIAA, subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein.
8. The petitioners after obtaining revised planning permission for constructing 1016 units in 21 blocks, without fresh EC, completed both the projects with 1016 dwelling units in 21 blocks. (13 blocks comprising 620 dwelling units as against Environmental Clearance for 412 units in the first project and 8 blocks with 396 dwelling units in the second project.
9. I
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....
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....
Environmental Compliance requires prior clearance for expansions, with violations subject to penalties and operational restrictions.
Stay on violation SOP does not permit operation of units installed without prior EC; proposals processible under pre-SOP law if prior valid EC existed, pending SC final orders.
EC under EIA 1994 valid sans revalidation if BUA/flats not exceeded; EDC for STP violation proportional to 5% project cost; residential projects exempt pollution consents; compliance via BG for waste....
Supreme Court stay on violation SOP permits processing EC expansions under pre-2021 law; operations continue pending final adjudication, with directions for compliance rectification and no immediate ....
(1) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 does not prohibit ex post facto Environmental Clearance – Grant of ex post facto EC in accordance with law, in strict compliance with Rules, Regulations, Notifi....
Ex post facto environmental clearance permissible; educational institutions including medical colleges with hospitals exempted from prior clearance; prosecution quashed upon subsequent clearance and ....
The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to environmental regulations by project proponents, holding them accountable for non-compliance with necessary environmental clearances and consents, resultin....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.