Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3787
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JM, VIJAY KULKARNI, EM
DILEEP B. NEVATIA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
APPEAL NO.76 OF 2017 (WZ)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Appellant in-person
For the Respondents: Mr. Rahul Garg, Ms. Manasi Joshi, Mr. Jimmy Pochkhanawalla, Mr. Prakash Shejal, Mr. Kaushik Kulkarni, Mr. Ativ Patel, Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni
The court highlights the necessity for construction projects to comply with statutory noise pollution limits, reiterating adherence to Supreme Court directives regarding ongoing constructions.
Headnote:(A) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Noise pollution levels from construction activities - Court addresses the responsibility of contractors and compliance with statutory noise limits, considering the impact of ongoing construction on residential areas. (Paras 6, 20, 21)
(B) Administrative Jurisdiction - Role of courts in regulatory compliance - The tribunal affirms that the applicant should seek redress through the Hon’ble Supreme Court, emphasizing the appropriate forum for matters involving ongoing construction under its directive. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to ensure compliance with air quality and noise regulations during the construction of the Coastal Road (South) project, alleging violations affecting nearby residential environments.
Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that any directive against the construction should comply with previous Supreme Court orders, providing a direction for ongoing monitoring and compliance with noise standards.
Issues: Whether the construction activities conducted under the Coastal Road project violated statutory noise limits and the adequacy of measures taken to mitigate noise pollution.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal reinforced the notion that construction activities must adhere to environmental standards and that ongoing case proceedings concerning the construction should be resolved in the Supreme Court, maintaining the integrity of its earlier orders.
Result: The application is disposed of with directions for future compliance monitoring.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prayers made by the appellant regarding environmental compliance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. ongoing evaluations and responsibilities in addressing pollution levels. (Para 4 , 12 , 18) |
| 3. the tribunal's emphasis on the supreme court as the appropriate forum. (Para 6 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. findings of compliance measures during noise pollution monitoring. (Para 10 , 20 , 22) |
ORDER
1. By this application following prayers are made:
“i. Allow the instant Application filed by the Appellant herein;
ii. Add proposed respondent Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 as party respondent Nos. 8,9,10 and 11 in the proceedings;
iii. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present application, the respondents be directed to maintain the air quality and noise quality levels for the construction of Mumbai Coastal Road (South) project within the limits specified under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 , including the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 .
iv. Stay Further construction of Mumbai Coastal Road (South) project being undertaken under the CRZ Clearance dated 11.05.2017;
v. Direct respondent No. 1 to revoke the CRZ Clearance dated 11.05.2017 granted to respondent No. 5 for the construction of the Mumbai Coastal Road (South) project;
vi. Pass any such and further order, as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Out of the above prayers we are taking up prayer No. 3, which was also decided by us earlier vide order dated 10.08.2022 but the same had to be recalled following an application moved by (respondent No. 8 in Appeal) Hindustan Construction Company Ltd, having alleged that they were not given an opportunity of hearing and therefore, the same is being decided afresh after giving an opportunity to respondent 8 to file objection(s) against the same.
3. The respondent No. 8 filed objection against the same in the form of affidavit dated 12.02.2024.
4. The appellant/applicant who appeared in person has drawn our attention in this affidavit towards para 2 wherein it is stated by the respondent No. 8 that he is not dealing with the contents of the Interim Application by each sentence/statement/allegation, and therefore, nothing which is not specifically dealt with therein, should be deemed to have been admitted. Having pointing this out it is argued by the applicant that there is no specific denial made from the side of respondent no. 8,- on the averments made by the applicant in the above IA 44/2022. Therefore, whatever has been stated therein by the applicant, has not been specifically denied by respondent 8, and should be treated as admitted.
5. Further it is stated in this objection that the answering respondent is claiming to be a contractor engaged by respondent No. 5 - Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, hence he should not be held liable for any violation for the acts which he had done under the agreement entered into between respondent No 8 and respondent No. 10. Therefore application ought to be dismissed at the very outset.
6. The entire dispute relates to the coastal road, with regards to permissions, violation of norms pertaining to environment etc. which is the subject matter of adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (CIVIL) Nos. 17471-17476 of 2019 and other related matters, which is pending, and therefore it is improper for the applicant to press the execution of the present order in question.
7. Further it is mentioned that the present application is infructuous since the coastal road work has been completed and the same will be open to traffic in May 2024. The applicant brought to our notice that the averments made in para 8 of this affidavit where it is stated that on 28.09.2018; respondent No. 8 was awarded Letter of Acceptance (“LOA”) under Coastal Road for Package-II of Mumbai Coastal Road Project (South) and on 26.11.2018, the answering respondent had executed the requisite co
