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 after a delay, remedial costs are imposed, and the circular of the pollution control board indicates that prosecution is not warranted after remedial measures and environmental clearance are obtained.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to call for the entire records in C.C.No.3249 of 2021 on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and quash the same.)

1. This petition has been filed to quash the prosecution in CC.No.3249 of 2021 for the offence under Section 15 r/w 16 and 19(a) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, pending on the file of the learned XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The crux of the allegations found in the complaint is as follows:

2.a. The 1st Accused is running a company in the name of M/s.TRIL Infopark Limited and is involved in the construction of IT Park. The 2nd Accused is the Executive Director and Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Accused Company and he is directly in charge and responsible to the 1st Accused Company.

2.b. In the course of the business, the 1st Accused company has undergone expansion and change in product mix at M/s.TRIL Info Park Limited for its IT park of more than 20,000 sq.metres. Environmental Impact Assessment Notification 2006 [EIA] issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India dated 14.09.2006, mandates that on and from the date of its publication, the required construction of new projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to its notification require a prior Environmental Clearance from the Central Government or the State level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

2.c. It is the case of the complainant that the accused without any prior Environmental Clearance, contrary to the Notification dated 14.09.2006 made expansion. On 20.12.2014 the Complainant had inspected the Accused project and found that the accused has proposed to construct IT blocks in the area earmarked for the proposed hotel, residential complex and retail shop with separate STP and the construction was also under progress. The complainant has issued letter dated 23.12.2014 informed the accused to obtain Environmental Clearance for the change in the product mix. As the Environmental Clearance was not obtained, the Complainant had issued Show Cause Notice on 30.11.2019. In the reply to the Show Cause Notice, the Accused has stated that he had filed an Application for the Environmental Clearance for its proposed amendment on 27.11.2013. But the Environment Clearance is yet to be issued by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). It is the case of the Complainant that the Accused ought not to have commenced construction activity prior to obtaining clearance from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority. As accused violated the Notification, the complaint has been filed.

3. Mr.B. Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would contend that the Petitioner's company had entered into a joint venture with the Tamilnadu Industrial Development Corporation (TIDCO) to construct an IT Park called Ramanujam IT City in OMR, Taramani, Chennai. Originally total built up area to be constructed around 3,75,328 Sq.Mts. The Petitioner was granted environmental clearance on 08.04.2009 for the above construction. Thereafter, a decision was taken with TIDCO by the Petitioner for expansion of built up area. Accordingly, the Petitioner had filed a fresh application for the expanded built up area of 6,65,760 Sq.Mts. to State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, as per the Notification of the Central Government dated 14.09.2006. Despite such application no order was passed. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed an application before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), on which NGT has directed the Respondent to consider the Petitioner's Application for environmental clearance. Despite such Order, the said Application was not considered for more than four years by the SEIAA. Subsequently, on 19.06.2017 S