The court affirmed that any expansion exceeding specified limits under the EIA Notification requires prior Environmental Clearance, emphasizing rigorous compliance with environmental assessment procedures.

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1. The present Civil Appeal arises from an order dated 11 February 2019 of the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal, NGT. In its order, the NGT held that the increase in the total construction area of the appellant‟s project was an “expansion” under a notification (bearing number S.O. 1533) dated 14 September 2006, EIA Notification of the Ministry of Environment and Forests. The NGT found that the appellant had undertaken an “expansion” as set out in Paragraph 2 of the EIA Notification without complying with the regulatory procedure prescribed. The appellant was directed to deposit an amount of Rupees one crore with the Central Pollution Control Board, CPCB. Noting that the construction at the project site had been completed, the NGT appointed a five-member expert committee to study the impact of the appellant‟s expanded project and to suggest remedial measures.

The facts

2. The appellant is the project proponent of a residential redevelopment, called „Oriana Residential Project‟ situated at CTS no 646, 646 (Pt) Gandhinagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050. On 8 June 2010 the appellant received a Commencement Certificate to carry out the development and erect a building situated at the project property. The appellant began construction. When the construction commenced, the total construction area was 8,720.32 square metres. The ambit of the project was expanded, and the constructed area was increased to 32,395.17 square metres. Under the EIA Notification , an Environmental Clearance, EC was necessary if the total construction area exceeded 20,000 square metres. Hence, the appellant applied for an EC under the EIA Notification .

3. The fourth respondent, the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee for Maharashtra, SEAC recommended the grant of an EC for the project. On 2 May 2013 the third respondent, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority for Maharashtra, SEIAA, based on the recommendations of the SEAC granted an EC. It is not in dispute that at the time when the EC dated 2 May 2013 was granted, the total construction area of the project was 32,395.17 square metres. The grant of the EC was conditional on the appellant obtaining a „consent for establishment‟ from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974.

4. By a letter dated 24 September 2013, the appellant informed the Environment Department of the Government of Maharashtra, the second respondent, that the construction area was being further increased by 8,085.71 square metres, as a result of which the total construction area of the project would stand enhanced to 40,480.88 square metres. In its letter, the appellant sought an „amendment‟ to the EC dated 2 May 2013 by the third respondent to reflect the increase in the total construction area. On 13 March 2014, the third respondent granted an „amendment‟ to the EC dated 2 May 2013 on the ground that there was only a “marginal increase in built up and construction area”. The third respondent noted the changes in the specification of the project as follows:

5. The first respondent, claiming to be a resident of MIG Colony, Gandhinagar, Bandra East, Mumbai, challenged the grant of the amended EC dated 13 March 2014 before the Pune Bench of the NGT. In response, the appellant filed two applications, challenging the standing of the first respondent and contending that the challenge w