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 been granted following the fulfillment of ecological remediation conditions, as further prosecution would constitute double jeopardy.

ORDER

This criminal original petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1598 of 2022 on the file of the XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town.

2. The respondent lodged complaint for the offence punishable under Section 15 r/w 17 and 19(b) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 alleging that as per the notification SO.No.394(E) published in Gazette No.185 dated 16.04.1987, the respondent authorised to take legal action for the indicative violation under the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. During the course of business, the first accused commenced the illegal construction of the residential Blocks 1 to 6 (S+9F) and Blocks 7 to 9 (S+11F) at Moolakothalam, SF.No.1802, New Sub Division 1 part, old survey No.1802, Old Sub Division 1 part, Block No.28, Tondiarpet Taluk, Fort Tondiarpet, Chennai with 1044 tenements with a total built up area of 40395.93 sq.mtrs. which is more than 20000 sq.mtr. area by flouting the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification issued under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The notification dated 14.09.2006 mandates that on and from the date of its publication, the required construction of new projects or activities or expansion or modernisation of the existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to its notification shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environment clearance from the Central Government or the case may be, by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter called as ‘SEIAA)). The accused started the project which involves construction of residential building area of more than 20000 sq.mtrs. and it requires prior environmental clearance as stipulated in the notification dated 14.09.2006. Though the accused submitted application to the respondent through online dated 29.03.2018 seeking prior environmental clearance certificate for construction and when it is under process, the accused started construction and also completed the entire construction. On 31.12.2020, when the respondent inspected the project, the accused had started construction without obtaining environmental clearance, thereby the accused committed offence under Section 15 r/w 17 and 19(b) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Therefore, the respondent lodged complaint and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after completion of construction, the accused were granted post construction environmental clearance subject to some conditions. Earlier, the Committee concerned had decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for grant of environmental clearance. Accordingly, amount was prescribed for ecological remediation, natural resources augmentation and community recourse augmentation to the tune of Rs.69.16 lakhs. Hence, the SEAC decided to direct the project proponent to remit the amount of Rs.69.16 lakhs in the form of bank guarantee. Thereafter the fund shall be utilised for the ecological damage remediation plan, natural resource augmentation plan and community resource augmentation plan as indicated in the report. Accordingly, the proponent furnished the copy of bank guarantee. Thereafter, the respondent decided to grant post construction environmental clearance subject to other conditions. Thereafter, the other conditions were also duly complied with by the accused. Therefore, the present impugned prosecution cannot be sustained and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent s