SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 563

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM, Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM
MR. SAYYED MOHAMMED SABIR USMAN – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
Original Application No.49/2021(WZ) | I.A. No.49/2021(WZ) | I.A. No.146/2023(WZ)



For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Tanaji Gambhire, Advocate, Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Deepak M. Gupte, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC, Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/Envt. Deptt. & R-3/SEIAA, Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate, Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-4/MPCB & R-6/MHADA, Mr. Manoj Wad, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Pardeshi, Advocate, Mr. Kapil Agarwal, Advocates for R-5/MCGM, Mr. Saket Mone, Advocate, Mr. Abhishek Salian, Ms. Anchita Nair, Advocates for R-8

The judgment emphasizes strict adherence to environmental regulations by project proponents, holding them accountable for non-compliance with necessary environmental clearances and consents, resulting in imposed penalties.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 25 and 26 - Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Section 25 - Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 21 - Building project - The project proponent constructed a residential and commercial complex without obtaining necessary Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate - Violations include illegal construction exceeding built-up area limits after the expiration of prior EC, and non-compliance with environmental management norms - Significant environmental damage reported due to poor waste management and pollution control. (Paras 1-3, 5-10, 36, 53)

(B) Environmental Compensation - The Tribunal imposed environmental compensation of Rs.2.02 crores for the project proponent’s failure to operate an STP and provide adequate waste management measures - The importance of compliance with environmental regulations to prevent ecological damage emphasized. (Paras 37, 53)

(C) Jurisdictional Issues - The Tribunal clarified the validity of the original EC granted under the EIA Notification of 1994 due to the absence of a validity period, implying continuing obligations for environmental compliance. (Paras 32-34)

Facts of the case:
The project at City Survey No.1/378 involved illegal construction exceeding permissions, lack of essential environmental consents, misuse of resources, and significant environmental degradation.

Findings of Court:
The Project Proponent must deposit a Bank Guarantee of Rs.50 lakhs for required installations and pay Rs.2.02 crore as environmental compensation.

Issues: The main issues were related to the validity of environmental clearance, failure to obtain necessary consents, and adherence to environmental norms.

Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that continuing construction actions under an expired EC require compliance with updated environmental statutes. Non-compliance results in penalties that reflect the extent of environmental damage caused.

Result: Application disposed with directions for remediation and penalties imposed.

Table of Content
1. violation of environmental regulations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. joint committee findings and non-compliance. (Para 6 , 12)
3. applicant's objections and environmental assessment. (Para 8 , 10 , 19 , 40)
4. court’s analysis and conclusion on violations. (Para 30 , 52)
5. final orders and imposed penalties. (Para 37 , 53)

JUDGMENT

1. This Original Application has been preferred with the prayers that a direction may be issued to the Respondents (Government Authorities) to demolish the illegal structures at City Survey (CTS) No.1/378 of Mazgaon Division, Balwant Singh Dhody Marg of Nesbit Road, Mazgaon, District- Mumbai City, Mumbai, where respondent No.8- M/s. Castle Realtors Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent has constructed the Project “NDW Aquagem”, which is a residential and commercial project, without Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate, in violation of the terms & conditions of Environmental Clearance dated 25.06.2007, which was issued by MoEF under Environment (Protection) Act-1986 read-with EIA Notification, 2006; further it is prayed that an amount of EDC may be levied from respondent No.8 based on the ‘polluter pays’ principle.

2. In brief, the facts of this case are that the total project land claimed by the Project Proponents is admeasuring 4,855.93 M2 with permissible Built-up Area as per FSI being 16,641.70 M2 and the total constructed Built-up Area being more than 50,000.00 M2. The Project Proponent obtained prior EC dated 25.06.2007, which was valid till 24.06.2012 as per EIA Notification-2006. But the PP carried out the construction till date without getting the EC amended from the SEIAA or MoEF. The PP has not obtained prior Consent to Establish as mandated under Section 25 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 21 of the Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 from the MPCB. The PP has completed part project in the year 2016-17 and started enjoying the same without obtaining prior Consent to Operate as mandated under Section 26 of the Water Act and of the Air Act from the MPCB. The Project Proponent has obtained Consent to Establish on 05.11.2009, validity of which expired after lapse of 5 years i.e. on

05.11.2024 but the same was not got revalidated.

3. It is further mentioned in this application that the PP is extracting huge quantity of ground water from four bore wells for construction of the said project as well as for domestic use by occupants of the project, without any permission from Central Ground Water Authority for operational purpose. The PP has not provided any solid waste management system and that the waste generated is being dumped in MCGM waste yard, creating burden on public system and the same is also generating various greenhouse gases. There is no scientific disposal of the solid waste generated from the project in question. The other infirmities of the project are recorded as follows: the PP has not provided any energy conservation system for energy saving such as solar system; PP has not provided any rain water harvesting system for ground water recharge; PP has not preserved top layer of fertile soil and not conducted soil testing for contamination; PP has not done tree plantation as per the norms; PP has installed 4 DG sets at the project site and operation of the same is causing air pollution; the huge quantity of sewage water is generated and there is no scientific treatment of sewage water; PP has not complied with the conditions of commencement certificate relating to the installation of environment infrastructure to avoid the degradation; PP has not developed the 10% open space as per the DC Rule; PP has not provided the ramp slope in the ratio of 1:10 as mandated in DC Rules of MCGM; PP has not provided site margin as per the DC Rules of MCGM; PP has not provided fire and safety system at the site in question; PP has not prepared any environment management plan; PP has carried out substantial change in the scop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top