Allowed

Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT4 May 2022Original Application No. 199/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal accepted a joint committee report confirming serious environmental violations, including lack of prior clearance for expansion and illegal groundwater extraction. It directed the proponent to pay ₹40 crore compensation, restrain creation of third-party rights, and complete remedial actions. It also ordered a functional audit of SEIAA, UP.

What did the court decide?

Compensation of Rs. 40 crores to be deposited with State PCB; restraint on creating third-party rights; recommendations for remedial action to be carried out; functional audit of SEIAA, UP accepted.

Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association vs State of Uttar Pradesh — NGT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

(Court No. 1)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 199/2021 (I.A. No. 104/2022)

¶6

Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 04.05.2022

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Shighra Kumar, Advocate Respondent: Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Advocate for CPCB Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate for UPPCB Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate for SEIAA, UP Mr. Sudhanshu Batra, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vivek Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nalin Talwar, Advocate & Mr. Sunil Tyagi, Advocate for SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.,R - 10 (PP)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The Issue – Applicant’s case

¶14

Grievance in this application is against violation of environmental

¶15

norms in setting up of a construction project – “Saviour Park”, Plot No. 108, Katori Mill, Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, by Respondent No. 10 – Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., without valid Environmental Clearance (EC) and without requisite safeguards. It is further stated that EC conditions and environmental norms are being violated.

¶16

¶17

Case set out in the application is that the applicant is association of apartment owners. The project site plan was approved by the Ghaziabad Development Association (GDA) on 21.06.2011. The project falls under category 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. Proposed built up area was 1,55,000.00 sqm. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), UP granted EC dated 04.03.2013. However, in violation of EC conditions, the Project Proponent (PP) started construction and selling of the flats to general public and also handing over possession before completion of construction. Further, EC for expansion was granted on 04.03.2021 without requisite appraisal. The PP has violated EC conditions by constructing 1102 units against 980 units sanctioned vide EC dated 04.03.2021. There is no arrangement for safe disposal of waste water and solid waste and there is violation of EC conditions in use of the diesel generators sets and maintenance of noise emission standards, effluent management and sagacious use of water including ground water and other measures to safeguard adverse impact on environment. Completion certificate has been granted on 07.04.2018 for Tower D-1 and partial completion certificate for Block- D-2 and Block D-3. The PP has dug out several groundwater extraction borewells to use fresh water in the construction process as well as for drinking purposes without requisite NOC from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA). This is against the statement by the PP in Form-1 and Form-1A dated 03.12.2019 that no ground water will be extracted. Further violations of EC conditions alleged by the applicant are:

¶18

“(a) General Condition no 1, 15, 17, 37, 58 —The Project Proponent failed to regularly monitor the parameters related to groundwater, soil, ambient noise and DG sent noise and as pointed out by Dr. Susheel Kumar, the reports related to these parameters should have been sent on a regular basis to the MoEF&CC as part of statutory reporting, however this was never followed.

¶19

¶20

(b) General Condition no. 4 & 7 - The Project Proponent failed to submit Land use certificate, surface hydrology report and water regime report to the MoEF&CC.

¶21

(c) General Condition no. 11 - The Project Proponent failed to submit STP water bills claimed to be used for construction work to the MoEF&CC for suitable verification.

¶22

(d) General Condition no. 12 & 20 – The Project Proponent failed to submit Hazardous waste authorization certificate to the MoEF&CC.

¶23

(e) General Condition no 24- The Project Proponent failed to follow the green building concept suggested by the Indian Green Building Council, which is a part of CII-Godrej GBC since 2013.

¶24

(f) General Condition no 31 - The Project Proponent failed to place Environmental awareness related hoardings.

¶25

(g) General Condition no 38 —The project proponent failed to submit the justification for selecting alternate technologies to chlorination (for disinfection of wastewater) including methods like Ultraviolet radiations, ozonation etc. since 2013.

¶26

(h) General Condition no. 39 - The Project Proponent failed to submit detailed plantation details, including the area covered, number and species of trees planted etc. to the MoEF&CC.

¶27

(i) General Condition no. 41- The Project Proponent failed to submit structural stability certificate to the MoEF&CC. This is a critical violation as the entire basement area of the project is severely affected with heavy seepage and large number of cracks are visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides. The Residents of the Project have made several complaints to the Respondent No. 9; however, no action has been taken by the Project Proponent or the Respondent No. 9. The said issue has also been highlighted in the local newspapers. Copy of the photos depicting seepage and cracks in the Project is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-19. Copy of the newspaper clippings is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-20. Copy of the Minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the residents, Project Proponent and Respondent No. 9 on 21.11.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-21.

¶28

(j) General Condition no 54 - The project proponent has failed to indicate that the cost of environmental activities is part of the overall project cost and additionally there is complete lack of highlighting the management issues and involvement of residents is completely ignored.

¶29

(k) General Condition no. 66 - The project proponent has failed to monitor groundwater downstream of rainwater harvesting pit nearest to STP for bacterial contamination and additionally has failed to provide hand pumps for sampling.

¶30

¶31

(l) General Condition no. 72 - The project proponent has failed to undertake Rapid EIA status for three months during the nonmonsoon period as per the latest norms of the MoEF&CC.

¶32

(m) General Condition no. 72 - The project proponent has failed to obtain ISO: 14001 certification and also failed to include all general and specific conditions mentioned under this in the environmental manual to be prepared for the certification purposes and compliances.

¶33

(n) General Condition no 73 -The project proponent has failed to create corpus of funds for implementation plan under social corporate and environmental responsibility of 2% of total project cost. This condition was to be fulfilled by the Project Proponent within 1 month of EC, failing which the EC was deemed to be cancelled. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 not only failed to cancel the original EC of the Project Proponent in spite of the above violation but also grated a new EC for expansion and modification. This clearly shows that the Respondent No. 2 & 3 are hand in gloves with the Project Proponent.

¶34

xxx ………………………………..xxx …………………………….xxx

¶35

(a) General Condition 29 - The Project Proponent failed to submit a detailed report showing how much power of institution can be provided through solar energy so that use and polluting effect of DG sets can be minimized. The Project Proponent also did not make provision of solar energy as an alternative source of energy with the illumination of common areas, street lighting, gardens.

¶36

(b) General Condition 35 - The Project Proponent failed to submit report on the energy conservation measures confirming energy conservation norms finalize by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE)to incorporate details about building materials and technology, R and U factors, etc.

¶37

(c) General Condition 46 - The Project Proponent failed to ensure that all street and park lighting area least 50% solar-powered.

¶38

(d) General Condition 47- The Project Proponent was under obligation to install solar water heater with a maximum possible capacity and additionally in spite of repeated requests to the Builder, no provision for centralized water heating system has been made as Residents at an individual level cannot install solar heaters as it requires a centralized facility, such as building rooftops.

¶39

xxx ………………………………..xxx …………………………….xxx

¶40

(a) General Condition 16 - The Project Proponent has failed to install Wind breaking walls and dust-prevention curtain sat the ongoing construction site which severely affects the air quality of the surrounding area.

¶41

(b) General Condition 23 - The project Proponent has installed fully impermeable pavements at various locations across the project area where the provision of interlocking tiles was there for environment protection as the said impermeable pavements do not permit the water to seep through and in turn stops groundwater

¶42

¶43

recharging and also do not allow suitable aeration and nutrition to the trees.

¶44

(c) General Condition 32 & 52 - The Project Proponent has illegally sold parking areas with no demarcation of appropriate guest parking and even the approved layout plan does not indicate designated parking areas for guests which in turn creates traffic congestion inside and outside the project area and also leads to air pollution which is in violation of the norms provided by the MoEF&CC and the building by laws.

¶45

(d) General Condition 39 - The Project Proponent has failed to follow the green belt norms across the plot boundary. A significant stretch of the project boundary is fully paved with concrete obstructing any possibility of developing a green belt in the future as well. This also compromises the air quality as well as allows noise levels to increase beyond the permissible attenuation factor(s). A copy of the photographic evidence showing violation of green belt norms is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure A-24.

¶46

(e) Specific Condition 1 & General Condition 55 - The Project Proponent has failed to provide detailed plans which was to be submitted within 1 month of the EC for safe disposal of STP sludge along with mention of ultimate disposal location, quantitative estimates and measured proposed.

¶47

(f) General Condition 61 - The Project Proponent has failed to construct roads in the project area with the use of suitably processed plastic waste.

¶48

(g) General Condition 63 - The Project Proponent has failed to give a plan about the safe disposal of biomedical waste arising out of a proposed dispensary at the project site.”

¶49

The applicant filed a representation dated 15.04.2021 to SEIAA, UP with copies thereof to MoEF&CC, State PCB and CGWA but no remedial action has been taken.

¶50

Procedural History – investigation of facts independent Committee

¶51

The matter was earlier considered on 13.08.2021. The Tribunal directed remedial action against violations. Two Committees were constituted – (i) a two-member committee comprising Additional Secretary, MoEF&CC, to be nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, CPCB to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, UP to find out how frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be

¶52

¶53

remedied and (ii) a joint Committee of MoEF&CC, CPCB, SEIAA, UP, State PCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad to verify the factual aspects with regard to the alleged violations by undertaking visit to the site interacting with stake holders including PP.

¶54

Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

¶55

“ 1to3…xxx……………………………xxx……………………………….xxx

¶56

4. We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. We have also considered the question whether in absence of an appeal against the EC, the issue raised in the application can be gone into. Learned Counsel submitted that if the Tribunal finds it appropriate, the application may be treated as an appeal against EC dated 04.03.2021 as appeal will be within extended limitation period in view of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, extending limitation during pandemic. He further submitted that in any case, action against violation of EC conditions is within the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, de hors the appellate jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that there is large scale violation in construction projects. The constructions start before EC, built up area is expanded, groundwater is illegally extracted, proper waste management and other safeguards are not provided, open spaces are not provided and third party rights are created. Inspite of such rampant violations, ex post facto EC is granted without adequate appraisal of mitigation measures. Reference has been made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI¹ , Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati² and Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare³ .

¶57

Reliance has been placed on order of this Tribunal dated 24.05.2021 in Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein this Tribunal noted rampant and continuous violation of environmental norms in completion of construction projects without valid ECs and the regulatory authorities failing to prevent such violations by requiring demolition or payment of compensation. This is not checked, rule of law cannot be upheld. Reliance has also been placed on order of this Tribunal dated 08.06.2021 in OA No. 13/2021 (WZ), Shashikant Vithal Kamble v. M/s. Key Stone Properties & Ors. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:

¶58

“2. The said order further directed disconnection of water and electricity connections of the building. Ignoring these developments, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Maharashtra issued Environmental Clearance (EC) on 24.01.2020 in violation of mandate of prior EC in terms of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and

¶59

1 (2018) 18 SCC 257

¶60

2 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347

¶61

3 (2020) 2 SCC 666

¶62

¶63

judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati⁴ , Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare⁵ , Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI⁶ and Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors.⁷

¶64

3. From the above, prima facie it appears that EC has been granted in violation of law and without any application of mind. This is not for the first time we have come across this situation. Such allegations are frequent. In Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. which was taken up for hearing on 24.05.2021, we directed SEIAA to review its working of mechanically granting Ex-post facto EC, in violation of law. The Tribunal also constituted an expert committee to look into the violations of that particular project and recommend remedial action. The observations therein are:

¶65

“ xxx…………………xxx…………………………………..xxx

¶66

3. It is submitted that the construction project is illegal being without the mandatory prior EC. Ex-post facto EC is not substitute for prior EC as evaluation of impact on environment cannot be fully gone into as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the same PP viz. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI⁸ . There are further judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the same effect in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati⁹ and Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare¹⁰ . If the construction project is without prior EC, the project has either to be demolished or if it is found that environmental damage can be restored, the project can be permitted on payment of assessed compensation on polluter pays principle which needs to be spent for restoration of the environment. The authorities have thus failed to follow the binding law.

¶67

4. Since we are coming across the grievance of continuous violation of environment norms in construction projects being completed without prior EC and the SEIAA, Maharashtra is neither requiring demolition nor payment of assessed compensation to comply with the rule of law and protection of environment, it will be appropriate to require the SEIAA, Maharashtra to review its working in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and violations frequently being alleged, including the present case. A proper SOP be laid down for grant of EC in such cases so as to

¶68

4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347

¶69

5 (2020) 2 SCC 666

¶70

6 (2018) 18 SCC 257

¶71

7 (2020 SCC OnLine SC 328

¶72

8 (2018) 18 SCC 257

¶73

9 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347

¶74

10 (2020) 2 SCC 666

¶75

¶76

address the gaps in binding law and practice being currently followed. The MoEF may also consider circulating such SOP to all SEIAAs in the country. In this regard, we may refer to the directions in the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 1.2.2021 in OA 837/2018, Sandeep Mittal vs. MoEF, wherein it was inter-alia, directed:

¶77

“ MoEF&CC may give due attention for proper constitution of SEIAAs in the States to ensure the projects of category ‘B’ and ‘B-1’ are properly scrutinized.”

¶78

The MoEF&CC may file its action taken report in the matter before the next date.

¶79

5. We also constitute a joint Committee of MoEF&CC, CPCB, and Maharashtra State PCB to look into the present matter and suggest a remedial action plan for the present case, including the quantum of compensation to be recovered, as far as possible within three months. The CPCB and State PCB will be nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Another connected matter between same parties for a different project being Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ) is also being dealt with by a separate order today and this direction will also apply to the said case. Infact, to avoid duplication if the SEIAA, Maharashtra itself reviews all such cases, to avoid unnecessary and repeated litigation. The Committee may conduct proceedings online but if possible, visit the site. The Committee may also interact with the concerned parties. The report of the joint Committee may be filed by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF b efore the next date. While submitting the report to this Tribunal, a copy of the report thereof be also forwarded to the PP and the applicant who may file their comments, if any, before the next date by e-mail.”

¶80

4. Since the allegations of this nature are frequently being made before this Tribunal and prima facie there appears to be fundamental flaw in working of the SEIAA in question, resulting in defeating the statutory mandate of prior EC and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct constitution of a two-member Committee comprising Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, Maharashtra to find out how such frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied . The Committee will be free to take assistance from any other expert/institution and interact with the stake-holders. This is necessary for protection of environment. If mechanically ex post facto ECs are granted by SEIAA, the purpose of requiring prior EC will be defeated. The

¶81

¶82

‘Precautionary’ and ‘Sustainable Development’ principles considered in the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be rendered nugatory. Precautions during the course of construction and compliance of conditions after constructions will be rendered difficult. EC is not a mechanical exercise. It may be after application of any mind and granted only after evaluation of impact and efficacy of mitigation measures proposed. Conditions imposed must be faithfully observed and monitored. If there is any violation, steps must be taken for restoration of damage at the cost of the project proponent. The persons manning SEIAA who have acted illegally need to be made accountable in civil and criminal law. It is further surprising in the present case that inspite of order of State PCB to disconnect water and electricity, it is not clear how the project is functioning. Present status of compliance of environment norms in the project and remedial action against noncompliances also needs to be ascertained.

¶83

5. Accordingly, apart from a Committee for the conduct of functional audit of functioning of SEIAA in the matter of grant of ECs, there is need to conduct audit of compliance of environmental requirements in the project in question by an independent Expert Committee. For this purpose, we constitute a four-member Expert Committee comprising nominees of MoEF&CC, CPCB, IIT Bombay and Member Secretary, State PCB. The Committee will be at liberty to take assistance from any other expert/institution. The CPCB and State PCB will be nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee may visit the site and conduct the proceedings online, wherever necessary and also interact with the stakeholders. The functional audit report as well as the Expert Committee report about status of compliance in the project may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF b efore the next date with an advance copy to the PP for its response, if any, before the next date. Copy of second report about status of compliance of the project may be furnished to the PP in advance for its comments, if any, before the next date. Copy of the first report about functional audit may be furnished to the MoEF&CC also for its response in terms of action taken before the next date.

¶84

6. The first Committee may also consider the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.05.2021 in Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. and Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. inter alia requiring SEIAA, Maharashtra to review its working in the light of Supreme Court judgements and frequent violations alleged in the grant of EC and also in the gaps in compliance of EC conditions. The second Committee may also coordinate and work in tandem with the joint Committee constituted in Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. and Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors.”

¶85

¶86

5. We are of the view that on the pattern of above orders passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ) and OA No. 13/2021 (WZ), apart from considering the remedial action against violations, two-member Committee comprising Additional Secretary, MoEF&CC, to be nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, CPCB need to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, UP to find out how frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied . The Committee will be free to take assistance from any other expert/institution and interact with the stake-holders. SEIAA, UP has to review its working in the light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of frequent and rampant violations. Considering the report, an appropriate SOP may to be laid down by the MoEF&CC to deal with such ECs which may be circulated to all SEIAAs.

¶87

6. Apart from above, remedial action appears to be necessary under Section 15 of the NGT Act after verification of factual position. Accordingly, we also constitute a joint Committee comprising of MoEF&CC, CPCB, SEIAA, UP, State PCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. CPCB and SEIAA , UP will jointly be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Joint Committee may give its report covering issues mentioned in para 2 above and availability of basic infrastructure facilities like sewerage and solid waste management. Meeting of the joint Committee may be held within 15 days from today to take stock of the situation. The joint Committee may visit the site and interact with the stakeholders including the PP to verify the status of compliance. Based on the facts found, the statutory authorities may take remedial action including stopping creation of third party rights and further construction activities, if the same are found to be in violation of law. Needless to say that if adverse action becomes necessary, the same may be taken by following prescribed procedure. The report of the joint Committee report may be furnished to this Tribunal within three months by e- mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF, and if the report is adverse to the PP, a copy thereof may be furnished to PP for its response, if any, before the next date. ”

¶88

Report of the Committee dated 27.1.2022 finding violations and Order of the Tribunal dated 4.2.2022 on consideration thereof

¶89

The matter was last considered on 04.02.2022 in the light of report of the joint Committee dated 27.01.2022, after undertaking visit to the site confirming the violations. The Tribunal noted that consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were granted before grant of EC and EC for expansion was granted overlooking the expansion work already

¶90

¶91

executed and in violation of conditions of original EC. The Tribunal observed that as per applicable procedure, violation cases were required to be appraised by MoEF&CC and not by SEIAA. The compensation suggested did not cover the pre-expansion period.

¶92

Thus, it was found that the recommendations of the joint Committee were required to be re-visited after ascertaining the consents with regard to disposal of waste, operation of DG sets, functioning of RWH systems and greenery. Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

¶93

¶94

7. The report confirms violations of the environmental norms and shows that regulatory authorities have not monitored the project activities. The PP has disregarded environmental laws. However, the Committee has also not mentioned about the existence of sewer line in the area and the mode of disposal of sewage, quantity of solid waste generated and disposed.

¶95

8. It is thus prima facie clear that the State PCB has issued consents under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 even before grant of EC. EC for expansion has been granted on 04.03.2021 overlooking the violations which are already undertaken, including expansion work. In such cases, as per the procedure laid down, violation case is required to be appraised by the MoEF&CC. The violations do not end with the procedural aspects. There violations of environmental norms have also been found. The Committee has not responded to all the violations alleged by the applicant noted in the earlier order. Recommendations for the compensation ignore the period of violations and only relate to the period post inspection. In respect of violation of ground water extraction, the violations have been taken only on the date of application to the CGWA. The joint Committee may need to revisit its recommendation accordingly. The Committee may also ascertain the mode of disposal of sewage and solid waste and compliance in operation of DG sets, functioning of RWH systems and maintenance of greenery. The environment compensation should be the liability of the PP and not the flat owners. PP is given opportunity to respond to these observations before this Tribunal as well as before the Committee within one month .

¶96

9. In view of prima facie violations of serious nature, mentioned herein above, we restrain the PP from creating any third-party rights till the next hearing . ”

¶97

¶98

The Tribunal also noted that the report about functional review of SEIAA, U.P has not been furnished which was required to be furnished.

¶99

Consideration of the matter today - Further Report of the Committee on factual aspects of violations dated 29.04.2022 and the report of the Committee about functional audit of SEIAA UP dated 02.05.2022

¶100

In pursuance of above, the joint Committee has filed its revised report dated 29.04.2022. MoEF&CC has filed its report on 02.05.2022 with regard to functional audit of SEIAA U.P. SEIAA, U.P has filed its reply on 20.04.2022. The Project Proponent (PP) has filed I.A No. 104/2022 for re-call of order dated 04.02.2022 and reply to the joint Committee report dated 27.01.2022. We will refer to the same at appropriate place in the order.

¶101

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record.

¶102

First question to be considered is the issue of violation of the environmental norms by the PP and remedial action required. Further question is also about the failure of the SEIAA, U.P to function as per the mandate as found in the report in respect of functional audit.

¶103

Consideration of issue of violations by the PP and the remedial action

¶104

With regard to the first question, we take up for consideration the joint inspection report dated 29.04.2022. The joint Committee comprised of the MoEF&CC, CPCB, State PCB, SEIAA, U.P and District Magistrate. There is no question raised about credibility of the Committee nor about contents of the report. The Committee has undertaken visit to the site after due notice to the PP as well as the applicant. It has also considered the documents furnished by the PP and the applicants. The status of EC

¶105

¶106

violations has been given in a tabular form. The violations include expansion of project without prior EC, violation of EC conditions such as inadequacy of the plantations, absence of safeguards in construction of basement, failure to utilize solar energy, absence of requisite parking, absence of safe disposal of STP sludge, non-functioning of STP, not providing the requisite funds in terms of the EC conditions for out of CSR, illegal extraction of ground water. The Committee recommended levying of environmental compensation for the violations including expanding the project without prior EC, apart from suggested compensation of Rs. 12.80 Crores approx. for violation of maintaining STP and Rs. 7.43 Crore approx. for illegal extraction of ground water. Relevant extracts from the report are:-

¶107

“3. Observations

¶108

On the basis of inspection of project “Saviour Park” conducted by Joint Committee on 23/09/2021 and going through the submissions made by the applicant and project proponent following observations are made:

¶109

a.. M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd has set-up. Saviour Park” at Plot No. 108, Katori Mill, Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.

¶110

b. As per the submitted documents by PPs, it has been reflected that PPs have obtained the CTE from UPPCB vide letter no. F08023/C-1/NOC/G-752/2012/6 dated 26.07.2012, before obtaining the Environmental Clearance dated 04.03.2013.

¶111

c. PPs have obtained the CTO from UPPCB for previous EC and existing CTO is valid till 31.07.2025. CTE for expansion project is rejected by UP PCB.

¶112

d. The documents submitted by the applicant indicate that, PP got the approval for the site plan from Ghaziabad Development Authority on 21.06.2011, followed by Prior Environmental Clearance from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2013 and Environmental Clearance for expansion from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2021.

¶113

e. The total project cost of project is 251 Crores after expansion as per EC dated 04.02.2021.

¶114

f. PP has informed that approximately 3044.5 Kg of solid waste would be generated per day.

¶115

¶116

g.. Approx 800 flats are occupied and 800 families are currently residing in project. Approximately.

¶117

h. Assuming four person in one family.

¶118

Current Sewage generation and Solid Waste generation are estimated as follows:

¶119

A. Assuming Consumption of 135 LPCD Approx. sewage generation is 1350.84*800 = 345.6 KLD

¶120

B. Approx Solid Waste Generation is 80040.5 = 1600 kg

¶121

i. Sewage is being discharged into municipal drain.

¶122

j. Project Proponent is supplying water to township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA.

¶123

k. Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.

¶124

Results of sample analysis obtained from pit of RWH is tabulated below:

¶125

pH	*COD*	*BOD*	_TSS _	*NH3 - N*	*PO4^3-- P*	TC	FC
*8.0*	*155*	17	72	09	*0.54*	*16 X 10*⁷	*35 X 10*⁶

¶126

l. The 400 KLD STP operated by M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd in apartment is not functioning properly

¶127

a. Media was not visible in aeration tank.

¶128

b. Filter press was found not in use.

¶129

c. The sample obtained from STP outlet is not complying the prescribed standards:

¶130

	_pH _	*COD*	*BOD*	*TSS*	*NH3 -*	*N PO4^3-- P*	TC	FC
Inlet	7.5	325	114	208	11	1.24	17 X 10¹¹	11 X 10¹¹
Outlet	7.3	251	49	73	23	0.87	17 X 106	17 X 106
Standards	-	250	30	100	-	-	-	-

¶131

m. During the site visit, entire basement area of the project was found affected with seepage and large number of cracks was visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides.

¶132

n. Violation of Environment Clearance Conditions: As per the available office record, the project was inspected by MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow on 30.05.2019 to review the status of stipulated EC conditions granted by SEIAA, U.P. on 04.03.2013. Subsequently, a letter of non-compliances

¶133

¶134

was sent to PPs vide letter no. VII/Env/SCLUP/510/2019/422 dated 13.08.2019. The certified compliance report indicating various non-complainces with detailed monitoring report was also sent to PPs with a copy to SEIAA, UP vide letter no. VII/Env/SCLUP/510/2019/423 dated 13.08.2019. However, no response has been received to IRO, Lucknow against the above mentioned letter. Additionally, PPs have obtained the Expansion EC from SEIAA, U.P. vide letter no. 788/Parya/SEAC/6057-5683/2019 dated 04.03.2021. Further, PAs are irregular in submitting the compliance report to MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow since 2019 onwards.

¶135

The detailed status of EC conditions violations, which was alleged by the applicant are given below as:

¶136

S. *No.*	*Environmental Clearance* *Conditions of previous EC*	*Observations of the Joint Committee*
		*Part A–General Condition*:
1	It shall be ensured that all standards related to ambient environmental quality and the emission/effluent standards as prescribed by the MoEF are strictly complied with.	Six monthly Compliance report not submitted by Project Proponent since 2019. STP outlet water is not complying the prescribed standards. Hazardous waste authorization was not obtained by Project Proponent
4	The proposed land use shall be in accordance to the prescribed land use. A land use certificate issued by the competent Authority shall be obtained in this regards.	Submitted by PP.
7	Surface hydrology and water regime of the project area within 10 km should be provided.	Project proponent has not been submitted surface hydrology report and water regime of project but informed that it is submitted before SEAC.
11	Obtain necessary clearance from the competent authority on the abstraction and use of ground water during the construction and operations phases.	Project Proponent has not provided copy of NOC from CGWA. There are approx. 03-04 no s. bore well inside premises .CGWA permissio n has not been obtained by project proponent.
12	Hazardous/inflammable/explosive materials likely to be stored during the construction and operations phases shall be as per standard procedure as prescribed under law, necessary clearances in this regards shall be obtained.	PAs has not obtained the authorization for Hazardous waste disposal from UPPCB.

¶137

¶138

15	The emissions and effluents etc. from machines, instruments and transport during construction and operations phases should be according to the prescribed standards. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.	DG set installed with acoustic enclosure. Additional DG set found installed without adequate stack height. PP should obtain CTO for all DG set installed in premises.
16	Water sprinklers and other dust control measures should be undertaken to take care of dust generated during the construction and operation phases. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.	Partially complied during visi
17	Suitable noise abatement measures shall be adopted during the construction and operation phases in order to ensure that the noise emissions do not violate the prescribed ambient noise standards. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.	No details provided by Project Proponent.
20	Hazardous/solid wastes generated during the construction and operations phases should be disposed off as prescribed under law. Necessary clearances in this regards shall be obtained.	Hazardous waste authorization was not obtained. Details not provided regarding disposal of STP sludge
23	Pavements shall be so constructed as to allow infiltration of surface run-off of rain water. Fully impermeable pavements shall not be constructed. Construction of pavements around trees shall be as per scientifically accepted principles in order to provide suitable watering, aeration and nutrition to the tree.	Not complied
24	The green building concept suggested by Indian Green Building Council, which is a part of CII- Godrej GBC, shall be studied and followed as far as possible	No details provided

¶139

¶140

29	Make suitable provision for using solar energy as alternative source of energy, solar energy application should be incorporated for illumination of common areas, lighting for gardens and street lighting in addition to provision for solar water heating. Present a detailed report showing how much percentage of backup power for institution can be provided through solar energy so that use and polluting effects of DG sets can be minimized.	During inspection, Joint Committee not found solar energy utilization.
31	Educate citizens and other stakeholders by putting up hoarding at different places to create environmental awareness.	Details not provided. Sufficient hoarding not visible during visit.
32	Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from the roads adjoining the proposed project site must be avoided. Parking should be fully internalized and no public space should be utilized.	No arrangement made for internal visitor parking causing traffic congestion near entry and exit point.
35	A report on the energy conservation measures confirming to energy conservation norms finalize by Bureau of Energy Efficiency should be prepared incorporating details about building materials and technology, R and U factors, etc.	Details not provided.
37	The DG sets to be used during construction phase should use low sulphur diesel type and should confirm to Environmental Protection Rules prescribed for air and noise emission standards.	DG Set with acoustic enclosure found. No information available w.r.t use of low Sulphur diesel.
38	Alternate technologies to chlorination (for disinfection of waste water) including methods like Ultraviolet radiation, Ozonation, etc. shall be examined and a report submitted with justification for selected technology.	PP has not submitted the STP adequacy report till date

¶141

¶142

39	The green belt design along the periphery of the plot shall achieve attenuation factor confirming to the day and night noise standards prescribed for residential land use. The open spaces inside the plot should be suitably landscaped and covered with vegetation of indigenous variety.	PP has submitted that about 419 nos. of plant species are planted within the premises. However, the plantation found during the site visit was inadequate around the project premises. PP is required to submit the details of the area covered for plantation and should also planted the plant species of thick canopy with long lives.
41	The building should be designed so as to take sufficient safeguards regarding seismic zone sensitivity	Seepage observed in basement during Joint committee inspection. An independent structure audit to be carried out by PP.
46	It shall be insured that all street and parks lighting is solar powered. 50% of the same may be provided with dual (solar/electrical) alternatives	No utilization of solar energy was found during joint committee inspection
47	Solar water heater shall be installed to the maximum possible capacity. Plans may be drawn up accordingly and submitted with justification	Arrangement/infrastructure for utilization of solar energy not found during joint committee inspection.
52	Parking areas should be in accordance with the norms of MoEF, Government of India. Plans may be drawn up accordingly and submitted.	Residents informed that visitor parking is not provided leading to traffic congestion at entry and exit point.

¶143

¶144

		Project Proponent has submitted following information : “ Environmental management plan has been drawn up and is being implemented with a capital cost of 159.0 lakhs and a recurring cost of Rs. 23.0 Lakhs in the following components.
	The environment management plan should also include the breakup costs on various activities and the	• Solid waste management. Capital Cost 10.0 Lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 Lakhs/year.
54	management issues also so that the residents also participate in the implementation of the environment management plan.	• Environmental monitoring. Capital cost 4.0 lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 lakhs/year. • Horticulture/green area. Capital cost 15.0 Lakhs. Recurring 3.0 lakhs/year. • Fire fighting.Capital cost 20.0 lakhs.Recurring cost Rs. 4.0 Lakhs/year. • Health safety and Energy. Capital cost15.0 Lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 lakhs/year. • Sewage Treatment plant.Capital cost95.0 lakhs. Recuring cost 10.0 lakhs/year.”
55	Detailed plans for safe disposal of STP sludge shall be provided along with ultimate disposal location, quantitative estimates and measures proposed.	No details provided by PP. Filter press found in unused condition
58	The DG sets shall be so installed so as to conform to prescribed stack heights and regulations and also to the noise standards as prescribed. Details should be submitted.	Additional DG set found installed without adequate stack height. PP should obtain CTO for all DG sets installed in premises.
61	The use of suitably processed plastic waste in the construction of roads should be considered.	Not complied.
63	^{Dispensary for first aid shall be} provided.	No details provided by Project Proponent.
66	Ground water downstream of rain water harvesting pit nearest to STP should be monitored for bacterial contamination. Necessary hand pumps should be provided for sampling. The monitoring is to be done both in pre and post monsoon season	No information provided. Contamination found in sample obtained from RWH pit.

¶145

¶146

Project proponent shall endeavor to
obtain ISO: 14001 certification. All
general and specific conditions
mentioned under this environmental
72 Not complied.
clearance should be included in the
environmental manual to be
prepared for the certification
purposes and compliance.
2% of total project cost should be
reserved to create a corpus of funds
for implementing plan under social
Not complied. No documentary evidence
corporate and environmental
submitted for compliance of condition. PP
73 responsibility and proposals
has only informed that they have reserved
submitted within a month of
funds .
issuance of environmental clearance.
Failing which the environmental
clearance deemed to be cancelled.
Specific Conditions Observation of Joint Committee
The project proponent shall be
responsible for
Sewage Treatment Plant is not functioning
management/disposal of
properly and is not treating and reusing
sewage/sewage sludge till
grey water as per EC conditions. No
1 necessary arrangements are
information provided related to Sludge
provided by the Ghaziabad
disposal and filter press was found in
Development Authority. Necessary
unused condition
plan in this regards may be
submitted within a month.

¶147

Assessment of environment compensation for the damage to the environment

¶148

In compliance to the directions of Hon’ble NGT, Joint committee has carried out assessment to calculate lump sum Environmental Compensation as per approved formula. Details of Environment compensation imposed are given below:

¶149

4.1 Environmental Compensation for Non complying STPs.

¶150

 Name of Unit : M/s SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. Violation is assumed from Date of Partial Completion certificate, as STP is not complying the prescribed standards and unused filter press indicate violation from long duration.

¶151

PP has obtained first Partial Completion certificate on 04/07/2015 and STP was found non complying during visit on 23/09/2021. So Lump Sum Environmental Compensation is calculated for 2274 days’ violation .

¶152

The Environment Compensation is calculated based on the following formula

¶153

¶154

Environmental Compensation = P.I x N x R x S x LF

¶155

Where, EC = Environmental Compensation

¶156

P. I = Pollution Index of Industrial sector = 100 for Red Category

¶157

N = No of days of Violation = 2274 days approximate (Period from 04/07/2015 to 23/09/2021)

¶158

R = Factor in rupees = 250, Category of the Unit: RED

¶159

S = Factor for scale of operation = Scale of the Unit: Large, 1.5 for Large

¶160

L.F = location Factor = 1.5 for Ghaziabad and nearby area,

¶161

¶162

Environmental Compensation = 100x 2274 x 250 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 12,79,12,500 Rupees. On the basis of above calculations Environmental Compensation of Rupees 12,79,12,500 /-Tweleve Crore Seventy Nine Lakh, Twelve thousand, Five hundred only.) is to be levied on M/s SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

¶163

4.2 Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water

¶164

Assuming violation from date of application in 2010 to CGWA to date of inspection 23.09.2021 for 03 nos. of bore wells), as no other details are available. EC may be increased, till PP obtain approval for bore wells and if additional bore wells found by CGWA/Local authority.

¶165

ECGW = Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGW)

¶166

Pump Yield = 18 m³ /hr . (From CGWA application)

¶167

Daily Consumption = 18 x 7 = 126 m³ (From CGWA application)

¶168

ECRGW = 45 Rs./m³ (Ghaziabad in over exploitation region)

¶169

EC to be levied = 45 x 126 = 5670 Rs./day

¶170

Total time period = 4368 days Then, ECGW = 5670 x 4368 = 24,766,560

¶171

Calculated ECGW = 24,766,560 Rs. For one bore well.

¶172

Total EC for three bore well = 24,766,560 * 3 =7,42,99,680 = Rs Seven Crore, Fourty Two Lakhs Ninty Nine thousand, Six hundred Eighty Only.

¶173

Conclusion

¶174

1. Applicant claimed, that expansion was initiated before obtaining the Environmental Clearance for expansion from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2021 on the basis of copy of Progress report submitted by the builder to RERA available on portal of UP RERA. CPCB vide letter dated 08/11/2021 has sought details of progress report submitted by Project proponent from UP RERA to verify the allegations and data is received from UP RERA. Based on data received from UP RERA and Project Proponent it is

¶175

¶176

observed that PP has Prima Facie started constructed for expansion project before obtaining EC.

¶177

2. Project proponent is extracting Ground Water without permission

¶178

3. Project Proponent has not obtained Hazardous waste authorization

¶179

4. Project proponent is not operating STP as per consent conditions.

¶180

5. Project Proponent is not managing solid waste as per EC conditions.

¶181

6. Seepage was observed in basement, which may have affected structural stability of the project. An expert should be engage by Project Proponent to assess structural safety.

¶182

7. Parking facility for visitors not allocated and it causes traffic congestions at outside of society.

¶183

6.0 Joint Committee’s Recommendations

¶184

Following recommendations have been made by the Joint Committee Members:

¶185

i. Project Proponent has prima facie violated Environmental Clearance conditions and has started constructed for expansion project before obtaining EC . Hon’ble NGT may include UP RERA in Joint Committee for further investigation. Hon’ble NGT may impose additional Environmental Compensation as per direction of Hon’ble NGT in 661/2018, 764/2018 and Goel Ganga Developers Vs UOI ).

¶186

ii. With regard to violation of STP functioning, M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. shall deposit compensation of Rs 12,79,12,500 (Twelve Crore Seventy Nine Lakh, Twelve thousand Five hundred only.(If assuming violation from date of first Partial Completion certificate date 04/07/2015 to date of inspection on 23/09/2021. Environmental Compensation is calculated for 2274 days’ violation).

¶187

iii. With regard to withdrawal of ground water, M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. shall deposit compensation amount of R s. Seven Crore Fourty Two Lakh Ninty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Only (7,42,99,680) only (Assuming violation from date of application in 2010 to CGWA to date of inspection 23.09.2021 for 03 nos. of bore wells), as no other details are available.EC may be increased if additional borewell found by CGWA/Local authority.

¶188

iv. M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd shall engage third party expert for determining structural stability and taking corrective actions.

¶189

¶190

v. Project Proponent to comply with all EC conditions and seek approval from CGWA for use of bore well.

¶191

vi. Project Proponent to comply with provision of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and EC conditions for Solid Waste Management and to ensure proper collection, segregation, and treatment of biodegradable waste in compost as per EC conditions.

¶192

vii. Project Proponent to allot parking for visitors as per norms of MoEF&CC to avoid traffic congestion outside society.

¶193

viii. Project Proponent to obtain authorization for Hazardous waste and remove additional gensets (not included in consent and installed in society without adequate stack height).

¶194

ix. The grey water should be treated- up to tertiary level in decentralized STP and treated water should be reused as per Environment Clearance conditions.

¶195

x. PPs should comply and submitted the compliance status report to MoEF&CC IRO, Lucknow for the stipulated conditions of EC granted by SEIAA, UP for Saviour Park on 04.03.2013 and its expansion project on 04.03.2021 on regular basis.

¶196

The Hon’ble Tribunal may issue appropriate directions as it deems fit, which the Committee is bound to comply with.”

¶197

The stand of the PP does not dispute that there are violations as found. However, PP has stated that it has taken certain steps in the matter as follows:-

¶198

“

¶199

(i) Non Submission of Surface Hydrology Report and Water Regime:

¶200

In terms of the EC, the Project Proponent, vide letter, dated 27.07.2019 submitted the land use certificate, surface hydrology report and water regime report with Dr. Susheel Kumar, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. This letter has been duly acknowledged and stamped by the Ministry. Therefore, there is no violation with respect to submission of the above mentioned Reports.

¶201

True Copy of letter dated 27.07.2019 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-2 .

¶202

¶203

(ii) Non use of alternate technology for disposal of solid waste:

¶204

The Project Proponent has been using two methods for disposal of solid waste-

¶205

(a) Solid waste disposed of through STP; &

¶206

(b) Solid waste being disposed of through an Organic Waste

¶207

Convertor (OWC). The Project Proponent has been using the present Organic Waste Convertor since December 2021.

¶208

Apart from the above mentioned technologies used, the Project Proponent has also executed Work Order, dated 14.12.2021, wherein the Project Proponent has engaged a vendor for single point collection, secondary segregation and disposal of all solid wastes generated including installing, operating and maintaining Organic Waste Composting Machine for the project. Hence, the answering Respondent is using alternate technology for disposal of solid waste. Photograph of the Organic Waste Convertor is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-3 .

¶209

True Copy of the Work Order, dated 14.12.2021 is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-4 .

¶210

(iii) Non use of recycled water and water from local municipal authority and exploiting groundwater for construction and operational purpose:

¶211

Firstly, the Project Proponent since November 2015 till February 2018 have been using treated water from STP for construction purpose. Thereafter, the answering Respondent installed a STP at the Project premises. It is submitted that the Project Proponent uses the treated water from STP in its premise for construction activities. True Copy of the invoices for STP water utilized by Respondent No.10 from November 2015 to February 2018 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-5 (Colly).

¶212

Secondly, insofar as the groundwater is concerned, it is extracted from borewells. It is pertinent to point out here that the only requirement under the EC for extraction and use of ground water was that the answering Respondent had to obtain clearance from the competent Authority.

¶213

On 04.08.2018, the answering Respondent had applied for NOCs to extract water from bore wells with the CGWA. However, the same was rejected on 16.12.2020 by the CGWA on the ground that Uttar Pradesh Government has its own regulations for groundwater and directed the answering Respondent to apply for NOCs from the Ground Water

¶214

¶215

Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 03.09.2021, the answering Respondent submitted applications with the Ground Water Department, Government Of U.P. for permission to extract water from 3 borewells. On 05.01.2022, NOC was issued by the Ground Water Department for 2 borewells. The answering Respondent expects that the NOC for the remaining borewell will be issued shortly. In this manner, the answering Respondent has adhered to the terms of the EC. Furthermore, the groundwater is not used for construction purpose and only for domestic use by the residents of the Project.

¶216

(iv) The Sewage Treatment Plant is not functioning properly and is not treating and reusing grey water. Analytical Results of water samples collected from STP and RWH pit indicate that most of the parameters are exceeding the limit. Mixing of sewage effluent into the storm water drain cannot be ruled out:

¶217

As on date, the Sewage Treatment Plant is fully functional. It is submitted that the Project Proponent recycles and uses water from the STP for horticulture and construction activities. Further, the answering Respondent is ready if the samples are collected from STP and RWH pit and tested.

¶218

(v) No information provided for sludge disposal and filter press was found in unused condition:

¶219

On 13.08.2019, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Central Region) (“ MOEFC ”) sent a Compliance Report to Member Secretary, SEAC, Directorate of Environment for the project developed by answering Respondent. Perusal of Serial No.55 of the Compliance Report makes it evident that the detailed plans for the disposal of STP sludge have been complied with. The tertiary level treated domestic waste-water by STP is used for flushing, gardening and water sprinkling and compost used as manure for horticulture at site.

¶220

True Copy of the Compliance Report of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Central Region) are marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-6 .

¶221

(vi) Maintenance of 3 RWH structures were in poor condition. All RWHs were choked and analytical results of water samples collected from RWH pit indicate presence of sewage in RWH pit:

¶222

It is submitted that there are 6 Rainwater Harvesting systems in the project. The Rain Water Harvesting systems are in compliance with the designs as provided by the Groundwater Department. The Compliance Report of MOEFC (marked

¶223

¶224

Annexure R-6) at Serial 14 states that the answering Respondent has complied with the design.

¶225

Further, it is submitted that the Project Proponent regularly monitors the conditions of the Rain Water Harvesting pit. The Rainwater Harvesting Pit is cleaned in the pre monsoon period and after every rain and storm. The answering Respondent is ready for inspection of the RWH pit. However, it is pertinent to point out that a storm line drain which connects to the RWH is there in every balcony. The balconies are not meant to be used for washing clothes or to discharge domestic waste. However, the residents of the Project have connected their washing machines to the balcony and the discharge from the washing machine and other domestic discharges are released into the storm line drain. This may lead to mixing of rain water with domestic effluents. While the Project Proponent regularly and repeatedly advices the residents against such practices, it may be noted that these are manifestations of existing behavioral patterns of society. Any change in such patterns requires regular counseling and time for change. While the Project Proponent continues to work with the residents, it expects that over time these changes will happen.

¶226

(vii) Project Proponent has failed to construct roads in project area with the use of suitably processed processed plastic waste:

¶227

It is submitted that while one of the terms of the EC is that suitably processed plastic waste in the construction of roads should be considered. However, the internal roads have been constructed as per the Fire Departments norms, taking into account the movement of fire tenders and the requirement of R.C.C. roads designed for a particular pressure (usually, in excess of 60 tonnes per square meter). It is submitted the Project Proponent would have violated norms of Fire Safety had it constructed roads with use of suitably processed plastic waste. Further, the language of the term is directory and not mandatory.

¶228

(viii) Spent / Used oil from DG set is the hazardous material generated at the site. Project Proponent has not obtained hazardous waste disposal authorization:

¶229

The Project Proponent is a member of Sheetla Waste Management Project (hereinafter referred as “ SWMP ”), which is an organization the answering Respondent has engaged for the disposal of hazardous and biomedical waste. By virtue of the membership to SWMP, the Project Management has a tie up, dated 18.11.2021 with the SWMP for safe disposal of hazardous and bio medical waste. True Copy of the duly signed form, dated 18.11.2021 for engagement of Sheetla Waste Management Project for disposal of hazardous waste is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-7 .

¶230

¶231

(ix) Project Proponent has not provided designated visitors parking and instead is allowing visitors parking on common road which is generating traffic congestion near entry and exit point:

¶232

It is submitted that parking areas have been provided in the project in terms of the EC. The Compliance Report of MOEFC (Annexure R-6) records compliance of the same in Serial 32 and 52. It is respectfully submitted that the parking facility has been provided as per the sanction lay out plan in accordance with the norms of MOEF.

¶233

(x) Project Proponent is not utilizing solar energy for street and park lighting. No source of renewable energy has been observed at project site:

¶234

On 17.01.2022, the Project Proponent has installed solar panels generating 40 KW of solar power. The solar power generated from the panels is supplied to the main electricity grid connection of the project. It is submitted that the street and park lighting requires around 25KW of power. The Project Proponent also uses CFL based lighting in the common areas in order to reduce the consumption of power by 20%.

¶235

True Copy of the work completion and handing over certificate, dated 17.01.2022 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-8.

¶236

(xi) Project Proponent has not submitted report on the energy conservation:

¶237

It is submitted that the Project Proponent, as recorded in Serial 35 of the Compliance Report of MOEFC (Annexure R-6), has undertaken to provide the report on energy conservation after the completion of the project. It is submitted that the energy conservation report can only be accurate once the said Project is completely constructed. The answering Respondent undertakes to submit the Report on completion of the project.

¶238

(xii) Project Proponent has installed additional Gensets, which are not of adequate stack height:

¶239

On the date of the inspection the said Gensets were only being tested and were not fully operational. The Gen sets installed at present are fixed at an adequate height.

¶240

Photographs of the gen set are marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-9 .

¶241

(xiii) Project Proponent has not provided details regarding Environment Management plan and Cost of environmental activities:

¶242

¶243

The Project Proponent in its Environmental Impact Assessment Report that was submitted to the SEAC, has provided for certain CSR activities from page 202 onwards of the document. The Project Proponent undertook to provide creche facilities for the construction workers and also undertook to facilitate Corporate Environment Responsibility. The Project Proponent further undertook to plant trees along the main road and median. The Project Proponent has undertaken to spend Rs.213 Lakh till the completion of the project in CSR and CER activities. The answering Respondent undertakes to provide Environment Management Plan and Cost of Environmental Activities as per the directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

¶244

(xiv) Project Proponent has not provided details / copy of agreement with recycler to handle / dispose hazardous waste (waste oil from DG sets) and STP sludge, plastic waste, e-waste and biomedical waste etc., generated at project site:

¶245

The alleged violation observed in this Para has been dealt with by the answering Respondent in the previous Paras. The contents of Para 7 (v) and 7 (viii) above may be read as part and parcel of the present para as the same is not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

¶246

(xv) Project Proponent has not provided copy of NOC from CGWA:

¶247

(xvi) On 04.08.2018, the answering Respondent had applied for NOCs to extract water from bore wells with the CGWA. However, the same was rejected by the CGWA on the ground that Uttar Pradesh Government has its own regulations for groundwater. Accordingly, the Project Proponent was directed to apply for NOCs from the Ground Water Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 03.09.2021, the answering Respondent, in terms of the EC, submitted applications with the Ground Water Department, Government Of U.P. for permission to extract water from 3 borewells. On 05.01.2022, NOC bearing No. REG013555 and REG048660 were issued by the Ground Water Department for 2 borewells. The answering Respondent expects that the NOC for the remaining borewell will be issued shortly. In this manner, the answering Respondent has adhered to the terms of the EC. Furthermore, the groundwater is not used for construction purposes and only for domestic use by the residents of the Project.

¶248

(xvii) True Copy of NOCs bearing No. REG013555 and REG048660 issued by the Ministry of Ground Water, Government of Uttar Pradesh are marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-10 (Colly.).

¶249

(xviii) 9. Apart from the above, the answering Respondent has obtained Structural Stability Certificate, dated 05.02.2012, issued by Prof V.K. Gupta from IIT Roorkee. It is submitted that the Project Proponent could not have got the Completion Certificate without the structural stability certificate. ”

¶250

¶251

From the above, it is seen that there is no dispute about violations of prior EC which is mandatory. Also, there is no dispute regarding malfunctioning of the STP earlier. Though, about the ground water issue, it is claimed that permission has been granted for extraction on 05.01.2022, the past violations remain undisputed. The permission granted is for two bore-wells while three have been functioning. Moreover, bore-wells are allowed only for drinking purposes and not for commercial/construction purposes. The PP has also filed I.A No. 102/2022 for re-call of order dated 04.02.2022 restraining it from creating third party rights.

¶252

Finding and Directions

¶253

In view of violations of serious nature found by the joint Committee noted above and only stand of PP being subsequent partial compliance which is yet to be verified by the statutory regulators, the PP is held to have violated the requirement of prior EC as well as conditions of EC. The report of the joint Committee is accepted. Compensation assessed for violating STP norms and illegal ground water extraction is approved. Recommedations for further remedial action be carried by the PP and overseen by the statutory regulators as per law. Apart from liability for being prosecuted as per the provisions of the EP Act, 1986 and to pay compensation determined by the Committee which we have approved, the PP is held liable to pay further compensation for violating requirement of prior EC and CTE on the principles laid down inter-alia in MC Mehta, (1987) 1 SCC 395, Sterlite (2013) 4 SCC 575 and Goel Ganga (2018) 18 SCC 257. Having regard to the nature and extent of violations and project cost, the compensation is determined at Rs. 40 Crores, taking the project cost at Rs.800 crore. The precise cost of the project is not on record

¶254

¶255

but cost of expansion is mentioned in EC to be Rs. 250 crore. We take the total cost at Rs.800 having regard to the size of the total project (850 flats already constructed) as shown by the report of the MoEF&CC filed on 02.05.2022, as follows:

¶256

¶257

1. Unit has obtained CTE for existing project (Total Built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 26/07/2012.

¶258

2. RO, Ghaziabad, UPPCB reported that unit has obtained CTO for existing project (Total 850 flats against 980 flats, built up area 1,55,000sam) vide letter dated 17/09/2020. During inspection for CTOon 26/07/2020, a total of 850 flats were observed as constructed, which is less than as permitted in CTE. No violation was noticed during inspection.”

¶259

The entire amount of compensation be deposited with the State PCB within two months. In case, deposit is not made, it will be open to the statutory authorities to take coercive measures including, black listing of the PP, attaching and selling its property in accordance with law. The PP will not be allowed to create any further third party right till compliance of all the recommendations, verified by authorities and till payment of compensation, which burden will not be passed on those who have already purchased the flats assuming the project to be compliant. We further notice that the built up area of the project is 1550000 sq.m i.e. more than 1,50,000 sq.m, requiring the project to be appraised as category ‘B1’ project in terms of Entry 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. If the project has been appraised only as ‘B’ project, the same is violation of norms and atleast ex post facto appraisal may be made taking the project as BI, if not already done on that basis. The PP may ensure compliance with all the deficiencies found in the report within three months

¶260

¶261

failing which, the statutory regulators will be at liberty to levy further

¶262

compensation and take further coercive measures.

¶263

It is seen from the analysis reports of samples collected from RWH and STP that there are high FCs in breach of laid down parameters. Further, sewage is entering into drain and there is no sewerage system. It is possible that such conditions exist in other residential and commercial complexes also. Thus, SPCBs need to carefully grant CTE and CTO, laying down the mode of disposal in the light of draft notification of MoEF&CC dated 25.2.2022.

¶264

Report about functional audit

¶265

We now consider the report of the Committee on functional audit of SEIAA, U.P reproduced as under:-

¶266

“Chapter 7

¶267

Functional Audit of SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh

¶268

Data and Information were received from SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh in parts vide E-mails as follows:

¶269

Email dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure-7)

¶270

E-mail dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure-10) and in continuation

¶271

further vide dated 03.02.2022

¶272

E-mail dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure-26)

¶273

The information and data have been analysed and the details and observations are as follows:

¶274

7.1 Existing Mechanism for grant of EC within SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh

¶275

7.1.1 Application format

¶276

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that the Application Format is the same as prescribed in EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).

¶277

7.1.2 Type of Format for Consolidated Statement

¶278

¶279

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that the Application Formats are as per the categories prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).

¶280

7.1.3 Procedure of processing of application

¶281

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that procedure as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) is followed for processing of application.

¶282

7.1.4 Involvement of SPCB, Local Bodies, Town and Country Planning Department

¶283

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that interaction with other enforcement agencies including SPCB, Local Bodies, Town & Country Planning Dept takes place during the appraisal of project. Many a times, it becomes necessary to coordinate with concerned department to verify the factual status of the project. Also, in many cases, litigation against the project is filed in the Hon’ble Court(s) by the social community or by the project proponent itself making the concerned departments as the pro-forma party or may be impleaded as the case may be. Ground status of the project in question is required to be answered in compliance of the Hon’ble Court(s) orders. Hence, other enforcement agencies are coordinated including SPCB, Local Bodies, Town & Country Planning Dept. etc.

¶284

7.1.5 Stepwise flowchart and time-lines for issue of Environment Clearance by SEIAA and institutional mechanism for coordination with SPCB, Municipal Bodies, Town Planning and other designated bodies involved in sanctioning building construction projects at local level.

¶285

It is stated by SEIAA that the process adopted is as per EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended thereof).

¶286

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶287

7.1.6 Procedure of sanction of plan by Town and Country Planning. Does the approval process for Building Construction by the Town Planning Department / Municipal Bodies also includes examining whether EC has been granted? Whether there is any requirement of CTE / CTO before sanctioning or issuing of Occupancy certificate by concerned Agencies/ Authorities?

¶288

It is stated by SEIAA that the matter is related to Housing and Urban Planning Department UP.

¶289

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶290

7.1.7 Necessary Clearances/ NOCs/ Licences etc. required for processing application

¶291

¶292

SEIAA, UP submitted that, Clearances/ NOCs/ Licences etc. are required as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).

¶293

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶294

7.1.8 Coordination /Information Exchange between SEIAA and Local Authorities – Sharing of Environment Clearance Document issued by SEIAA or CTE/CTO issued by SPCB with the Town Planning/ Municipal Bodies or any other designated body responsible for approving the building plan

¶295

It is stated by SEIAA that EC letter issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project. The copy of the same with enclosure for Information and necessary action are issued to:

¶296

Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, JorBagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi.

¶297

Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, SectorH, Aliganj, Lucknow.

¶298

District Magistrate (Concerned District).

¶299

The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, Paryavaran Bhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar,Lucknow.

¶300

7.1.9 Prescribed timelines - Max and Min.for issuing of Environmental Clearance

¶301

Timeline is as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof)

¶302

The Committee felt that the SEIAA has not been able to provide the complete information as desired.

¶303

7.1.10 Specific Methodology for Building Projects SEIAA, UP submitted that, Methodology for Building Projects is as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof)

¶304

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶305

7.1.11 Mechanism for Compliance Monitoring

¶306

It is submitted by SEIAA that the mechanism for compliance monitoring has been well defined in the office order issued vide file no. J-11013/10/2009-IA.I dated 30/09/2009 wherein it has been mentioned that:

¶307

¶308

“The Monitoring Cell in IA Division is the nodal point for monitoring and compliance of the stipulated conditions imposed on the industrial units/infrastructural projects including CRZ, while granting Environmental Clearance (EC). A copy of the EC is endorsed to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC for monitoring the compliance of the stipulated conditions, besides to the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).”

¶309

For the aforesaid purpose, after the grant of EC, letter is issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project and the copy of the same together with enclosure are endorsed to the following for information and necessary action:

¶310

Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests& Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi

¶311

Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment& Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, SectorH, Aliganj, Lucknow

¶312

District Magistrate, (Concerned District)

¶313

The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, Paryavaran Bhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

¶314

And more specifically, SEIAA/SEAC, appraises the violation category cases as per the EIA Notification dated14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) read along with notification dated 14/03/2017 and 08/03/2018. The SEIAA/SEAC, stipulates the implementation of Environmental Management Plan, comprising remediation plan and naturaland community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation as a condition of environmental clearance. The conditions stipulates that:

¶315

The project proponent is asked to submit bank guarantee of Rs. (The sum levied) equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan within 15 days to the SPCB.

¶316

The Committee felt that SEIAA needs to expedite the action in this regard.

¶317

7.1.12 Imposition of Environmental Compensation

¶318

It is stated by SEIAA that, as per CPCB guidelines, compensation is imposed by State Pollution Control Board.

¶319

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶320

¶321

7.1.13 What is the Checklist? Standardized TOR? Is it same for all types of projects or project-wise varies?

¶322

It is submitted by SEIAA that, for different categories, Standard ToRs have been prescribed by MoEF&CC. SEAC/SEIAA follows the same. However, in some cases wherein, additional environmental information regarding the project is required which are not covered in the standard ToR’s in that case additional ToR is suggested to be carried out during the study for EIA of the project

¶323

7.2(i) Why are construction projects of the State not following provisions of EIA Notification, 2006?

¶324

It is stated by SEIAA, UP that, every project has to follow EIA Notification, 2006.

¶325

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶326

(ii) Do other Enforcement agencies take cognizance of requirement of prior EC or EC conditions?

¶327

It is informed that, the concerned Regional Office of the Ministry/SPCB takes cognizance of requirement of prior EC or EC conditions.

¶328

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

¶329

(iii) Why are such frequent blatant violations taking place and how can the situation be remedied?

¶330

SEIAA, UP has expressed disagreement with the above statement. They have submitted that, SEIAA/SEAC processes more than 700 cases/year and violation have been observed only in 2-3 cases/year which cannot be considered as frequent blatant violations.IT has also been stated that SEIAA is facing shortage of manpower. The situation can be improved only by providing adequate resources to SEIAA. SEIAA/SEAC are the bodies constituted by Govt. of India therefore Govt. of India should take responsibility of providing sufficient resources to discharge their responsibilities in a more efficient and transparent manner which is an incorrect statement considering that the expenses of SEIAA is to be borne by the State government / State Pollution Control Board which has sufficient resources for providing adequate manpower.

¶331

7.3 Analysis of Violation Cases received by SEIAA during Window Period

¶332

Some information has been received from SEIAA, UP in different phases (Annexure 26A, 26B& 26C). Same have been analyzed as follows:

¶333

¶334

Table 7.3.1 (a): List of Cases received during window Period i.e. from 14.03.2017 to 13.09.2017 and from 14.03.2018 to 13.04.2018.

¶335

S. N. *Project* *Title*	*Sector*	*Date* of *Applicatio* *n for EC*	*Committe* *e Meeting* *Date*	*Committee* *Decision*	*Reply* *Received* *against* *query* *raised by* *SEAC*	*Authority* *Meeting* *Date*	*Authority* *Decision*	*Reply* *Received* *against* *query* *raised*	*Categor* *y of* *Violatio* n *Whethe* r *Expansi* on */New*	*Final* *status/Dat* *e of Grant* *of EC*
1	2	3	4	5	6	4	8	9	10	14
1. Construction of Proposed Group Housing and Staff Quarters at U PSRTC Campus, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.	8(a) Building Constructi on	22/03/201 8	2/5/2018 21/08/201 8	Information asked from PP Recommende d for EC	30/07/201 8	16/05/20 8 31/08/20 18	Agreed with SEAC Grant	…	New	EC Issued on 14/09/208
2. Proposed Group Ho using Project "KW Srishti" at Khasra	8(b) Building Constructi on	15/01 /2019	19/02 /2019	Recommende d for EC	…………… .	03/07/20 19	Grant	……..	Expansi on	EC Issued on 08/04/201 9

¶336

¶337

No.- 1125/1, 1125/2 &1125/3,Village- Noor Nagar, Pargana- Loni, Raj Nagar Extension,District- Ghaziabad,U.P.,M/s Dingle Buildcons Pvt. Ltd.
3. Proposed Group Housing Project at Plot No.- 139, Block- H, Scheme- 1, Fazalganj, Kanpur, U.P.,M/s Tapasya Projects Ltd.	Building Constructi on EC (T OR) Application Received dated 12/04/201 8	……..	…….. …….. …….. …….. ……..	New ToR's Granted vide letter dated 09/03/201 9 but EC Application Not Received
4. Residential Complex "Gulmohar Residency" at Khasra No.-527/1, 519, Village- Kanawani, District- Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s SVP Builders (I) Ltd.	Building Constructi on 21/06/201 9	……..	…….. …….. …….. …….. ……..	New Delisted due to non - submission of reply by PP/Absent

¶338

¶339

5. Proposed Group Ho using Project "Platinum Premier" at Khasra No.- 304,294, 295& 296 of Village- Pehladgarhi&Khasra No.-194 of Village- Makanpur Sector- 9, Vaishali Ext., District- Ghaziabad, U.P.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/04/201 8	……..	……..	…….. ……..	…….. ……..	New	Delisted due to non- submission of reply
6. Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH-05, Sector -10, Greater Noida,District GautamBudhaNagar U.P.,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(a) Building Constructi on	28/11/201 9	19/12/201 9	Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 1038/2018 Recommende d for EC	01/06/202 0 1/2/2020 26/02/202 0 01/07/202 0 21/09/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Grant Discussed the P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020 and directed that the matter shall be referred to MoEF&CC Directed to take further Action as per decision taken in SEIAA	New	EC Issued on 25/11/202 0

¶340

¶341

						meeting dated 26/02/2020
7. Affordable Housing Project located at Village- GohodiBacheda, Sector Mu II, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P.,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(b) Building Constructi on	27/11/201 9 19/12/201 9 16/01/202 0	Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 1038/2018 Recommende d for EC	01/06/202 0	1/2/2020 26/02/202 0 20/08/202 0 15/10/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Information from PP Information not satisfactory Grant	13/07/202 0 30/09/202 0	New	EC Issued on 15/12/202 0
8. Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH-03A, Omicron, Greater Noida, Di strict- Gautam BudhaNagar,U.P.,M/ s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(a) Building Constructi on	29/11/201 9 19/12/201 9 16/01/202 0	Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 1038/20 18Recommen d for EC	01/06/202 0	1/2/2020 26/02/202 0 01/07/202 0 21/09/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Grant Discussed the P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020 and directed that the matter shall be referred to MoEF&CC Directed to take further action		New	EC Issued on 25/11/202 0

¶342

¶343

							as per decision taken in SEIAA meeting dated 26/02/2020
9. Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No. -GH-02,Omicron 1A, Greater Noida, District- GautamBudhaNagar ,U.P.,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(a) Building Constructi on	28/11/201 9	19/12/201 9 16/01/202 0	Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 108/20 18 Recommende d for EC	01/06/202 0	1/2/2020 26/02/202 0 01/07/202 0 21/09/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Grant Discussed the P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020 and directed that the matter shall be referred to MoEF&CC Directed to take further action as per decision taken in SEIAA meeting dated 26/02/2020	New	EC Iss ued o n 25/ 11/20 20
10 Affordable Housing Project located at	8(a)	27/11/201 9	19/12/201 9	Defer in view	01/06/202 0	1/2/2020 26/02/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Grant	New	EC Issued on

¶344

¶345

Plot No.-L & M, Sector- 12 , Greater Noida, Di strict- Gautam BudhaNagar, U.P., M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	Building Constructi on		16/01/202 0	of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No. 1038/2018 Recommende d for EC	01/07/202 0 24/09/202 0	Discussed the P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020 and directed that the matter shall be referred to MoEF&CC Directed to take further action as per decision taken in SEIAA meeting dated 26/02/2020		25/11/202 0
11 Environmental Clearance for the Ansal Town Project located at Village - Jatoli, Meerut Bypass, Roorkee Road, Meerut,U.P. - 201308 (Under Violation Notification da ted 14^thMarch, 2017) byM/s Ansal Housing	Building Constructi on	EC (T OR) Application Received dated 13/09/201 7	……..	…….. ……..	……..	…….. ……..	New	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/ Abse nt

¶346

¶347

& Construction Ltd.
12 Proposed Affordable Housing at Sector- 22 D,Village- Ballukhera , YEIDA,Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, District- Gautam Budh Nagar , U.P.	Building Constructi on	EC (T OR) Application Received dated 28/07/201 7	……..	……..	…….. ……..	…….. ……..	New	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/ Absent
13 Expansion of Logistic Park (Warehouse) Project at Gata No.-18 8 and 198, located at Village Sikandrabad Dehat, District- Bulandshahar, U.P.,( Under Violation Notification dated 1 4 March2017) by M/s VRY Industrial Park LLP	8(a) Building Constructi on	25/06/201 9	24/07/201 9 11/10/201 9	PP Absent Recommende d for EC	29/08/201 9 16/08/201 9 20/11/201 9 01/01/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No.1038/ 2018 Grant	New	EC Issued on 24/02/202 0

¶348

¶349

14 Proposed Group Housing Project "VinayakApartment" at Sector- 7B, MajholaYojna- 4, Part-II,Delhi Road, District- Moradabad, U.P., M/s Maya Nagar SahkariAwas Samiti Ltd,	8(a) Building Constructi on	25/06/201 9	24/07/201 9 11/10/201 9	PP Absent Recommende d for EC	29/08/201 9 16/08/201 9 20/11/201 9 01/01/202 0	Agreed with SEAC Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble NGT in OA No.1038/2018 Grant	New	EC Issued on 24/02/202 0
15 Combined Residential and Non- Residential Campus for 32 Battalion PAC, at Kanp ur Road,District- Lucknow,U.P., M/s Provincial Armed Constabulary	Building Constructi on	EC (T OR) Application Received dated 19/08/201 7	……..	……..	…….. ……..	…….. ……..	New	Delisted due to non submission of Reply by PP/Absent
16 Proposed Group Housing Project "Chimera" located at Khasra No.- 1134, N	Building Constructi on	EC (T OR) Application Received dated	……..	……..	…….. ……..	…….. ……..	New	ToR's Granted vide letter dated 08/08/201 8 but EC

¶350

¶351

H-58, Village- Noo 28/03/201 Application
7 Not
r Nagar Raj Nagar Received
Extension, District-
Ghaziabad, U.P.
,(Under Violation
Notification dated 14
March2017) by
M/sShouryaShubha
m Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd.
17 Proposed Building 04/05/202 …….. …….. …….. …….. …….. …….. Expansi Delisted
Constructi 1 on due to non
Expansion of Group on submission
Housing Project
of reply
Situated at Khasra
by
PP/Absent
No.- 527/4, 528,
549-554,556-559
Village- Ka]nawani,
Indirapuram,
District- Ghazaibad,
U.P. prom
ted by M/s Niho
Construction Ltd

¶352

¶353

18 Proposed Group Housing Project "Assotech Winder Court" at GH-04/A, Sector- 78,Noida, Di strict-GautamBudh Nagar,U.P., dev eloped by M/s Assotech Ltd	Building Constructi on	EC (T OR) Application Received dated 13- 09-2017	……..	……..	…….. ……..	……..	……..	New	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent
. 19 Revised Group Ho using Project located at Khasra No.- 322 & 324, Village -Noor Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, U.P., by M/sDiya Ang els Realtors Pvt. Ltd.	8(a) Building Constructi on	01/09/201 9	19/02/201 9	Recommende d for E C	7/3/2019 07/05/201 9	Information asked by PP Grant	04/08/20 19	New	EC Issued on 10/09/201 9
20 Commercial Complex "Galaxy Diamond Plaza"at Plot N	8(a) Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated	……..	……..	…….. ……..	……..	……..	New	Delisted due to non submission of reply

¶354

¶355

o.- C-1 A Sector- 04, Greater Noida, District- GautamBudh Nagar, U.P. AS PER "SO804(E)" dated 14.03.2017 by M/sAsteroid SheltersHomes Pvt. Ltd.		10/09/201 7						by PP/ Absent
21 Environment Clearance for Group Housing Project "Vrinda City located at Plot No.GH- 2 Sevtor- PHI-4 Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh by M/s Central and State Employees SahakariAwasSamiti Limited under the	8(a) Building Constructi on	21/03/202 0 04/06/202 0 19/08/202 0	Recommende d for EC Recommende d	18/06/202 0 15/09/202 0 28/12/202 0	Refer back to SEAC Information asked by PP Grant	28/09/20 20	New	EC Issued on 15/01/202 1

¶356

¶357

provisionof Central Government,Gazette Notification dated 14,March 2017-Violation case.
22 Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Group Housing Project "Orchid Heights" apartments at Village Uttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/201 7 …….. …….. …….. ……..	…….. ……..	New Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/ Absent
23 Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Goel Heights Apartments, Gro up Housing under pahadi Sahkari A was Samiti Ltd. At Khasra no.- 761,762,763 (b) Village- Anaura,	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 1 3/09/2017 …….. …….. …….. ……..	…….. ……..	New Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/ Absent

¶358

¶359

Chinhat Faizabad Road,District- Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
24 Environmental Clearance for (for Viola tion) Group Housing Project "Green Park" apartments at VillageUttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/2017 …….. …….. …….. ……..	…….. ……..	New	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/ Absent
25 Environmental Clearance for Expansi on of "Swami VivekanandSubharti University"Project at Khasra No.- Vill- Ghatt 941,947, 94950/1/2/3,951,9 52, 953/1/2, 954- 959,963, 964, 974/2,	Building Constructi on	EC (T OR) Application Received dated 13/09/201 7 …….. …….. …….. ……..	…….. ……..	Expan sion	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/ Absent

¶360

¶361

977, 978, 980, 98
1, 982,984, 985,
960, 961, Vill- Mallyana-
1625,1628, 1629,
1630-1633, 1635, 163
6, 1637,1638, 1650,
1651, 1653, 1654, 165
5/2, 1656,
1657, 1606, 1634, 1652, 1653 Vill
Panchali-522, 531
-537, 540, 545, 5
48, 549,550located at village-Ghatt, MaliyanaPanchali, Meerut Bypass
Road, Meerut, Uttar
Pr adesh (under violation Notificationdated 14
March 2017) by M/s
Subharti K.K.B
charitable Trust.

¶362

¶363

26 Proposed Group Ho using Project "San char Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd."at Khasra No.- 236& 237, Village- Mo rta, District- Ghazaibad, U.P ., M/s Sanchar Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd.,	8(a) Building Constructi on	10/09/201 8 12/12/201 8	Recommende d for EC	28/12/201 8 Grant		New	EC Issued on 23/01/201 9
27 Proposed Residential Colony "AnsalBa sera City" at Village- Buda,District- Kanpur By Pass Road, District- Jhansi, U.P.	8(a) Building Constructi on	13/07/201 9 08/08/201 9	Recommende d for EC	18/09/201 9 Grant		New	EC Issued on 16/07/202 0
28 Proposed "Cement Grinding Unit" Project at Village- Dhauhan, Pargana- Saktesgarh,	3(b) Industry	21/09 /2019 26/09 /2021	Recommende d for E C	8/11/2019 03/01/202 0 Information asked by PPGrant	19/11/20 19		EC Issued on 24/02/202 0

¶364

¶365

Tehsil- Chunar, District- Mirzapur, U .P. M/s Uddyam Cement Pvt. Ltd.
29 Proposed Project "Gomti River Front Channelization Project from Harding to Gomti Weir, District- Lucknow, U.P.	8(b) Building Constructi on	26/11 /2018	20/12/201 8 11/07/201 9 20/11/201 9 28/02/202 0	Recommende d for EC Information asked by PP Information asked by PP Recommende d for EC	04/09/201 9 27/01/202 0	8/1/2019 09/03/201 9 01/07/201 9 01/08/201 9 20/12/201 9 09/05/202 0	Information asked by PP Information asked by PP Refer back to SEAC Agreed with SEAC Agreed with SEAC Grant	24/0/201 9 04/0/201 9	-	EC issued on 21/08/202 0
30 Proposed Group Housing "Grand Forte Apartments" at Plot NO.- 76, Sigma- IV, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar , U.P.,M/s SatililaSahkari Awas Samti	8(a) Building Constructi on	13/06/202 1	17/08/202 1 21/12/202 1	Information asked by PP Recommende d for EC	29/10/202 1	5/10/2021 31/12/202 1	Agreed with SEAC Defer in view of SOP OM Stay byMadras HighCourt		New	Under Process

¶366

¶367

Table 7.3.1(b): Summary of Cases received during Window Period

¶368

[from 14.03.2017 to 13.09.2017 and from 14.03.2018 to 13.04.2018]

¶369

*Sector*	Total Applications received	EC Granted	EC Pending
Building	29	14	15
Construction
Industry	01	01	00
Total	30	15	15

¶370

¶371

Observations:

¶372

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that, during violation period total 30 no. of application were received. But, from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. However, out of them 15 were granted EC and 15 no. were not granted EC. Out of 30 projects there are 29 construction projects and 01 is industry project. Details status of the projects follows:

¶373

Table 7.3.2 (a): Detailed status of the Projects under violation Category

¶374

w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021 for which EC has been granted (In

¶375

context to Applications received during Window Period)

¶376

S . N o . *Project Title*	*Sector*	*Date of* *Applicatio* *n forEC*	*Category* of *Violatio* n *whether* *Expansi* *on/New*	*Action of V* *Under* *Section1* *5 of EP),* *Act*	*iolation* *Bank* *Guarante* *Imposed*	*Reme* *diatio* *n Plan*	*Final* *status/Dat* e *of Grant of* EC	*Total no* *of Days* *taken* *for* *granting* *of EC*	BG *released* *(YEs/ No)*	*Current* *status of* *the* *project*

¶377

¶378

Construction of Proposed Group Housing and Staff Quarters at UPSRTC Campus, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.	8(a) Building Constructio n	22/03/201 8	New	Action under section 15 of E( P) Act initiated vide letter dated 02/07/ 2018	1,25,00,0 00/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA o n 26/07/2 018	Submitte d	EC Issued on 14/09/208	176	N/A	Under constructio n
Proposed Group Housing Project "KW Srishti" at Khasra No.- 1125/1, 1125/2 &1125/3,Village- Noor Nagar, Pargana- Loni, Raj NagarExtension, District Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s Dingle Buildcons Pvt. Ltd.	8(b) Building Constructio n	15/01/201 9	Expansio n	Action under section 15 of E( P) Act initiated vide letter dated	5,02,000/ - Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 05/03/2019 10,00,000 /-(additional Information; as provided by SPCB)	Submitte d	EC Issued on 08/04/201 9	932	No	Completed

¶379

¶380

				28/03/20 19
Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH- 05, Sector - 10, Greater Noida, District GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. ,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(a) Building Constructio n	28/11/201 9	New	Action under section 15 of E( P) Act initiated vide letter dated 09/11/20 20	90,00,000 /- PP vide letter dated 16/06/20 20 have re quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee Letter sent to MoEF&CC on 07/07/2020 for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PPto SEIAA	Submitt d	e EC Issued on 5/11/2020	363	No	Under constructio n

¶381

¶382

					on 16/09/2020
Affordable Housing Project located at Village- GohodiB acheda, Sector Mu II, Greater Noida, District- GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. ,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(b) Building Constructio n	27/11/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E( P)Act initiated vide letter dated 09/11/20 20	1,10,48,0 00/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA o n 19/10/2 020	Submitte d	EC Issued on 15/12/202 0	384	No	Under constructio n
Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH- 03A , Omicron, Greater Noida, District- GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. ,M/s Greater Noida	8(a) Building Constructio n	29/11/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated 09/11/20 20	1,10,00,0 00/- PP vide letter dated 16/06/20 20 have re quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee	Submitte d	EC Issued on 15/11/202 0	362	No	Under constructio n

¶383

¶384

					Letter sent to MoEF&CC on 07/07/2020 for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 16/09/2020
Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH- 02, Omicron 1A, Greater Noida , District GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority	8(a) Building Constructio n	28/11/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated 09/11/20 20	1,10,00,000 /- vide letter dated 16/06/20 20 have re quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee	Submitte d	EC Issued on 25/11/202 0	363	No	Under constructio n

¶385

¶386

				Letter sent to MoEF&CC on 07/07/2020 for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP
				to SEIAA on 09/09/2020 1,03,20,0 00/(addition al Information; as provided by SPCB)
Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-L &M, Sector- 12, Greater Noida,	8(a) Building Constructio n 27/11/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated	50,00,000/- vide letter dated 16/06/20 20 have re	Submitt d	e EC Issued on 05/11/202 0	364 No	Under constructio n

¶387

¶388

District- GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. ,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority				vide letter dated 09/11/20 20	quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee Letter sent to MoEF&CC on 07/07/2020
					for clarification regarding exemption of bank guarantee
					Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 16/09/2020
Expansion of Logistic Park	8(a) Building	26/09/201 8	Expansio n	Action Under	22,50,000/- Copy of bank	Submitte d	EC Issued on	253	Yes	completed
(Warehouse) Project at Ga ta No.-188 and 198, locate	Constructio n			section 15 of E(P) Act initiated	guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA o		06/06/201 9

¶389

¶390

d at Village- SikandrabadDehat, District- Bulandshahar, U.P.,(Under Violation Notification dated 14 March 2017) by M/s VRY Industrial Park LLP				vide letter dated 07/05/20 19	n 25/03/2019 5,00,000/ - (additional Information; as provided by SPCB)
Proposed Group Housing Project "VinayakApartment" at Sector- 7 B, MajholaYojna- 4, Part-II, Delhi Road, District- Moradabad, U.P., M/s Maya Nagar SahkariA wasSamiti Ltd,	8(a) Building Constructio n	25/06/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated 11/02/20 19	33,00,000/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 05/02/2020 150000 (additional Information; as provided by SPCB)	Submitte d	EC Issued on 04/02/202 0	244	No	Constructio n stopped
Revised Group Housing Project located at Khasra No.- 322 & 324, Village- Noor Nagar, District- Ghaziabad	8(a) Building Constructio n	01/09/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated	3,35,000/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA	_Submitted _	EC Issued on 01/09/201 9	241	No	Completed

¶391

¶392

, U.P., by M/s Diya Angels Realtors Pvt. Ltd.				vide letter dated 08/07/20 19	on 08/07/2019
Environment Clearance for Group Housing Project "Vrinda City located at Plot No GH- 2 Sevtor- PHI-4 Gre ater Noida, Uttar Pradeshby M/s Central and State Employees SahakariAwasSamiti Limited under the pro vision of Central Government, Gazette Notification dated 14, March 2017-Violation case.	8(a) Building Constructio n	21/03/202 0	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated 15/10/20 21	20,05,000/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 18/06/2 020	Submitte d	EC Issued on 15/01/202 1	300	No	Completed
Proposed Group Housing Project "Sanchar Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd." at Khasra No.- 236 & 237, Village- Morta, District- Ghazaibad, U.P., M/s Sanchar Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd.,	8(a) Building Constructio n	10/09/201 8	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated	24,44,000/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 28/12/2018	Submitte d	EC Issued on 23/01/201 9	135

¶393

¶394

				21/09/20 19
Proposed Residential Colo ny "AnsalBasera City" at V illage- Buda, District- Kan pur By Pass Road, District- Jhansi, U.P.	8(a) Building Constructio n	13/07/201 9	New	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated 09/07/20 20	5,00,000/- Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA o n 03/07/2 020	Submitte d	EC Issued on 06/07/202 0	369
Proposed "Cement Grinding Unit" Project at Village- Dhauhan, Pargana- Saktesgarh, Tehsil- Chunar, District- Mirzapur, U.P. M/s Uddyam Cement Pvt. Ltd.	3(b) Industry	21/09/201 9		Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act initiated vide letter dated 12/02/20 20	4,86,000/- Copy of bank guaran tee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 07/11/2019	Submitte d	EC Issued on 07/11/201 9
Proposed Project "Gomti River Front Channelization Project from Harding to Gomti Weir, District-Luckno	8(b) Building Constructio n	26/11/201 8	-	Action Under section 15 of E(P) Act	Letter dated 07/08/ 2020 sent to MoEF&		EC Issued on 21/08/202 0	625

¶395

¶396

w, U.P. initiated CC for
vide letter exemption of
dated
bank
09/08/20
20 guarantee
being a govt.
project

¶397

Table 7.3.2(b): Summary of EC Granted under violation Category w.e.f.

¶398

01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021

¶399

(In context to Applications received during Window Period)

¶400

*S.N* o	*Table* *7.3.2(b):* *Summary* *of EC* *Granted* *under* *violation*	*No.* of *Proj* *ects*	*Categ* *ory* of *violati* n		*Action of Viol* *ation in Nu* *mber*		T (	*ime Taken* *from date* *on fo*	*to Gr* C *of App* *r EC)*	*ant E* *licati*		*Con*	*struction st*	*atus*
	*Category* *w.e.f.*		*wheth* er	*Under* *Section*	*Damage* *Assessm* *ent*	*Remedia* *tion* *Plan*	*within* *1 year*	*betwe* *en 1to*	*bet* we e	*bet* we e	*betwe* *en 4* t	*Comple* *ted*	*Under* *construc* *tion*	Wo rk No *inf*

¶401

¶402

*01.04.201* *7 to* *31.07.202*		*Expas* *ion*	*15 of* *E(P) Act*	*Quant* ed	*ifi*				2 *years*	*n 2* to	*n 3* to	*o 5 y* *ears*			St op pe	om *ati* on
1 *(In context* to *Applicatio* *ns received* *during* *Window* *Period)*		*/New* in *Numb* er	YE s N o	YE s	N o	YE s	N o			3 *yea* rs	4 *yea* rs				d
1 *Buil* *ding* *Constructi* on	14	*Expan* s *ion: 0* 2	02 -	02	-	02	-	01	-	01	-	-	02	-	-	-

¶403

¶404

Observation:

¶405

It is reported that, ECs have been issued to 15 projects and actions under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 have been taken against all these 15 projects. Most of these ECs have been issued within a period of 01 year from the date of application. Out of the 15 aforesaid cases; damage assessments have been made in respect of 14 cases . However, this exercise of damage assessment has not been undertaken for the remaining 1 project belonging to the government sector. Same observations have been made in context of preparation of Remediation Action Plan. In some cases, it has been found that, two types of Bank Guarantees have been imposed. In such cases, one information has been provided by SEIAA itself and another information has been provided by SPCB. Clarification in these regard has not been provided. Project completion status as provided by SEIAA in respect of these 15 projects are as follows:

¶406

7. Completed – 04 Projects

¶407

8. Under construction – 06 Projects

¶408

9. Work stopped - 01 Project

¶409

10. No information - 04 projects

¶410

Table 7.3.3(a): Ground status of Projects to Whom ECs were not granted (Under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021)

¶411

¶412

S. N.	*Project* *Title*	*Sector*	*Date of* *Application* *for EC*	*Category* of *Violation* *whether* *Expansion* */New*	*Action of Violat* *Under Section* *15 of E(P), Act*	*ion* *Bank* *Guarantee* *Imposed*	*Remediati* on *Plan*	*Final* *status/Date of* *Grant* *of EC*	*Total no* of *days*	BG *released* *(Yes/No)*	*Current* *status of* *the project*
1.	Proposed Group Housing Project at Plot No.- 139, Block- H, Scheme- 1, Fazalganj, Kanpur, U.P.,M/s Tapasya Projects Ltd.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 12/04/2018	New	--	--	--	ToR's Granted vide letter dated 09/03/2019 but EC Application Not Received	--	N/A	Completed
2.	Residential Complex "Gulmohar Residency" at Khasra No.-527/1, 519, Village- Kanawani, District- Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s SVP Builders (I) Ltd.	Building Constructi on	21/06/2019	New	--	5,20,000/ - (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)	--	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	--	No	Completed
3.	Proposed Group Housing Project "Platinum Premier" at Khasra No.- 304, 294, 295 & 296 of Village- Pehladgarhi&Khasr a No.-194 of Village- Makanpur Sector- 9, Vaishali Ext., District- Ghaziabad, U.P.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/04/2018	New	---	--	--	Delisted due to submission f reply by Absent	--	N/A	Completed

¶413

¶414

4.	Environmental Clearance for the Ansal Town Project located at Village - Jatoli, Meerut Byepass, Roorkee Road, Meerut, U.P. - 201308 (Under Violation Notification dated 14th March, 2017) by M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/2017	New --	500000/- (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB) ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- No	Completed
5.	Proposed Affordable Housing at Sector- 22 D, Village- Ballukhera, YEIDA,Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, District- GautamBudh Nagar, U.P.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 28/07/2017	New --	--- ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- N/A	Under construction
6.	Combined Residential and Non- Residential Campus for 32 Battalion PAC, at Kanpur Road, District- Lucknow, U.P., M/s Provincial Armed Constabulary	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 19/08/2017	New --	--- ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- No	Completed
7.	Proposed Group Housing Project "Chimera" located at	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received	New --	--- ---	ToR's Granted vide letter dated 08/08/2018 but EC	-- No	Completed

¶415

¶416

	Khasra No.- 1134, NH-58, Village- Noor Nagar Raj Nagar Extension, District- Ghaziabad, U.P. (Under Violation Notification dated 14 March 2017) by M/s Shourya Shubham Infra-structure Pvt.		dated 28/03/2017		Application Not Received
8.	Proposed Expansion of Group Housing Project situated at Khasra No.- 527/4, 528, 549-554,556- 559 Village- Kanawani, Indirapuram, District- Ghazaibad, U.P. promoted by M/s Niho Construction Ltd.	Building Constructi on	04/05/2021	Expansion -- --- ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- N/A	Under construction
9.	Proposed Group Housing Project "Assotech Winder Court" at GH-04/A, Sector- 78, Noida, District- GautamBudh Nagar, U.P., developed by M/s Assotech Ltd	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13-09- 2017	New -- 10,00,000 /- (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB) ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- No	78% Constructio n done. 28% Under construction Total Tower proposed- 05, Constructio n done-4 tower (744 flats) Under construction -01 tower

¶417

¶418

									(208 flats) At present 330 flats Occupied
10.	Commercial Complex "Galaxy Diamond Plaza" at Plot No.- C-1 A, Sector-04, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. AS PER "SO 804(E)" dated 14.03.2017 by M/s Asteroid Shelters Homes Pvt. Ltd.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 10/09/2017	New	---	1000000/ - (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)	--- Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	--- No	Under construction
11.	Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Group Housing Project "Orchid Heights" apartments at Village Uttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/2017	New	---	--	-- Delisted due to non- submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- NA	Completed
12.	Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Goel Heights Apartments, Group Housing under pahadi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. At Khasra no.- 761,762,763 (b)	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/2017	New	---	3000000 (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)	--- Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent	-- Yes	Completed

¶419

¶420

	Village- Anaura, Chinhat Faizabad Road, District- Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
13.	Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Group Housing Project "Green Park" apartments at Village Uttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/2017 New	---	1000000 (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB) ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent --	Yes Completed
14.	Environmental Clearance for Expansion of "Swami Vivekanand Subharti University" Project at Khasra No.- Vill-Ghatt 941 ,947, 949, 950/1/2/3,951, 952, 953/1/2, 954- 959, 963, 964, 974/2, 977, 978, 980, 981, 982, 984, 985, 960, 961, Vill- Mallyana- 1625, 1628, 1629, 1630- 1633, 1635, 1636, 1637, 1638, 1650, 1651, 1653, 1654, 1655/2, 1656, 1657, 1606, 1634, 1652, 1653 Vill-	Building Constructi on	EC (TOR) Application Received dated 13/09/2017 Expansion	---	--- ---	Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent --	No Not started

¶421

¶422

	Panchali- 522, 531- 537, 540, 545, 548, 549, 550 located at village- Ghatt, Maliyana Panchali, Meerut Bypass Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (under violation Notification dated 14 March 2017) by M/s Subharti K.K.B charitable Trust.
15.	Proposed of Group Housing "Grand Forte Apartments" at Plot NO.- 76, Sigma- IV, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P.,M/s Satilila Sahkari Awas Samti	8(a) Building Constructi on	13/06/2021 New ---	4,86,000/ - Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 05/01/20 22 --	Under Process ---

¶423

¶424

Table 7.3.3(b): Summary of Projects to Whom EC has not been Granted under violation Category (w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021) (In context to Applications received during Window Period)

¶425

*Project* *Sector*	*No.* of *Projects*	*Category*	*Action*	*against Viol*	*ation*				*Constructio*	*n status*
*(e.g.Industry,* *Mining,* *Building* *Construction*		Of *violation* *whether* *Expansion/New* *(Nos.)*	*Under* *of E(P)* *Yes*	*Section 15* *Act* No	*Damage* *Assessm* *Quantifi* *Yes*	*ent* ed No	*Remed* *Plan* *Yes*	*iation* No	*Completed*	*Under* *construction*	*Not started*	No *information*
*Building* *Construction*	15	*Expansion: 02*	00	02	00	02	00	02	-	01	01	-
		*New:13*	00	13	07	06	00	13	09	03	-	01
*Total*	15	15	00	15	07	08	00	15	09	04	01	01

¶426

Observations:

¶427

Observations are as follows:

¶428

Out of 30 project proposals, ECs have not been granted to 15 projects.

¶429

Out of these 15 projects to whom ECs are yet to be issued:

¶430

09 nos. of projects have been completed

¶431

04 are under construction.

¶432

01 project is yet to be started

¶433

No information has been made available regarding remaining

¶434

01 project.

¶435

Action Under Section 15 of E(P) Act has not been taken even for a single project

¶436

¶437

Damage assessment has been carried out only for 07 projects and remediation action plan has not been formulated for any of the projects.

¶438

¶439

7.4 Detailed status of violation cases which were received after the window period

¶440

SEIAA, UP, submitted that only one project has been received after window period (Annexure 26 D). Details are as follows:

¶441

S Project Title Se Dat Da te Categ Under S Bank Gu Re me dia tio Final Remark
cto e of of Gr ory of ection 1 5 arantee n Pat lan Stus
. N
r App ant of Violat of E(P ), Act Imposed
. lica EC ion w
tio hethe r
n Exp
for ansio
EC n/ New
Expans The application
ion was submitted
Proposed 6-
Project 11- 21-08- Action under sect Letter sent to
"Gomti River 8(b 20 to EAC on 01/03/
1 Front ) Bui 201 20 ion 15 of MoEF&CC 2018 which
8
Channelizati ldi ng E(P) Act for was
on Project Co initiated exemption Submitted EC transferred to
from Harding vide letter of bank Issued
nst SEIAA, UP as
to Gomti dated guarantee
ructi per notification
Weir, Di being a
strict- o n 07/08/202 govt. dated
0
Lucknow, project 08/03/2018
U.P.

¶442

But, from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects, date of application for EC are beyond the window period.

¶443

7.5 Details of projects for which post-facto ECs are granted, including the ECs for expansion projects which were in violation of existing EC:

¶444

UPPCB informed that, these information are included in Annexure14A. Same is represented in Table 7.3.2(a).

¶445

7.6 Consideration of Disciplinary / Legal Action by other Enforcement Agencies

¶446

As per information provided by SEIAA, it is submitted that before grant of EC, they have informed that action under section 15 of the E(P) Act have been taken and UPPCB has also initiated disciplinary / legal action in such cases against the project proponent.

¶447

7.7 Details of the Agency which is monitoring the remediation action plans

¶448

¶449

The reply of SEIAA, UP is reproduced here-below:

¶450

The mechanism for compliance monitoring has been well defined in the office order issued vide file no. J-11013/10/2009-IA.I dated 30/09/2009 wherein it has been mentioned that:-

¶451

¶452

For the aforesaid purpose after the grant of EC letter issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project, the copy of the same is endorsed with enclosure for information and necessary action to:

¶453

Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi.

¶454

Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow.

¶455

District Magistrate, (Concerned District).

¶456

The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, ParyavaranBhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

¶457

And more specifically, SEIAA/SEAC, appraises the violation category cases as per the EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) read along with notification dated 14/03/2017 and 08/03/2018. The SEIAA/SEAC, stipulates the implementation of Environmental Management Plan, comprising remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation as a condition of environmental clearance. The condition implies as given below:

¶458

“The project proponent is asked to submit bank guarantee of Rs.(the sum levied) equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan within 15 days to the SPCB.

¶459

It is observed by the Committee that the reply of SEIAA doesn’t make it clear that the SPCB or the Regional Office have verified the progress of implementation of Remediation Action Plan or the Natural and Community Resource Augmentation Plan.

¶460

7.8 Types of Projects and Time Taken by SEIAA to Grant Environmental Clearances

¶461

¶462

The data provided by SEIAA was processed to assess types of projects coming up in the State and time taken for grant of Environmental Clearance to these projects. Data are presented in the following Tables No. 3.8.1 to 3.8.4:

¶463

Table 7.8.1: Project category-wise dealt with regard to granting of Environmental Clearances (Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

¶464

Sl.	Project Sector	No. of Projects
1.	Building Construction	494
2.	Cement	21
3.	Highway	3
4.	Industry	104
5.	Mining	1483
	Total	2105

¶465

Table 7.8.2: Status of Granting of Environmental Clearances (Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

¶466

Sl. No.	Status of Processing of the Application	No. of Projects
1.	Absent	1
2.	Closed	149
3.	Delisted	241
4.	EC issued	1486
5.	EC revoked	1
6.	Exemption Letter	1
7.	Information SEAC	82
8.	TOR issued	5
9.	Under process	139
	Total	2105

¶467

Table 7.8.3 (a): Time Taken by SEIAA to take decision on EC Applications

¶468

¶469

(Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

¶470

Sl. No.	Nos of days taken for making decision	No. of EC Appln.	Sl. No.	Nos of days taken for making decision	No. of EC Appln.
1.	0-30	129	21	601-630	4
2.	31-60	278	22	631-660	2
3.	61-90	230	23	661-690	3
4.	91-120	251	24	691-720	4
5.	121-150	135	25	721-750	1
6.	151-180	86	26	751-780	1
7.	181-210	50	27	781-810	1
8.	211-240	75	28	811-840	1
9.	241-270	72	29	841-870	0
10.	271-300	45	30	871-900	1
11.	301-330	29	31	901-930	2
12.	331-360	30	32	931-960	2
13.	361-390	21	33	961-990	0
14.	391-420	9	34	991-1020	0
15.	421-450	20	35	1021-1050	2
16.	451-480	5	36	1051-1080	0
17	481-510	4	37	1081-1110	1
18.	511-540	3	38	1111-1140	0
19.	541-570	0	39		1
20	571-600	6		1141-1170
Total	Nos. of Projects - 150	4

¶471

¶472

Table 7.8.3(b): Time Taken by SEIAA to Grant Environmental Clearance

¶473

(Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

¶474

Sl. No.	Nos of days taken to Grant EC	No. of EC Granted	Sl. No.	Nos of days taken to Grant EC	No. of EC Granted
1.	0-30	127	20.	571-600	6
2.	31-60	272	21.	601-630	4
3.	61-90	227	22.	631-660	2
4.	91-120	249	23.	661-690	1
5.	121-150	134	24.	691-720	4
6.	151-180	86	25.	721-750	1
7.	181-210	49	26.	751-780	0
8.	211-240	75	27.	781-810	1
9.	241-270	72	28.	811-840	1
10.	271-300	45	29.	841-870	0
11.	301-330	29	30.	871-900	1
12.	331-360	30	31.	901-930	2
13.	361-390	21	32.	931-960	2
14.	391-420	9	33.	961-990	0
15.	421-450	20	34.	991-1020	0
16.	451-480	5	35.	1021-1050	2
17.	481-510	4	36.	1051-1080	0
18.	511-540	3	37.	1081-1110	1
19.	541-570	1	38.	1111-1140	0

¶475

Total:1486

¶476

Observations are as follows:

¶477

¶478

i. For the Period of 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021, a total of 2105 project applications were received &dealt with by SEIAA, UP for issue of EC. Out of them, EC have been issued to 1486 projects. Ground status of remaining 601 projects as on date is not intimated.

¶479

ii. During aforesaid period, mining projects predominated in the State. This was followed by building construction projects.

¶480

iii. In 745 cases, the ECs were granted within reasonable time (105 days) period.

¶481

iv. In 86 cases, the time taken to grant ECs varied from 1yr to more than 4 years. Possibility of initiation of the construction activities in such cases without obtaining EC, cannot be ruled out.

¶482

v. Delay in granting EC: Decisions have been taken by SEIAA within reasonable time for majority of the projects, but justification for the cases where inordinate delay has taken place, is not in order.

¶483

7.9 Brief Details of the NGT Matter under reference - information about the Project namely M/s Saviour Park Apartment, Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad.

¶484

In context of project under reference following observations have been made:

¶485

PP got the approval for the site plan from Ghaziabad Development Authority on 21.06.2011.

¶486

PP has obtained the CTE from UPPCB vide letter no. F08023/C1/NOC/G-752/2012/6 dated 26.07.2012, before obtaining the Environmental Clearance.

¶487

Environmental Clearance was received for project under reference vide dated 04.03.2013.

¶488

As per record, the project was inspected by MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow on 30.05.2019 to review the status of stipulated EC conditions granted by SEIAA, U.P. on 04.03.2013. Subsequently, a letter of noncompliances was sent to PPs vide letter no. VII/Env/SCLUP/510/2019/422 dated 13.08.2019. The certified compliance report indicating various noncompliance with detailed monitoring report was also sent to PPs with a copy to SEIAA, UP vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL-UP/510/2019/423 dated 13.08.2019. However, no response has been received by IRO, Lucknow against the above mentioned letter. Further, no compliance report has been received in the MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow since 2019 onwards.

¶489

Additionally, PPs have obtained the Expansion EC from SEIAA, U.P. vide letter no. 788/Parya/SEAC/6057-5683/2019 dated 04.03.2021.

¶490

PP had obtained the CTO vide dated 17/09/2020 from UPPCB which is valid till 31.07.2025.

¶491

Following violations have been reported by the five Member Committee in this matter.

¶492

¶493

Project Proponent is supplying water to Township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA.

¶494

Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.

¶495

The STP operated by M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd in apartment is not functioning properly. Sample obtained from STP outlet is not complying with the prescribed standards.

¶496

During the site visit, entire basement area of the project was found affected with seepage and large number of cracks were visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides.

¶497

However, Joint committee also observed that, various measures with respect to EC conditions have not been taken by the PP. Compliance of EC conditions was not ensured in ’letter & spirit’.

¶498

It was observed from the records submitted by PPs and records of project as available with UP RERA that construction of Phase II towers / flats had been started before grant of EC for Phase II.

¶499

In the matter under reference following additional information have been received from SEIAA, UP:

¶500

When was the violation noticed in the above case? Is there any gap in the appraisal process adopted by SEIAA or SPCB?

¶501

SEIAA submitted that violation has not been established as the matter is still sub-judice in Hon’ble NGT. There is no gap in the appraisal process adopted by SEIAA/SEAC.

¶502

It would be worthwhile to mention that the aforementioned project has already been categorized as a violation case by the Joint Inspection Team.

¶503

Was CTE/CTO issued in this case? Was the violation not noticed at the time of grant of CTE and CTO?

¶504

Following points are intimated by SEIAA:

¶505

1. Unit has obtained CTE for existing project (Total Built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 26/07/2012.

¶506

2. RO, Ghaziabad, UPPCB reported that unit has obtained CTO for existing project (Total 850 flats against 980 flats, built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 17/09/2020. During inspection for CTO on 26/07/2020, a total of 850 flats were observed as constructed, which is less than as permitted in CTE. No violation was noticed during inspection.

¶507

It is observed by the Committee that reply of SEIAA is not satisfactory. Further, UPPCB didn’t take cognizance of operation of tube-wells in the society without permission from CGWA. Many other non-compliances such as poor

¶508

¶509

performance of STP have been observed by the Joint Inspection Committee, were not recorded by UPPCB during its routine inspections.

¶510

Chapter 8 Overall observations of the Committee

¶511

8.1 Overall observations of the Committee

¶512

It is observed that applications in respect of a total of 2105 Projects have been received during 01.01.2017 to 25.12.2021. Further details in this matter are as follows:

¶513

Applications processed: 2105

¶514

ECs granted: 1486

¶515

Present Ground status of remaining 619 projects are not known.

¶516

Possibility of their continuation or completion of such projects cannot be ruled out.

¶517

During aforesaid period, mining projects predominated in the State. This was followed by building construction projects.

¶518

In some cases, the ECs are granted within reasonable time period.

¶519

In many cases, the time taken to grant ECs varied from 1 yr to more than 4 years. Possibility of initiation of the construction activities in such cases without obtaining EC, cannot be ruled out.

¶520

Delay in granting EC: Decisions have been taken by SEIAA within reasonable time for majority of the projects, but justification for the cases where exorbitantly higher time have been taken is not in order. SEIAA, UP has mentioned about the Parivesh Portal and procedure in this regard.

¶521

It is intimated by SEIAA, UP that, during window period, a total of 30 nos. of application were received. Out of these 30 projects, there are 29 construction projects and 01 is industry project. Although, these cases are received during Window Period but from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects, the dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. Further, out of 30 applications, ECs have been granted to 15 projects ECs to remaining 15 nos. of projects could not be granted due to various reasons.

¶522

Further details in respect of those 15 projects to whom ECs have been granted, are as follows:

¶523

Actions under section 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 have been initiated for all these 15 Projects.

¶524

¶525

Time-lines for grant of ECs were as follows:

¶526

Within 01 year – 10 Projects

¶527

1 to 2 years – 4 Projects

¶528

2-3 years – 1 Project

¶529

Completion of Damage Assessment – 14 Projects only. It could not be undertaken for remaining 01 Project as it belonged to the category of Government Project. Same observation was found in context to Remediation Plan.

¶530

In some cases it is found that, two types of Bank Guarantees have been imposed. In such cases, one information has been provided by SEIAA itself and another information has been provided by SPCB. Clarification in these regard have not been provided.

¶531

o Out of these 15 projects:

¶532

04 projects have already been completed

¶533

06 are under construction

¶534

01 project is stopped

¶535

No information is provided in respect of 04 projects

¶536

Further details in respect of those 15 nos. of projects to whom ECs are yet to be issued, are as follows:

¶537

09 nos. of projects have been completed

¶538

o 04 are under construction.

¶539

01 project is yet to be started

¶540

No information regarding remaining 01 project.

¶541

Action Under Section 15 of E(P) Act have not been taken for a single project

¶542

Damage assessment has been made only for 07 projects and Remediation Action Plan is not at all formulated for any of the project.

¶543

Lack of coordination amongst various Agencies concerned for issuing Permissions, Clearance, Consents etc. have been noticed as mentioned in the foregoing paras. Concerned Agencies are not following the Notifications issued from time to time which is leading to violations in many cases. Further, compliance verification and monitoring could not be performed from time to time.

¶544

The Committee feels that SEIAA could have paid greater attention as regards the following:

¶545

Processing of EC applications including reasons having quoted for delay.

¶546

Actions under Section 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 against violation projects

¶547

¶548

It is observed by the Committee that this action of monitoring of action plan undertaken recently by SEIAA through UPPCB could have been undertaken long back in these “Violation Category “ i.e. immediately after submission of such plans by the violator PPs.

¶549

Violation of stipulated procedure has taken place during the process of grant of Expansion EC in the matter of M/s Saviour Park Apartment. Possibility of similar violation in other cases can’t overruled.

¶550

It emerged from the replies furnished by SEIAA UP that there was:

¶551

Lack of adherence to the Stepwise flowchart and time-lines for issue of Environment Clearance by SEIAA and lack of institutional mechanism for coordination with SPCB, Municipal Bodies, Town Planning and other enforcement agencies / designated bodies involved in sanctioning building construction projects at local level.

¶552

Absence of well laid down procedure regarding examination of EC and sanction of plan by the Town Planning Department. It is not clear whether the approval process for Building Construction by the Town Planning Department / Municipal Bodies also includes examining whether EC has been granted and whether there is any requirement of CTE / CTO before sanctioning or issuing of Occupancy certificate by concerned Agencies/ Authorities?

¶553

Lack of clarity regarding requirement of necessary Clearances/ NOCs/ Licenses etc. required for processing application for EC.

¶554

Lack of clarity regarding methodology to be following for building projects or imposition of Environmental Compensation for building projects.

¶555

Besides, no specific information has been received from SEIAA, UP.

¶556

Information with respect to Application format

¶557

Procedure adopted for processing of application

¶558

Reasons for blatant violations taking place and how can the situation be remedied?

¶559

8.2 Identification of Issues leading to Blatant Violation

¶560

After careful examination of the information received from SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh issues leading to violation have been identified as follows:

¶561

i. Wilful violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 by the Project Proponents

¶562

ii. Suppression of the information by the Project Proponents.

¶563

¶564

iii. Processing of applications received for getting EC is not upto mark. This is including scrutinization of necessary NOCs / Licenses / Clearances from other concerned departments

¶565

iv. Time-lines prescribed for processing the EC applications are not followed.

¶566

v. Lack of coordination among the various Agencies concerned for issuing Permissions, Clearance, Consents etc.

¶567

vi. Lack of surveillance in the State especially by UPPCB, T&C Planning Department and Local Bodies.

¶568

Chapter 9

¶569

Recommendations

¶570

9.1 Recommendations

¶571

9.1.1 For Project Proponent

¶572

Project Proponents may be made aware of the concerned Environmental Regulations and Environmental Norms. Periodic workshops may be organized with the related Associations, Organizations and key Institutions so as to apprise them about the extant provisions of Acts, Rules, OMs, Procedures and the Dos and the Don’ts as far as Environmental Clearances and adherence to Environmental Safeguards are concerned.

¶573

9.1.2 For SEIAA, UP

¶574

1. It was observed that Member Secretary of UPPCB is also the Member Secretary, SEIAA, UP. However, this does not appear to have translated into better synergy and convergence. It is, therefore, suggested that institution mechanism for sharing information between SEIAA and UPPCB may be established to ensure efficient and effective monitoring and implementation of environmental safeguards.

¶575

2. It is found that, during window period for most of the projects dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. SEIAA, UP may provide clarification in this regard.

¶576

3. It was observed that out of the 15 projects received during Window Period for which ECs were not granted, constructions of 09 nos of projects have been completed, and 04 are under construction. Action needs to be taken in these cases by SEIAA, UP and UPPCB.

¶577

4. Action u/s 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 against all the projects falling under violation category may be initiated by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh.

¶578

5. It is observed that applications in respect of a total of 2105 Projects have been received during 01.01.2017 to 25.12.2021. All the 2105 Applications have been processed and ECs are granted to 1486 projects. Inspection of remaining 619 projects may be conducted to assess their current status. Action against defaulter projects needs to be initiated as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, as amended and E(P) Act, 1986. Further, Environmental Compensation also needs to be imposed as per orders issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Green Tribunal.

¶579

¶580

6. SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh needs to follow the Rules/Provisions of ‘Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 including its amendments’ in ‘letter & spirit’ for considerations of the applications received for obtaining EC. Timelines for grant of EC need to be adhered to.

¶581

7. SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh may work in close coordination with State Government agencies including Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Town & Country Planning Department, Municipal Corporations, Ground Water Board, City Development Authority and other organization like CPCB (Regional Directorate) and IITs. This will facilitate transparency in the matter and effective enforcement of Legal Framework.

¶582

8. SEIAA may consider utilising the features of PARIVESH and also independently use the available IT Tools to assess the situation on the ground based on the latitude and longitude mentioned in the application submitted on the PARIVESH portal to ensure that construction of the Project/Activities for which EC has been asked for has not started so as to avoid grant of EC in a routine manner to “Violation Category” of Projects.

¶583

9. Taking a cue from the analysis of the Violation cases, it may be seen that delay in deciding upon the application for grant of ToR and processing for grant of EC may lead to a situation where the Project Proponent may be emboldened to start the Project which may result in compromising with the environmental safeguards which need to be observed. It may be worthwhile to explore the possibility of devising a method whereby PARIVESH Portal, through its own IT tool seamlessly flags the cases where there are delays beyond the specified time of 45 days post the recommendations of SEAC as mentioned in the EIA Notification,2006, as amended and generates alerts not only for SEIAA but also for the Ministry so that such cases are dealt with on priority and corrective/remedial actions are undertaken by SEIAA/EAC in the best interest of protection of the environment.

¶584

10. SEIAA, UP may also take support of Technology viz. Parivesh for tracking of the process of issuing EC.

¶585

11. ECs issued by SEIAA may be given wider publicity by posting it on the relevant Portals/Websites so as to bring in transparency and keep the stakeholders informed.

¶586

9.1.3 For SPCB

¶587

Stake-holder consultation in the State along with the State

¶588

Environment Depts., may be conducted to avoid wilful violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 by the Project Proponents.

¶589

9.1.4 For all Agencies

¶590

Coordination amongst concerned State level Agencies may be established. These Agencies include SEIAA, UPPCB, Town & Country Planning Department and Local Bodies so far as Construction Projects are concerned and similarly amongst the key stakeholders for other Projects/Activities. There is a need for exchange of knowledge and understanding the issues of enforcement.

¶591

¶592

Surveillance activities in the State especially by UPPCB, T&C Planning Department, Public Health Engineering Department and Local Bodies may be improved for effective monitoring of EC conditions without causing undue interference in the execution of Projects /Activities by the Project Proponent.

¶593

Monitoring and assessment of compliance of Environmental Regulations including EC conditions and Remediation Action Plans may be conducted on regular basis by the Integrated Regional Offices. Random inspection by Integrated Task Force comprising of the Officers from these departments may be conducted for surveillance in the State and execution of illegal / unauthorized projects in the State.

¶594

9.2 Additional recommendations are as follows:

¶595

SEIAA may co-opt Member from Town and Country Planning, Local Bodies and other concerned agencies for processing of EC applications as per need.

¶596

EC must be issued in transparent fashion and area wise database be uploaded for the information of all concerned. ”

¶597

Finding about functional audit of SEIAA

¶598

On due consideration, we see no reason not to accept the report based on verified data by credible committee. We accept the report. We find it disappointing to note the failures found on the part of SEIAA, U.P to act as per mandate of law. If the statutory regulators fail in their duties, it is difficult to understand how the Rule of Law will be protected. Let remedial measures be taken as recommended. The MoEF&CC may oversee further steps so as to ensure compliance of the recommendations within three months.

¶599

Further Directions about audits of other SEIAAs and regulators

¶600

In light of experience of above functional audit report, there is every reason to apprehend unsatisfactory functioning other SEIAAs and other regulators in other States/UTs, to the detriment of environmental rule of law which the country can ill afford. Such functional audits in respect of SEIAAs is thus called for which may be undertaken within one year by preparing a time bound action plan by the MoEF&CC. The MoEF&CC may

¶601

¶602

create a dedicated cell in the Ministry for such functional audit which should not stop with the first such audit but should be a regular feature, to be undertaken periodically. All such audit reports may be placed in public domain and remedial action overseen in the light of such reports. Similar functional audits may be undertaken in respect of functioning of other statutory regulators under the MoEF&CC, including CZMAs in a like manner. Though the report of functional audit has identified violations, it has failed to suggest specific remedial action against the incumbents manning the SEIAA, which aspect may now be looked into by the MoEF&CC. Further, SEIAA should be run by the technically qualified and experienced members rather based on only administrative experience. They must have their own surveillance backup to monitor the compliances till it reaches to CTO stage instead of depending on PCB who are unable to monitor compliances, in absence of effective mechanism. This is resulting in failure of environmental rule of law to that extent, defeating the object of laying down EC conditions. Thus, necessary steps are required to be taken by MoEF&CC.

¶603

The Application is disposed of.

¶604

A copy of this order be forwarded to the MoEF&CC, all SEIAAs and Coastal Zone Management Authorities by email for compliance.

¶605

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶606

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶607

Prof. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶608

May 04, 2022 OA No. 199/2021 (I.A. No. 104/2022) AB

¶609

Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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

Subhas Datta vs State of West Bengal through the Principal Secretary

Bishnupada Pakhira vs Union of India through the Secretary Moef

Veerpal Singh Gangwar vs

Tapan Roy vs

Naveen Rana vs

Malay Rudra vs Bengal Peerless Housing Development Company Ltd.

Anadi Nath Bag vs Pollution Control Board

Bhanwar Lal Bhargava vs State of Rajasthan

Abhinav Gramodyog and Seva Sansthan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Agreta Foundation vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Agreta Foundation vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Ia No. 176/2021 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 253/2019 of Bharat Jhunjhunwala & Ors. vs Inland Waterways Authority of India ∨S

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 253/2019 in Original Application No. 487/2015 of Bharat Jhunjhunwala & Ors. vs Inland Waterways Authority of India ∨S