Allowed

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. State of Tamilnadu

NGT16 Dec 2020Original Application No. 49/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT Southern Zone fixed higher environmental compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs for a residential project started without prior EIA clearance. The court distinguished earlier precedents and deemed a fixed percentage of project cost more appropriate than the daily violation method. The applicant failed to prove unauthorized bore well usage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- (plus interest/adjustments) to the TNPCB within two months.

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2020)

¶1

Item No.07:

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

Original Application No. 49 of 2019 (SZ)

¶4

(Through Video Conference)

¶5

IN THE MATTER OF

¶6

Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar, Meenavar Nala Sangam Rep. by its President, M.R. Thiyagarajan, S/o. Late C. Rajalingam, Office at No.48, East Madha Church Street, Royapuram, Chennai – 600013.

¶7

…Applicant(s)

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State of Tamil Nadu, Through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶10

1. Tamil Nadu State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Through the Chairman, Ground Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

¶11

1. Tamil Nadu State Expert Appraisal Committee, Through the Chairman, 3^rd Floor, Panagal Maligai, No.1, Jeenis Road, Saidapet, Chennai - 600 015.

¶12

1. Voora Property Developers Private Limited, Through the Director, Voora JK Tower, 4^th Floor, No.28, Bazullah Road, T-Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

¶13

1. Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board, 76, Anna Salai, Guindy, Chennai- 600 032. (R-5 impleaded as Suo Motu as per Order dated 19.12.2019)

¶14

…Respondent(s)

¶15

¶16

For Applicant(s): Sri. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh.

¶17

For Respondent(s): Sri. Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for R1. Sri. Bharat B. Jain for R4. Sri. C. Kasirajan through M/s. Meena for R5.

¶18

Date of Judgment: 16^th December, 2020.

¶19

CORAM :

¶20

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶21

HON’BLE MR. SAIBAL DASGUPTA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶22

Whether the Judgement is allowed to be published on the Internet – Yes/No

¶23

Whether the Judgement is to be published in the All India NGT Reporter – Yes/No

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The above case has been filed by the applicant alleging that the 4^th respondent was proceeding with a building project in the CRZ Zone without getting necessary prior Environmental Clearance (EC) and other statutory documents. According to the applicant, the project that was being undertaken by the 4^th respondent is “B-Category” project for which prior Environmental Clearance (EC) is required under the EIA Notification, 2006 which though applied, had not been granted thus far and they were proceeding with the construction without getting Environmental Clearance

¶26

(EC). So, the applicant filed this application seeking the following reliefs:-

¶27

“(i) Issue direction to respondent Mo.2 and 3 to initiate

¶28

appropriate action against the fourth respondent for continuing illegal and unauthorised constructions of 27 floor apartments at R.S.No.4061/4 of Block No.78 Old S.Nos. 3761, 3762 and 3763 of Tondaiarpet Village, Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu without

¶29

¶30

obtaining prior environment clearance under the Category “B” of Item. 8(a) “Building and Construction projects” of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006.

¶31

(ii) Direct the fourth respondent to remove the entire unauthorised constructions in so far as they have deliberately violated the law laid down under the EIA Notification, 2006 with respect to Constructions activities.”

¶32

This Tribunal by order dated, 19.12.2019 had appointed a Joint Committee comprising of (i) State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and (ii) Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) to inspect the area in question and submit a factual as well as action taken report, if there is any violation found and also directed them to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if there is any violation found.

¶33

Originally, the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) was not made as a party to the proceedings. By order dated 19.12.2019, this Tribunal had Suo-Motu impleaded the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) as additional 5^th respondent to this proceeding.

¶34

The matter was taken up on 16.01.2020 and considered the report submitted by the Joint Committee which was extracted in that order as

¶35

follows:-

¶36

“The joint committee inspected the above site of M/s. Voora Property Developers on 10.01.2020 and observed the following:

¶37

(i) No work was undergoing at the time of inspection. (ii) The foundation work for the entire building has been completed. The entire site is fenced temporarily with tin sheet and temporary tin sheet Labour shed have also been constructed. (iii) The unit has obtained CRZ clearance vide proc.No.P1/211/2019, dated 8.3.19 for the construction of residential building with built up area of 25,774.28 Sq.m. in the above said property.

¶38

¶39

(iv) The project proponent has obtained planning permission, vide Lr.No.C3(N)/15600/2018, dated 22.5.19 from the CMDA.

¶40

(v) Building plan was approved by Greater Chennai Corporation vide permit No.11963 dated 22.5.19 for the proposed construction.

¶41

(vi) The proponent has applied for Environmental Clearance on 05.04.2019 and the same was appraised by the SEAC Committee on its 129^th meeting held on 17.05.2019.

¶42

(vii) Based on the minutes of the 129^th SEAC meeting, the proponent has presented the project in 130^th SEAC meeting 10.06.2019.

¶43

(viii) For the queries minuted in the 130^th SEAC meeting, the proponent has given reply to the SEAC on 17.7.2019 and the same was placed in the 136^th SEAC meeting held on 20.9.2019.

¶44

(ix) Meanwhile, a petition was received from Thiru. M.R. Thiyagarajan, President, Meenava Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam on 9.9.2019 and the same was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 20.9.2019 and decided to constitute a sub-committee to have an on the spot inspection to assess the status of the project.

¶45

As per the MoEF Notification dated 14^th September, 2006 issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules 1986, prior Environmental Clerance is required before any construction work is started on the project. No activity relating to any project covered under this notification including civil construction can be undertaken at site without obtaining prior environmental clearance except fencing of the site to protect it from getting encroached and construction of temporary sheds for the guards. Any contravention of the EIA notification amounts to violation of Environmental (Protection) Act 1986.”

¶46

On that day, we heard the learned counsel appearing for the project proponent and also the applicant and other official respondents and the counsel appearing for the project proponent had submitted that they have stopped the work and the application for Environmental Clearance (EC) is pending with the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

¶47

¶48

(SEIAA) and they will proceed with the work only, after getting necessary Environmental Clearance (EC). So, considering the undertaking given by the project proponent and also after considering the report submitted by the Joint Committee appointed by this Tribunal, this Tribunal had disposed of the matter by order dated, 16.01.2020 which reads as follows:-

¶49

“Mr. Bharat-B-Jain, learned counsel entered appearance for

¶50

the fourth respondent and submitted that they want to file a detailed counter. According to them, they stopped the work and application of Environmental Clearance (EC) is pending with State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and they will proceed with the work only after getting necessary Environmental Clearance. There is already an admission that certain part of the construction work has already started without obtaining Environmental Clearance and the application for granting Environmental Clearance is pending with the SEIAA and as per the EIA Notification, 2006, the project cannot proceed without getting prior Environmental Clearance except to the extent of construction of temporary fencing and some temporary sheds for the guards The photographs show that foundation work has been done without getting Environmental Clearance.

¶51

Under such circumstances, we feel it appropriate to dispose of the matter by issuing following directions:

¶52

(1)The fourth respondent is restrained from proceeding with further construction in the disputed land where the project is being to be implemented by the fourth respondent without getting Environmental Clearance and other required conditions

¶53

(2)The respective regulatory authorities are directed to initiate action against the project proponent, the fourth respondent for the violation in accordance with law after giving them reasonable opportunity to meet their case.

¶54

(3)The Committee is directed to assess the environmental compensation for the violation committed by the fourth respondent in the Coastal Zone Regulation area as the construction is being done without getting prior Environmental Clearance, though it appears from the report that CRZ clearance has been obtained for that purpose after giving them

¶55

¶56

opportunity to meet their case and take steps to realise the environmental compensation so imposed from the fourth respondent in accordance with law.

¶57

(4)The Committee shall complete this exercise within a period of two months and submit the compliance report as directed by this Tribunal in this order regarding further action taken.

¶58

With the above directions and observations, the application is disposed of.

¶59

For consideration of compliance of the report alone post the matter on 07.04.2020.”

¶60

Thereafter, the matter was posted for consideration of the committee’s report regarding the environmental compensation to be imposed against the project proponent for their violation committed by them against the provisions of the Coastal Regulation Zone Clearance in the coastal zone enumerated under that notification and also under the EIA Notification, 2006. By this order, this Tribunal had restrained the 4^th respondent from proceeding with further construction in the disputed land where the project is proposed to be established without getting Environmental Clearance (EC) and other required conditions as well. The case was posted to 07.04.2020 for consideration of the report sought for regarding the question of imposing environmental compensation alone against the 4^th respondent.

¶61

Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 04.06.2020 and considered the report submitted by the Joint Committee which was sent through e-mail dated, 20.03.2020 and the same was extracted in Para 6 of the order as

¶62

follows:-

¶63

“The Joint committee inspected the above said site of M/s. Voora property Developers on 10.01.2020 and observed the following:

¶64

1. No work was undergoing at the time of inspection.

¶65

2. The foundation work for the entire building has been completed.

¶66

¶67

The entire site was fenced temporarily with tin sheet and temporary tin sheet Labour sheds have also been constructed.

¶68

3. The unit has obtained CRZ clearance vide proc. No.P1/211/2019, dt.08.03.2019 for the construction of residential building with built with up area of 25,774.28 Sq.M. in the above said property.

¶69

4. The project proponent has obtained planning permission, vide Lr. No. C3 (N)/15600/2018, dated 22.05.2019 from the CMDA.

¶70

5. Building plan was approved by Greater Chennai Corporation vide permit No. 11963 dated 22.05.2019 for the proposed construction.

¶71

6. The proponent has applied for Environmental Clearance on 05.04.2019 and the same was appraised by the SEAC Committee on its 129^th meeting held on 17.05.2019.

¶72

7. Based on the minutes of the 129^th SEAC meeting the proponent has presented the project in 130^th SEAC meeting held on 10.06.2019.

¶73

8. For the queries minutes in the 130^th SEAC meeting, the proponent has given reply to the SEAC on 17.07.2019 and the same was placed in the 136^th SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2019.

¶74

9. Meanwhile, a petition was received from Thiru. M.R. Thiyagarajan, President, Meenva Thanthai K.R. Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam on 09.09.2019, and the same was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 20.09.2019 and decided to constitute a sub-committee to have an on the spot inspection to assess the status of the project.

¶75

As per the MoEF Notification dated 14^th September 2006 issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, prior Environmental Clearance is required before any construction work is started on the project. No activity relating to any project covered under this notification including civil construction can be undertaken at site without obtaining prior environmental clearance except fencing of the site to protect it from getting encroached and construction of temporary sheds for the guards. Any contravention of the E.I.A. notification amounts to violation of Environmental (Protection) Act 1986.”

¶76

At the request of the applicant, the matter was adjourned for filing

¶77

objections to the committee’s report and the project proponent was also directed to submit the project report showing the estimated cost of the

¶78

¶79

project before this Tribunal so as to ascertain as to whether the compensation fixed by the committee is proper or inadequate and posted the case to 30.06.2020 for that purpose.

¶80

The matter was again taken up on 27.07.2020, and this Tribunal had considered the objections raised by the applicant to the committee’s report and also the submission made by him, that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath 2002 (3) SCC 653, Sterlite India Limited Vs. Union of India 2013 (4) SCC 575 and Ganga Goyal Vs. Union of India 2018 (18) SCC 257 and also the manner in which the compensation assessed was not proper as submitted by the counsel appearing for the applicant. Accordingly, we directed the committee to consider the objections and submit a further report. It was also noticed in that order that the environmental compensation of Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) fixed by the Joint Committee, taking note of number of days of violation as 102 days from 09.09.2019 to 19.12.2019 has already been deposited by the project proponent. However, this Tribunal had considered all the submissions and directed the committee to consider the question of number of days violation, afresh and also consider the question as to whether any illegal extraction of ground water was done by the project proponent in connection with their project and that will also have to be taken into account while fixing the amount of compensation payable and directed them to submit a further report and posted the case to 22.09.2020 for that purpose.

¶81

¶82

The matter was again taken up on 06.10.2020 and considered the revised

¶83

report, reassessing the environmental compensation by the committee which was extracted in Para 3 of the order as follows:-

¶84

“Report on revised environmental compensation for the violation committed by M/s. Voora Property Developers Private Limited at R.S.No. 4061/4 of Block No. 78 Old S.Nos. 3761, 3762 & 3763 of Tondiarpet Village, Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District, Tamil Nadu as per Hon’ble NGT in the order dated:27.07.2020 in O.A.No.49 of 2019.

¶85

Hon’ble NGT in the order dated:27.07.2020 in O.A.No:49 of 2019 (SZ), issued the following direction

¶86

“This tribunal feels that it is necessary to direct the committee to revisit the quantum of compensation fixed, considering the probable damage caused to the environment especially in CRZ zone, in respect of illegal extraction of ground water, if any, and also recalculating the period of violation and also after considering the objections filed by the applicant regarding the R- Index fixed by the committee and also the amount so far invested and the actual cost of project, in order to assess the environmental compensation and submit a fresh report before Tribunal on or before 22.09.2020 by e-filing”. Subsequently, Hon’ble NGT in the Order Dt:22.09.2020 postponed next hearing to 06.10.2020.

¶87

As per the direction of the Hon’ble NGT (SZ) dt: 27.07.2020, the joint committee consisting of the following members,

¶88

1. Thiru. T. Murugu Subramonian, Member-SEAC,

¶89

2. Thiru. B. Sugirtharaj Koilpillai, Member-SEAC,

¶90

3. Thiru. Dr. R. Umaiyakunjaram, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB,

¶91

inspected the Voora Properties work site again on 02.10.2020 and observed the following.

¶92

1. It is submitted that there was no bore well (or) open well in the site area to draw water. The project proponent informed that all the construction works area carried out using Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) Purchased from out side agency and water

¶93

¶94

required for curing was purchased from outside and transported by water tankers. The old bore well in the site was closed and the water in the old bore well was unfit for any purpose. The committee observed and verified the documents furnished by the project proponent and concluded that no ground water was extracted in the project site. The contention of the petitioner in this regard is imaginary.

¶95

2. It is submitted that the R factor fixed by the committee was correct for the following reasons.The scope of R value was fixed by CPCB for the projects which are operational and have violated norms in setting up and maintaining STP’s, CETP’s & ETP’s and other violations only. This will be applicable to projects which has been completed.

¶96

In this case, the project was launched on 16.08.2019 only and according to the proponent the actual ground work for the construction has been commenced on 08.09.2019 only. But the committee has assumed the date of commencement as 01.09.2019. to calculate the number of days.

¶97

It is submitted that the committee noticed that the building work is at foundation level and the set backs are as per approved plan and there is no violation in this regard. The STP or ETP as stated in the CPCB guidelines was not yet been constructed and also there is no chance of generating hazardous waste and solid waste at this stage. Since this is a building project at the preliminary stage, there is no Environmental Damage notified by the committee for which the R value should be taken as 0 (Zero). However the committee works out the damage by fixing the R value as 100 since the work was commenced without getting the Environmental clearance from SEIAA. Violation is commencing work without getting Environmental Clearance only.

¶98

The total cost of project is Rs. 40.00 crores and the project proponent has furnished details of expenditure which works out to Rs. 3.80 crores which is acceptable.

¶99

The Project proponent has informed that the project was started on 08.09.2019 and the works were stopped on 19.12.2019. The number of days works out 102 days. The committee feel that this period is almost technically sufficient for carrying out the quantum of works done in the site. The foundation floor area is about 2000 sq.m. only.

¶100

¶101

The committee feels that there is no possibility of commencing the work before launching the project . The petitioner has not furnished any evidence as to the date of commencement of work. Before commencement of the foundation work, the project proponent has to do some baseline works like leveling, marking, temporary storage facilities for materials etc., which would take a minimum of 15 days.

¶102

Hence the committee arrived the date of commencement of work as follows.

¶103

Date of launching - 16.08.2019 Date of complaint - 09.09.2019

¶104

The date of commencement of work is assumed as 01.09.2019 for the aforesaid reasons and the revised environmental compensation is worked out for commencing work before obtaining Environmental Clearance.

¶105

In this regard, It is respectfully submitted that the revised environmental compensation for violating the Provisions of EP Act is calculated based on the guidelines issued by CPCB.

¶106

Revised Calculation of Environmental Compensation based on the CPCB Guidelines

¶107

1) Environmental Compensation Formula EC= PI x N x R x S x LF Where

¶108

EC – Environmental Compensation

¶109

PI – Pollution Index of Industry Sector

¶110

N – Number days of Violation took place

¶111

R – A factor in Rs for EC

¶112

S – Factor for scale of operation

¶113

LF – Location factor

¶114

i. The industrial sector have been categorized into Red, Orange and Green based on their pollution index in the range of 60-100, 41-59 and 21-40 respectively. It was suggested that the average pollution index of 80, 50 and 30 may be taken for calculating the Environmental Compensation for Red, Orange and Green Categories of industries respectively.

¶115

In this case, the pollution index PI is taken as 50, as this project is having built up area more than 20,000 m² and the sewage generation is 97 KLD (Orange category).

¶116

¶117

ii. N, number of days for which violation took place is the period between the day of violation observed/ due date of directions compliance and the day of compliance verified by PCB/SPCB/CPCB.

¶118

The, N is taken from 01.09.2019 to 19.12.2019 and it works out to 110 days.

¶119

iii. R, is a factor in rupees, which may be minimum of 100 and maximum of 500.

¶120

R is taken as 100 for this case, as the works are in initial stage only and the environmental damage is negligible.

¶121

iv. S is based on small/medium/large industries categorisation which may be 0.5 for micro or small, 1 for medium and 1.5 for large units.

¶122

This project is considered as Large project, hence S value is taken as 1.5.

¶123

v. LF, is based on the population of the city/town and location of the industrial unit. For the industrial unit located within municipal boundary or upto 10km distance from the municipal boundary of the city/town, following factors (LF) may be used.

¶124

S.	*Population*	*Location*
*No.*	*(million)*	*Factor* *(LF)*
1	1 to <5	1.25
2	5 to <10	1.5
3	10 and above	2.0

¶125

Location Factor Values

¶126

For this project LF value is taken as 1.5, as the population of the locality is between 5 to 10 million (Within Chennai Corporation).

¶127

Environmental Compensation

¶128

(EC) = PI x N x R x S x LF

¶129

= 50 x 110 x 100 x 1.5 x 1.5

¶130

= Rs. 12,37,500 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs thirty seven thousand five hundred only)

¶131

It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble NGT(SZ), Chennai may impose the Environmental Compensation as deemed fit.”

¶132

¶133

As per the present calculation, they have reassessed the environmental compensation payable as Rs.12,37,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) instead of Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) as assessed earlier.

¶134

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant pointed out that there was an existence of an old bore well in the CRZ Zone which was noticed by the committee but there was no whisper regarding as to who had dug the same and whether that was used by the project proponent for extracting the ground water. By order dated 06.10.2020, this Tribunal had directed the committee to consider the question as to who had dug the bore well which they had found in the property and if there was any extraction of ground water by the project proponent from that bore well, then it will have to be taken into account for assessing environmental compensation and directed them to file a further report on this aspect and the case was posted for that purpose to 29.09.2020. Thereafter, it was being adjourned from time to time by notification and lastly, as per notification dated 24.11.2020, it was posted to today.

¶135

Heard the counsel Sri. G. Stanley Hebzon Singh for the applicant, Sri. Dr. V.R. Thirunarayanan for 1^st respondent, Sri. Bharat B. Jain for 4^th respondent and Sri. C. Kasirajan through M/s. Meena for 5^th respondent.

¶136

The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that the amount

¶137

of compensation fixed is not adequate, considering the fact that the violation committed by them is in the coastal zone area.

¶138

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submitted that all the relevant aspects were considered.

¶139

¶140

We have received the report submitted by the committee on 01.12.2020

¶141

which reads as follows:-

¶142

“Report on assessing environmental compensation for the withdrawal of ground water in CRZ area by M/s. Voora Property Developers Private Limited at R.S. No.4061/4 of Block No.78, Old S.No.3761, 3762 & 3763 of Tondiarpet Village, Tondiarpet Taluk, Chennai District, Tamil Nadu as per Hon’ble NGT order dt.06.10.2020 in O.A. No.49 of 2019.

¶143

It is respectfully submitted that Hon’ble NGT (SZ), Chennai in the order dt.06.10.2020 in O.A. No.49 of 2019 (SZ) issued the following direction.

¶144

“We direct the committee to consider the question as to who has dug the old bore well which they found in the property and if there is any extraction of water by the 4^th respondent, then they will have to take that also into account for the purpose of assessing environmental compensation. In the mean time, they are directed to serve copy of the further report to the fourth respondent as well so that if they want, they can file objection to the same. They are directed to file further report, taking into account the observations made above, after considering the objection to be raised by the project proponent in this regard, while making site inspection for addressing this aspect.”

¶145

It is respectfully submitted that the Joint Committee comprising of the following members

¶146

1) Thiru. T. Murugu Subramonian, Member-SEAC

¶147

2) Thiru. B. Sugirtharaj Koilpillai, Member-SEAC and

¶148

3) Thiru. S. Vijayarajan, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB.

¶149

Inspected the Voora Properties project site on 10.01.2020 and 11.02.2020 based on the directions issued by Honb’le NGT (SZ), Chennai in the order dt.19.12.2019 and 16.01.2020 respectively and assessed the environmental compensation for violating the provisions of Environment Protection Act as Rs.11,47,500 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) and submitted the following report.

¶150

1) The project is in its foundation level (below ground level) and there appears to be no variation between the approved plan and field measurements.

¶151

2) The Green Belt area works out to 1065 Sq.M., and the proponent has provided sufficient space all along the

¶152

¶153

boundary (minimum 3 mts) to form the green belt on completion of the project.

¶154

3) No Objection Certificates from Fire Service and Airports Authority of India have been obtained. Clearance from Coastal Zone Management Authority has also been obtained.

¶155

4) The Structural Design has been approved by the Professor, Division of Structural Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Anna University, Chennai and reviewed and found to be in order by Executive Engineer, PWD, Buildings Centre and Conservation Division, Chepauk, Chennai.

¶156

5) The Committee observed that violation is commencing the work before getting Environmental Clearance as per Environment Protection Act, 1986 from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Tamil Nadu. As the work is at foundation level, the environmental damage caused is negligible.

¶157

Subsequently, as per the direction of the Hon’ble NGT (SZ) dt. 27.07.2020, the Joint Committee consisting of the following members

¶158

1) Thiru. T. Murugu Subramonian, Member-SEAC

¶159

2) Thiru. B. Sugirtharaj Koilpillai, Member-SEAC and

¶160

3) Thiru. R. Umaiyakunjaram, District Environmental Engineer, TNPCB.

¶161

Inspected the Voora Properties site again on 02.10.2020, reassessed the environmental compensation for violating the provisions of Environment Protection Act as Rs.12,37,500 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) and submitted the following report.

¶162

It is submitted that there was no bore well or open well in the project site at the time of inspection on 10.01.2020. The project proponent had informed the Joint Committee that all the construction works were carried out using Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) purchased from outside agencies and water required for curing was purchased from outside and transported by water tanks. The project proponent also informed that there was an old bore well in the site at the time of purchase which was closed as the water in the old bore well was unfit for any purpose. The committee observed and verified the documents furnished by the project proponent and concluded

¶163

¶164

that no ground water was extracted in the project site. The contention of the petitioner in this regard may be dismissed unless the petitioner produces any material evidence.

¶165

It is respectfully submitted that during the inspections on 10.01.2020, 11.02.2020 and 02.10.2020, the committee has not noticed any bore well in the said project area and the same was reported to the Hon’ble NGT (SZ). However as per the direction of the Hon’ble NGT (SZ) dt. 06.10.2020, the Joint Committee examined the documents of the project site and CRZ clearance issued to the project and observed in none of the records the availability or utilization of any bore well was mentioned.

¶166

It is respectfully submitted that if the petitioner furnishes any evidence regarding the availability of bore well in the project site at the time of execution of foundation works and drawal of ground water from the bore well for the construction purpose, the environmental compensation may be revised based on the material evidence produced by the petitioner and submitted to Hon’ble NGT (SZ).”

¶167

It is mentioned in the report that at the time of inspection, they did not find any bore well in the property and as such, there is no evidence on record to presume that the project proponent had dug the bore well in violation of the CRZ Notification and extracted the ground water for re assessing the environmental compensation and according to them, the amount of Rs.12,37,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) is adequate, considering the nature of work done by them at the time of inspection before getting the Environmental Clearance (EC) though, they have already obtained necessary CRZ Clearance for this purpose earlier.

¶168

The applicant has also not produced any documents to show that the bore well was dug by the 4^th respondent and they have extracted the water from the same.

¶169

¶170

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent submitted that at the time, when they purchased the property itself, there was an old bore well which they had closed for the purpose of their construction activities and they have not extracted any water, and hence not violated the conditions imposed in CRZ Clearance granted to them for the purpose. As such there is no material before this Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the bore well was dug by the project proponent and any ground water was extracted using that bore well from the CRZ zone in violation of the CRZ Notification, 2011 and the conditions of the CRZ Clearance granted to the 4^th respondent. So, the 4^th respondent is not liable to pay any compensation for unauthorized extraction of ground water using the bore well for their project purpose.

¶171

20.As regards the environmental compensation is concerned, we have perused the earlier reports as well as the subsequent reports on the question of assessment of environmental compensation as directed by this Tribunal. The period of violation was revised as directed by this Tribunal in the earlier order mentioned above and the committee had reassessed the environmental compensation payable by the 4^th respondent as Rs.12,37,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) instead of Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) earlier assessed and the earlier assessed amount was deposited by the 4^th respondent which is evident from the memo submitted by them before this Tribunal being the letter said to have been sent by them dated 20.03.2020 along with the Demand Draft No.986168 dated 20.03.2020 for Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) issued by Karur Vysya Bank Limited

¶172

¶173

towards the environmental compensation fund as assessed by the committee mentioned above.

¶174

The 4^th respondent also produced the details regarding the project in which they have mentioned that the total cost of the project is Rs.40 Crores and the work was only in preliminary stage, at the time when it was stopped.

¶175

22.The dictum laid down in the decision reported in Ganga Goyal Vs. Union of India 2018 (18) SCC 257 as such is not applicable to this fact of the case as in that case the entire project was completed without getting Environmental Clearance (EC) and other clearances and so the Hon’ble Apex Court had fixed the environmental damages of Rs.100 Crores or 10 percent of the project cost whichever is higher. But in this case, it is only in the preliminary stage and the project cost is only Rs.40 Crores.

¶176

23.So, considering the circumstances, we feel that taking 0.5% of the project cost and imposing that amount as environmental compensation will be sufficient, instead of adopting the compensation fixed by the committee on the basis of the number of days violation alone and that will meet the ends of justice.

¶177

24.If this is adopted, the amount payable as environmental compensation will come to Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) [Rs.40 Crore x 0.5% = Rs.20 Lakhs) and that can be imposed as environmental compensation for the violation committed by the project proponent and this Tribunal feels that will meet the ends of justice.

¶178

25.So, the project proponent is directed to pay the environmental compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) instead of Rs.12,37,500/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) fixed by the committee as revised environmental

¶179

¶180

compensation and the project proponent is directed to pay the balance amount over and above the environmental compensation deposited by them earlier viz., Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) within a period of 2 (Two) months.

¶181

26.So, the application is finally disposed of as follows:-

¶182

(i) The 4^th respondent is directed not to proceed with the

¶183

work without getting the necessary Environmental Clearance (EC) for the project and if they have obtained the same, then they are at liberty to proceed with the work complying with the conditions imposed in the Environmental Clearance (EC) and other permissions granted, after obtaining the same from the other departments as required.

¶184

(ii) The 4^th respondent is directed to pay an environmental compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) for the violation committed by them in proceeding with the work without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) and they are directed to deposit the balance amount with the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (TNPCB) over and above the amount already deposited by them viz., Rs.11,47,500/- (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred only) within a period of 2 (Two) months.

¶185

¶186

(iii) If the amount is not paid within that time, then the Tamil

¶187

Nadu Pollution Control (TNPCB) is at liberty to realize that

¶188

amount from the 4^th respondent in accordance with law.

¶189

(iv) Considering the circumstances, the parties are directed to

¶190

bear their respective costs in the application.

¶191

27.With the above observations and directions, this application is finally

¶192

disposed of.
..........................................J.M.
(Justice K. Ramakrishnan)
.......................................E.M.
(Shri. Saibal Dasgupta)

¶193

O.A. No.49/2019 16th December, 2020. Mn.

¶194

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam v. State of Tamilnadu

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

Sarat Mohapatra vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Samantaray vs State of Odisha

Jayashri Rajebhosale vs State of Goa

Sachin Kumar vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Paschimbanga Vigyan Mancha vs State of West Bangal

News Item Published in the Times of India Title - Six Killed as Blast Tears through Malda Plastic Recycling Factory vs .

Mahesh Chandra Saxena vs Central Ground Water Authority of India

Mahesh Chaurasia vs State of NCT of Delhi

Devineni Rajasekhar vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Principal Secretary to Government Industries & Commerce (Mines) Departmentn

Tirumalasetti Srinivass/O Tirumalasetti Rambabu vs 1. Government of India Rep by Its Secretary

Mrs Suma R Nayak W/O Raghuveer Nayak Manel vs the Ministry for Forest Ecology and Environment Office of the Minister of Forest Represented by Its Secretary

M/S Fomra Housing and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Its Managing Director vs the Member Secretary Tnpcb

Sri. Pallela Laxman vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Paneerselvam Rajangam vs District Collector Nagapattinam