Allowed

M/S.Vardhman Developers Limited v. Union of India the Secretary Minister of Environment and Forrest and 3ORS

Bombay HC18 Dec 2013WP/34/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that environmental clearance is not required for construction up to 20,000 sq. meters of a rehabilitation component, relying on prior orders and an undertaking from the petitioners to restrict use to rehab accommodation. The petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to carry out construction up to 20,000 sq. meters for the rehab component after accepting the petitioners' undertaking.

M/S.Vardhman Developers Limited Vs Union of India… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WPL-2305-13

¶2

SKC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 2305 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO. 539 OF 2013

¶5

M/s. Vardhman Developers Limited ..Petitioners vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Milind Sathe – Senior Advocate with Mr. Chirag Shah i/b. Mr. J. J. Shah for Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. Y. R. Mishra with D. A. Dubey for Respondent No. 1. Mr. A. B. Ketkar – A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for Respondent No. 4.

¶8

Mr. A. A. Siddiquie i/b. A. A. Siddiquie & Associates for Applicant / Intervenor in Notice of Motion (L) No. 539 of 2013.

¶9

CORAM : V. M. KANADE, AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : DECEMBER 18, 2013

¶11

P. C .

¶12

1] Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the learned

¶13

counsel for the Respondents as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant / Intervener in the notice of motion.

¶14

2] By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of

¶15

India the Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order and

1/5

WPL-2305-13

SKC

direction that for the construction of the building on the property mentioned in Exhibit 'A' the Environmental Clearance is not required for construction upto 20,000 sq. meters. It is submitted that the Petitioners intend to construct the rehab component for accommodating 259 tenants at the said site and the said construction is less than 20,000 sq. meters and therefore Environmental Clearance is not necessary. Reliance is placed on the orders passed by this court in the following matters:-

¶20

(i) Writ Petition No. 504 of 2012 (Naresh Janardhan Mali vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.)

¶21

(ii) Writ Petition No. 1916 of 2012 (Vardhaman Developers Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶22

(iii) Writ Petition No. 2809 of 2012 (Nahur Vivekanand Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.)

¶23

(iv) Writ Petition No. 654 of 2013 (Tridhaatu Ventures LLP vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶24

(v) Writ Petition (L) No. 852 of 2013 (M/s. Vision Developers vs. Union of India & Ors.)

¶25

It is submitted that the facts in this case are also identical to the facts in the aforesaid cases. It is submitted that the Petitioners have

2/5

WPL-2305-13

SKC

already filed an undertaking dated 29.10.2013 stating therein that the society shall not put up any construction exceeding 20,000 sq. meters and that the said construction will be restricted to the construction of the rehab component only for the purpose of accommodation 259 tenants. It is therefore prayed that the Petitioners be permitted to carry out the said construction on the said site.

¶30

3] On the other hand the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 – Environment Department has submitted that the Office Memorandum which was issued initially after certain orders were passed by this court dated 29.06.2013 has now been withdrawn by a subsequent Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2013. He has invited our attention to the said Office Memorandum in which it is stated that in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Bench at Pune Office Memorandum dated 29.06.2013 has been recalled. He has also invited our attention to the last paragraph of the said Office Memorandum which mentions that if any construction plan above 20,000 sq. meters is approved by the Planning Authority and part Commencement Certificate below 20,000 sq.meters is issued for commencement of the construction work to the Project Proponent without obtaining mandatory prior Environmental Clearance then in

3/5

WPL-2305-13

SKC

such cases the said construction will be treated as a violation of the provisions of EIA Notification 2006 read with Office Memorandum dated 12.12.2012. It is therefore submitted that interim relief may not be granted and the matter be kept for final disposal.

¶35

4] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State also has made the similar submissions.

¶36

5] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Intervenor has submitted that he has filed a PIL in which he has challenged the orders passed by this Court granting interim reliefs in the said petitions.

¶37

6] After having heard all the learned counsel at length, in our view, there is no impediment in granting any interim relief as prayed for by the Petitioners in this case. This Court in various writ petition nos. 504 of 2012, 1916 of 2012, 2809 of 2012, 654 of 2013, writ petition (L) No. 852 of 2013 and in writ petition no. 1556 of 2013 has considered the said submissions and after interpreting the provisions of Notification dated 14.09.2006 has observed that for the purpose of carrying on construction upto 20,000 sq. meters prior Environmental Clearance is not required. It is an admitted position that the said orders have not been challenged by the State or by any other Respondents in the Apex Court. The said orders are binding on all the Respondents.

4/5

WPL-2305-13

SKC

7] In this view of the matter, we permit the Petitioners to put up construction below 20,000 sq. meters in respect of the rehab component project. Undertaking given by the Petitioners in their affidavit dated 29.10.2013 is accepted. The Petitioners are permitted to put up construction upto 20,000 sq. meters for the purpose of accommodating 259 tenants. Petitioners to file a further undertaking that the construction upto 20,000 sq. meters shall be restricted to construction of the rehab component only within a period of one week from today. Petitioners shall comply with all other conditions imposed by the Corporation. We accordingly direct the Corporation to permit the Petitioners to put up construction upto 20,000 sq. meters by issuing Commencement Certificate. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.

¶42

8] In view of the disposal of the writ petition, notice of motion (L) No. 539 of 2013 filed by the Applicant / Intervenor does not survive and is disposed of .

¶43

[M. S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]

¶44

Chandka

¶45

5/5

M/S.Vardhman Developers Limited v. Union of India the Secretary Minister of Environment and Forrest and 3ORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S.Vardhman Developers Limited v. Union of India the Secretary Minister of Environment and Forrest and 3ORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Vivek Digambarrao Dande Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.

Dr. Ashok v. Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.

Dr. Gajanan Gaurishankar Sose and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra through Dept of Medical Education and Drugs and Ors.

Shanti andSANTOSH Developers Vs the Chief Officer, Mhada

Sandeep Rammilan Shukla Vs Mr.Kishore Lulla and 5 Ors.

Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (of the Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika) Vs A.P. Sales Corporation and Anr.