Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 3889
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PUNE (WESTERN ZONE BENCH)
DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J, DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, ACJ
DILEEP B. NEVATIA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
I.A. NO. 44 of 2022 IN 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 Tribunal highlighted the significance of compliance with noise pollution standards and recognized shared responsibility for noise beyond construction activities.
Headnote:(A) Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 - Application filed regarding environmental compliance on the Mumbai Coastal Road Project and noise pollution - The applicant sought direction for maintaining noise levels within statutory limits but contention was raised regarding ongoing construction and its impact - The Respondent No. 8 claimed noise levels were affected by multiple factors, including traffic and natural sources - Tribunal found noise pollution was not solely attributable to respondent's actions and noted various measures taken to mitigate pollution post-inspection - Directions issued for MPCB to monitor noise levels regularly. (Paras 1, 22)
(B) Tribunal’s role - The Tribunal recognized the ongoing construction activities were under Supreme Court's purview, thus limiting its intervention - Emphasized the importance of balancing developmental activities with environmental safeguards but refused to prevent construction as the work was nearly complete. (Para 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application procedures and objectives. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. allegations made by the applicant. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. ongoing construction and legal limitations. (Para 6 , 16) |
| 4. noise pollution assessments. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. responses from respondents regarding pollution. (Para 12 , 18 , 21) |
| 6. final tribunal directions and decision. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
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 requisit
