Disposed

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

NGT5 Nov 2024Original Application No. 105/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal examined a grievance regarding illegal construction and lack of environmental clearances. It directed the MPCB to identify the STP operator and calculate penalties based on admissible circulars after a hearing, then realize the amount from the responsible party and pay it to affected persons before disposing of the application.

What did the court decide?

Directed MPCB to calculate penalty based on admissible circulars after hearing the responsible party for STP operation; penalty amount to be realized within one month and paid to affected persons.

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2024)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.10

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[Through Physical Hearing (with Hybrid Option)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.105 OF 2021 (WZ)

¶6

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble ….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

MoEF & CC and ORs.

¶9

Date of Hearing : 05.11.2024

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant : Mr. Viraj U. Pawar, Advocate

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-1 and R-11 to R-13

¶13

Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-3 to R-6

¶14

Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-7 and R-8

¶15

Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-14

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The applicant has filed this Original Application under Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 with the following prayers:

¶18

“(a) that kindly give directions to the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.13 for stopping the illegal construction which is still continued and carried by the Respondent No.14 in contravention to the Environment Clearance Permission.

¶19

(b) that kindly give directions to the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.13 for not issuing/granting any permission to the Respondent No.14.

¶20

(c) that kindly give directions to the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.13 for demolishing the illegal construction be given to the appropriate government authorities after perusal of the factual report and analysis made by the committee which will be constituted and appointed for the inspection in this present matter and direct to constitute the same.

¶21

(d) that kindly give directions to the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.13 to make a plan for the restitution of environment.

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

(e) that kindly give directions to the Respondent No.1 to Respondent No.13 for imposing heavy environment compensation on the Respondent No.14.

¶24

(f) that kindly give directions to Respondent No.14 comply with all the Environmental Norms and stop the Environmental Pollution and stop the illegal construction.

¶25

(g) that kindly constitute an eligible and responsible third party committee for the inspection and examination of the illegal construction and the environmental damage caused by the Respondent No.14 and the detailed factual report and analysis be submitted before this Hon’ble National Green Tribunal.

¶26

(h) that kindly give directions to all the Respondents to submit the entire record and proceeding retained by them with regard to the said project.

¶27

(i) that kindly give directions to the Respondent No.10 that no third party transactions like selling or buying of properties in the said project of the Respondent No.14 shall be allowed and to stop with immediate effect and shall not be granted till the disposal of this case before this Hon’ble National Green Tribunal.

¶28

(j) the Applicant with the prior permission of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal, be allowed and permitted to amend its application upon knowledge of the illegal acts or new crucial fact, if any, are found by the Applicant after filing of this Original Application and which are necessary to be brought on record.

¶29

(k) any other just and equitable order be passed in the interest of justice as may deem fit and proper.”

¶30

While the arguments were being heard, it transpired that the only grievance which the applicant now suffers from is that the Project Proponent i.e. respondent No.14 – Aurangabad Holiday Resorts has raised construction over Survey Nos.84/2+4 and 83/1 (Plot no.3) of village Warje, Taluka Haveli, District Pune by the name “Jubilee Park” without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC), Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO).

¶31

From the side of respondent Nos.11 to 13 – Pune Municipal Corporation, an affidavit dated 04.11.2024 has been filed today, wherein in paragraph Nos.11 and 12, it is stated that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

in Writ Petition No.655 of 2014 Glomore Construction & Os. Vs. The Union of India has held that Environment Clearance is not required for the projects below 20000 sq.mtrs. and the Government of Maharashtra, vide its Circular dated 21.04.2015, has also clarified that in view of the said order of the Hon’ble High Court, the construction below 20000 sq.mtrs may not be considered as a violation of EIA Notification, 2006. As regards present project, it is submitted that as on date, the Project Proponent has completed construction of 12,457.37 sq.mtrs only including FSI and NonFSI. Thus, it is made clear through this affidavit that the construction is still far below 20,000 sq.mtrs and there was no necessity of obtaining E.C. as per the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court delivered in the case of Glomore Construction & Os. (supra) .

¶34

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8 – MPCB pointed out that through letter dated 12.01.2021 issued by the Member Secretary, CPCB to the Member Secretary, SPCBs/PCCs on the subject “ Harmonization of Classification of Industrial Sectors into Red, Orange, Green and White Categories – reg. ”, it is made clear that now from the said date i.e. 12.01.2021, Building and Construction Projects, having built-up area upto 20,000 sq.mtrs and waste water generation above 50 KLD, would fall in the orange category and would be included in prior Consent regime, but it is not clear that it would require CTE and CTO.

¶35

In the case in hand, it is admitted by all the parties that “Jubilee Park” buildings “B” and “C” already having been constructed, though its construction is below 20,000 sq.mtrs., it did not require prior EC to be obtained, but despite the fact that waste water generation is exceeding 50 KLD, as per their application for CTO, which is not found on record but it is admitted by the parties that it was moved before the MPCB seeking CTO on 20.05.2023, which has been refused by the MPCB on 04.10.2024, it is made clear that this application for CTO was related to the entire project and not particularly in respect of buildings “B” and “C”. Learned counsel for MPCB states that the Project Proponent – respondent No.14 has already

¶36

Page 3 of 4

¶37

handed over possession of the already constructed portion to the occupants and STP has also been made operational without CTO having been obtained, which was required as per CPCB letter dated 12.01.2021 because the waste water generation exceeded 50 KLD. Therefore, it is urged by the learned counsel for MPCB that from 12.01.2021 till the CTO is obtained, respondent No.14 – Project Proponent shall be accountable for indulging in violation as no CTO is obtained and STP is being operated.

¶38

At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.14 – Project Proponent has raised an objection to the effect that it is occupants, who are liable to apply for the CTO because they are operating the STP and not respondent No.14. But we do not know as to exactly who is operating the said STP. Regarding this, the best Authority is the MPCB to find out as to who is operating the STP.

¶39

We direct the MPCB that the penalty amount as per the admissible circular as well as EDC shall be calculated after giving opportunity of hearing to the person/party who is found responsible for operating the STP, which will be decided by the MPCB and the amount so calculated shall be realized from the said person/party within one month from the date of uploading of this order and the amount so realized shall be paid to affected persons.

¶40

8. With above directions, we dispose of this Original Application.

¶41

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶42

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶43

November 05, 2024 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.105/2021(WZ) npj

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi

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

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi vs Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Vikram Singh vs State of Haryana

Jasbir Singh vs NCT of Delhi

Ritesh Pandey vs

Galina Babaiteva vs

Serafat Khaifa Khan vs

Joy Philipose President Mannathoor Prakrethy Samrashana Samothi vs

Mr. Muralidhar Dattoba Nimankar vs Maharashtra State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd.

Jasmeet Singh Oberoi vs Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Municipal Corporation vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Mr Bhagwan Pundalik Goje vs Radico Nv Distilleries Maharashtra Ltd.

Mr Raghuvirsinh Hathibhai Jebalia vs Dhari Solar Park Pvt. Ltd.