ORDER

1. This Appeal has been preferred under Section 16 (c) of the NGT Act, 2010 against order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the Punjab Pollution Control Board (PPCB) directing stopping of construction activity of the appellants under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and passing other incidental directions. It was held that the appellant did not have the requisite EC under the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and the Consent To Establish (CTE) under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Air and Water Acts).

2. On 14.08.2020, the Tribunal sought response from SEIAA, Punjab and the State PCB with the following observations:-

(cid:147)2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings in the impugned order are erroneous. He has made a reference to order dated 16.12.2015 whereby SEIAA, Punjab granted EC for (cid:147)Super Mega Mixed Use Integrated Industrial Park(cid:148) at Sector 82, 83 & 66A, SAS Nagar, Mohali. He has further referred to order of the Punjab State PCB dated 04.01.2013 granting NOC/Consent to Establish. Learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to statement made on behalf of SEIAA before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in CWP No. 21351 of 2016 that separate permission was not required for construction within the project already sanctioned. He has also submitted that MoEF&CC has filed an affidavit dated 03.01.2017 in above proceedings before the High Court to the effect that separate EC was not required for the residential pockets in question.(cid:148)

3. Accordingly, response has been filed by the SEIAA, Punjab on 28.09.2020 and by the State PCB on 13.10.2020. The appellant filed rejoinder on 27.10.2020. The appellant also filed an application to file additional documents on 15.09.2020 with additional documents.

Reference to the above will be made in due course.

4. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant and learned Counsel for the State PCB and perused the material on record with the assistance of learned Counsel.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has reiterated the contentions noted in the order dated 14.08.2020 summed up as follows:

 EC granted for Super Mega Mixed Use Integrated Industrial Park covered seven residential projects, which were part of the Mega Project, including the Falcon View Project.

 The State PCB had already granted CTE in 2013 which could not be discontinued on the ground of absence of EC as concern of the State PCB was compliance of norms under the Water and Air Acts and EC was governed by notification dated 14.9.2006 under which SEIAA was the designated authority.

 Writ Petition against order of the SEIAA dated 29.08.2016 to the effect that separate EC is required for the Falcon View Project, even after EC dated 16.12.2015 granted for the Mega project, covering Falcon View Project was already pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and thus the matter was sub-judice.

6. Opposing the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the State PCB has pointed out that factually no EC has been granted for the Falcon View Project. The EC for the Mega Project does not cover the Falcon View Project. This has been so held by SEIAA also. In absence thereof, construction activities of the Appellant are illegal. The CTE was conditional subject to EC with further condition that no construction can be undertaken without EC. Prosecution of the Appellant for initiating and continuing construction inspite of being required not to do so is pending. The High Court has not granted any interim order. The PCB is thus statutorily liable to enforce the rule of law and to prevent irreversible damage by illegal constructions.

7. Thus, the question to be determined is whether the impugned order passed by the State PCB is legally sustainable.

8. We may refer to the impugned order first. It refers to order dated 05.03.2015 passed by the SEIAA under Sect