Disposed

Jasbir Singh vs

NGT26 Aug 2025Original Application No. 435/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal examined grievances regarding environmental compliance in Sr. Radha Florence colony. It found the project did not require EIA clearance as the built-up area was below the threshold. The court held that separate STP was not mandated since sewage was connected to a city STP. Earlier deprivation of environmental compensation was set aside, and directions were issued for Co

What did the court decide?

Order imposed on environmental compensation set aside; restraint on construction vacated; directions issued to procure Consent to Operate.

Jasbir Singh vs — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 06

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL

¶4

PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶5

Original Application No. 435/2023 (I.A No. 43/2024 )

¶6

1. Jasbir Singh, P-23, Shri Radha Florance, Vrindavan, Mathura.

¶7

Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1. State of Uttar Pradesh,

¶10

Through its Chief Secretary, 101, B Block, Lok Bhawan, U.P. Secretariat, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow-226001. Email: [email protected].

¶11

2. Principal Secretary,

¶12

Housing and Urban Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, RWRV+2RW, Sarojini Naidu Marg, Raj Bhavan Colony, the Mall Avenue. Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. Email:[email protected]/ [email protected]/[email protected] /[email protected].

¶13

3. Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority,

¶14

Through its Vice Chairman, 32, Civil Lines, Mathura Cantonment, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. Email: [email protected]/[email protected].

¶15

4. Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindavan,

¶16

Through its Commissioner, General Ganj Road, Bangali Ghat, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh-281001. Email: [email protected]

¶17

5. District Magistrate, Mathura,

¶18

Police Lines, Mathura Cantonment, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281001. Email: [email protected]

¶19

6. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board,

¶20

Through its Member Secretary, Building No. TC-12V Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar Lucknow – 226010. Email: [email protected]

¶21

7. M/s. S.J.P. Global Limited, Mathura,

¶22

111, Shri Jamuna Dham, Goverdhan Road, NH2,

¶23

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶24

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶25

¶26

Surya Nagar, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281004. Email : [email protected].

¶27

Date of hearing: 26.08.2025

¶28

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶29

Applicant: Applicant in Person (through VC).

¶30

Respondents: Mr. Ankit Verma, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶31

Mr. Rachit Mittal, Advocate for respondent no. 3 (through VC). Mr. Yagyawalkya Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 4. Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi and Ms. Anjali Sharma Advocates for respondents no. 5.

¶32

Mr. Aditya Vaibhav Singh and Mr. Gautam Singh, Advocates for Respondent No. 6.

¶33

Mr. Samaksh Goyal, Ms. Ranu Purohit and Ms. Niharika Singh, Advocates for Respondent No. 7.

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The applicant- Mr. Jasbir Singh made a complaint dated 31.03.2023 (pages no. 1 to 5 of the paper book) on the public grievances portal of this Tribunal which has been treated and registered as O.A. No. 435 of 2023 for exercise of suo moto jurisdiction in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater

¶36

Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401 .

¶37

The applicant raised grievances regarding violations of CTE/CTO conditions as to establishment of STP, rain water harvesting, solid waste management and development of green belt on the part of respondent no. 7-M/s. S.J.P. Global Ltd. (SJPGL). The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of the applicant is reproduced as under:-

¶38

“ विषयः एस०जे०पी० ग्लोबल वलविटेड , िथुरा के विरुद्ध विकायती पत्र I

¶39

िहोदय , एस० जे०पी० ग्लोबल वलविटेड , 111 श्री जिुना धाि , गोिेधधन रोड , िथुरा द्वारा श्री राधा फ्लोरेंस , िृन्दािन कालोनी को विकवसत वकया गया वजसके वलए आपके कायाधलय द्वारा NOC 1441/NOC-718/12 वदनाांक 15/02/2012 को जारी वकया गया .

¶40

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶41

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶42

¶43

िहोदय वजन ितों के साथ वबल्डर को NOC जारी वकया गया था उस िें से वबल्डर द्वारा कायध नहीां

¶44

कराये गए हैं वजनका वििरण इस प्रकार है :-

¶45

सीिेज टरीटिेंट प्ाांट की स्थापना नहीां की गयी है।

¶46

रेन िाटर हािेस्टांग की स्थापना वनयिानुसार नहीां की गयी है।

¶47

सावलड िेट वनस्तारण की कोई व्यिस्था वबल्डर द्वारा नहीां की गयी है , कूडा कालोनी के खाली प्ाट या सडक पर ही फैक वदया जाता है।

¶48

कालोनी पररसर के चारोां ओर हररत पविक्का विकवसत नहीां की गयी है।

¶49

कालोनी के एक पाकध के अलािा कहीां भी पेड नहीां है , कालोनी को एक कांक्रीट के जांगल के सिान बना वदया है , िहोदय गविधयोां िें स्स्थवत बहुत भयानक होती है।

¶50

िहोदय वबल्डर के विरुद्ध आपके कायाधलय िें पहले भी वलस्खत एिां िौस्खक विकायतें की गयी हैं परन्तु आपके कायाधलय द्वारा वबल्डर के विरुद्ध अभी तक कोई कायधिाही नहीां की गयी है , िहोदय कायाधलय ने NOC तो प्रदान की परन्तु विभाग द्वारा दी गयी एक भी ितध वबल्डर द्वारा पूरी नहीां गयी , क्या इन 12 िषों िें विभाग को एक बार भी इसकी जााँच करना आिश्यक नहीां लगा .

¶51

िहोदय से वनिेदन है वक वबल्डर के विरुद्ध कठोरति कायधिाही करने की कृपा करें , आपकी अवत कृपा होगी। हि सभी रहिासी सदाां आपके आभारी रहेंगे। Attachment: NOC पुरानी विकायत”

¶52

The English translation, made by the Registry of this Tribunal, of

¶53

the above quoted part of the above-mentioned letter petition is

¶54

reproduced as under:-

¶55

“Subject: Complaint against SJP Global Ltd., Mathura.

¶56

Sir, Shri Radha Florence, Vrindavan Colony is developed by SJP Global Limited, 111 Shri Jamuna Dham, Goverdhan Road, Mathura for which NOC 1441/NOC-718/12 dated 15/02/2012 was issued by your office.

¶57

Sir, the works which were not carried out by the builder as per the conditions under which NOC was issued are as follows:-

¶58

1. Sewage treatment plant has not been set up.

¶59

2. Rain water harvesting has not been set up as per rules.

¶60

3. No arrangement for solid waste disposal has been made by the builder, garbage is thrown on the empty plots or roads of the colony. 4. Green belt is not developed around the colony premises.

¶61

5. There are no trees anywhere except one park in the colony, making the colony like a concrete jungle, Sir, the condition is terrible in summers.

¶62

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. I.A. No. 43/2024

¶63

¶64

Sir, written and verbal complaints have already been made against the builder in your office but no action has been taken against the builder by your office till now. Sir, the office did provide NOC but not a single condition given by the department was fulfilled by the builder. Did the department not find it necessary to investigate it even once in these 12 years?

¶65

Sir, we request you to please take strict action against the builder, it will be a great favor. We all residents will always be grateful to you. Attachment: NOC old complaint”

¶66

Vide order dated 01.08.2023, this Tribunal impleaded (1) State of

¶67

Uttar Pradesh (U.P.) through Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.,( 2) Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), (3) District Magistrate, Mathura and (4) M/s. S.J.P. Global Limited, Mathura as respondents no. 1 to 4 and ordered issuance of notices to them requiring filing of their response to the averments made in the application.

¶68

By the above said order this Tribunal also constituted a Joint Committee comprising Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), UPPCB and District Magistrate, Mathura with direction to visit the site, look into the grievances of the applicant, associate the applicant and representative of the concerned project proponent, verify the factual position and take appropriate remedial action, including imposition of environmental compensation and utilization thereof for remediation of environmental damage by following due course of law and giving opportunity of being heard to the project proponent and to file its report within one month.

¶69

In compliance thereof Report dated 28.08.2023 of the Joint Committee (pages no. 6 to 19 of the paper book) was filed by the Regional Officer, UPPCB, Mathura vide email dated 05.10.2023. The relevant part of the report reads as under:-

¶70

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶71

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶72

¶73

Report regarding Hon'ble NGT passed order on Dated 01.08.2023 in OA No. 435/2023. X X X X

¶74

A joint team inspection of site was carried out on dated 22.08.2023. the representative from the builder was Mr. Jitendra Kumar Shah-Site Engineer, Director of project Mr. Shekhar Agrawal present at the site during the visit Complainer was informed to be present at site, but he could not present during visit. The details are as under:-

¶75

1. M/s S.J.P. Global Limited is situated at Khasra No.-844 to 848, 850, 851, 867 to 871, Mauja-Sunrakh Bangar, Tehsil & District-Mathura. It is operated by the name of whose Shri Sudeep Agrawal.

¶76

2. The Geo-Coordinates of the M/s S.J.P. Global Limited in Khasra No.-844 to 848, 850, 851, 867 to 871, Mauja-Sunrukh Bangar, Tehsil & District-Mathura are Latitude-27.562241& Longitude-77.656474

¶77

3. There is a residential colony developed by M/s S.J.P. Global Limited, which is approved by Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura. The residential colony was established in 2012. The approved map from concern authority is Annexed as annexure-1

¶78

4. As per the NOC point no-03 which is issued by UPPCB Mathura is annexed as annexure-2, the builder has to develop one STP for the treatment of the sewage generated in the project area but no sewage treatment plant has been established by the builder at the site. For the disposal of sewage, the builder has send a request letter on dt. 09-3-2012 to Development authority Mathura is annexed as annexure-3 for connection of sewage drain to the authority's permission letter/agreement for connection of sewage of the project area to the city drainage system. However, the project area sewage drain was connected to the city sewage drain network which is connected to the SPS of Rukmini Vihar. During visit builder could not present any documents of sewerage tax paid to the concern authority/Agreement etc.

¶79

5. Builder has not developed any specific site for solid waste collection however, he has one rickshaw for door to door collection. Nagar Nigam Mathura has kept 04 solid waste collection bins inside the project area. As representative informed that Nagar Nigam daily collected solid waste from inside bins of project area for disposal at municipal solid waste site.

¶80

6. Builder has developed 05 rainwater collection tanks with a volume of 37 sqm each.

¶81

7. Builder has developed a green belt area along with one side of boundary wall of the project and a small- small area left over inside the project area.

¶82

8. A letter has been sent to the General Manager Water Works Department, Municipal Corporation, Mathura that the generated

¶83

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶84

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶85

¶86

sewage of M/s S.J.P. Global Limited (Project Shri Radha Florence) is connected to 08 MLD STP through SPS Rukmini Vihar, Vrindavan, Mathura or not is Annexed as annexure -4.

¶87

9. A report has been sent to Board Headquarter Lucknow regarding the imposition of Environment compensation and show cause notice against the aforesaid Builder is Annexed as annexure -5.

¶88

10.Photographs taken at the time of inspection of M/s. S.J.P. Global.

¶89

A factual and action taken report is being submitted for kind perusal and further action in this regard.”

¶90

In view of the observations made in the application and in the report of the Joint Committee, change in the impleadment of parties was effected vide order dated 30.10.2023 and (1) State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2) Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, (3) Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura (MVDA), (4) Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindavan (NNMV), (5) District Magistrate, Mathura (6) UPPCB, and (7) M/s. S.J.P. Global Limited,

¶91

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. I.A. No. 43/2024

¶92

¶93

Mathura were impleaded as respondents no. 1 to 7 and notices were ordered to be served on them requiring filing of response by them.

¶94

In compliance thereof report dated 23.01.2024 (pages no. 20 to 29 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no-4 Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan vide email dated 24.01.2024. Response dated 24.01.2024 (pages no. 30 to 42 of the paper book) was filed by UPPCB vide email dated 24.01.2024. Reply dated 25.01.2024 (pages no. 43 to 71 of the paper book) was filed by Respondent no-3-Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority vide email dated 25.01.2024. Additional response dated 24.01.2024 (pages no. 72 to 74 of the paper book) was filed by UPPCB vide email dated 26.01.2024. Reply dated 29.12.2023 (pages no. 90 to 186 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no.-7-S.J.P. Global Limited vide email dated 23.02.2024 and additional reply dated 09.03.2024 (pages no. 187 to 229 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no.-7-S.J.P. Global Limited vide email dated 15.03.2024. Response dated 12.04.2024 (pages no. 230 to 240 of the paper book) was filed by UPPCB vide email dated 12.04.2024.

¶95

Vide order dated 03.05.2024 respondent no. 3-MVDA, respondent no. 4-NNMV, respondent no. 5-District Magistrate, Mathura and respondent no. 7-SJPGL were directed to take requisite remedial measures in discharge of their statutory/ contractual obligations and observations/recommendations of the Joint Committee and file action taken reports.

¶96

In compliance thereof affidavit dated 17.08.2024 (pages no. 241 to 262 of the paper book) was filed by SJPGL vide email dated 11.09.2024.

¶97

This Tribunal observed in order dated 20.08.2024 that in its reply respondent no. 7 has neither disclosed as to what was the built up area nor whether provisions of Environment Impact Assessment notification

¶98

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶99

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶100

¶101

dated 14.09.2006 are applicable; whether any EC was obtained for development of project in question; whether any consent to operate was obtained, when the project was put in operation allowing occupation to third parties, whether for connecting the sewage line of residential area with the trunk line of NNMV any authority letter was obtained from NNMV. This Tribunal also observed that in its reply NNMV has not disclosed as to what is the total sewage generation which is carried by said drain and whether STP is meeting the prescribed standards after treatment of sewage or not.

¶102

Supplementary reply dated 15.09.2024 (pages no. 263 to 271 of the paper book) has been filed by respondent no. 4- NNMV vide email dated 16.09.2024. Additional reply dated 14.09.2024 (pages no. 272 to 277 of the paper book) has been filed by SJPGL vide email dated 17.09.2024. 13. This Tribunal considered the replies/responses on 18.09.2024 and observed that respondent no. 7 had not submitted requisite facts which were required vide order dated 20.08.2024 and had not complied with the same and passed interim injunctive order restraining respondent no. 7 from carrying out any further activities in project in question by way of construction or transfer of land to any third party or creation of third party rights in any manner and directed District Magistrate, Mathura and UPPCB to seize the project in question of respondent no. 7 forthwith while ensuring that persons residing in colony, their egress, ingress and other activities are not affected and only functioning of respondent no. 7 remained stopped.

¶103

Reply dated 08.11.2024 (pages no. 278 to 296 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 7-SJPGL vide email dated 19.11.2024. Supplementary report dated 15.09.2024 (pages no. 297 to 305 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 4- NNMV vide email dated

¶104

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶105

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶106

¶107

22.11.2024. Supplementary reply dated 13.01.2025 (pages no. 306 to 403 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 7- SJPGL vide email dated 16.01.2025. Additional supplementary reply dated 17.03.2025 (pages no. 404 to 417 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 7- SJPGL vide email dated 19.03.2025.

¶108

Respondent no.5- District Magistrate, Mathura filed affidavit dated 25.08.2025 wherein the District Magistrate, Mathura mentioned that vide letter dated 06.08.2025, he constituted a committee comprising of Vice Chairman, MVDA, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Mathura and Deputy Registrar-I, Office of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, Mathura. The committee carried out inspection on 21.08.2025 and observed in its report that at the time of inspection, no construction work was found to be going on in the colony, as per the directions issued by this Tribunal; at the time of inspection, the representative present, Shri Kamlesh Mishra, Senior VicePresident, informed that no construction work was being undertaken; the Deputy Registrar-I, Office of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, Mathura, informed that in the colony in question no activity of purchase-sale of vacant plots and previously constructed buildings was carried out pursuant to the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by this Tribunal.

¶109

The submissions made in the replies/responses are not reproduced here and the same will be referred to and considered at appropriate places in the later part of this order.

¶110

I.A. No. 43 of 2024 (pages no. 75 to 89 of the paper book) was filed by respondent no. 7 for placing on record copy of reply dated 24.01.2024 to RTI application and copy of letter imposing External Development Charges of Rs. 72,09,035/- as additional documents. In view of the reasons mentioned I.A. No. 43 of 2024 is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record.

¶111

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. I.A. No. 43/2024

¶112

¶113

We have heard arguments addressed by the applicant in person and learned counsels for the respondents and we have gone through the material on record carefully.

¶114

Written submissions dated 30.04.2025 (pages no. 418 to 441 of the paper book) have been filed by respondent no. 7- SJPGL vide email dated 01.05.2025.

¶115

Written arguments dated 16.07.2025 (pages no. 442 to 445 of the paper book) have been filed by respondent no. 4- NNMV vide email dated 17.07.2025.

¶116

In their arguments the applicant and learned Counsel for the respondents have reiterated the factual and legal submissions made in their respective pleadings.

¶117

In view of the averments made in the original application and reports/replies/responses filed by the respondents in the case following substantial questions relating to environment arise in the present case:-

¶118

(i) Whether the Project required prior environmental clearance as per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006?

¶119

(ii) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition

¶120

regarding establishment of STP ?.

¶121

(iii) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition regarding rain water harvesting?

¶122

(iv) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition regarding arrangement for solid waste disposal and garbage is thrown on the empty plots or roads of the colony?

¶123

(v) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition regarding development of Green belt around the colony premises and there are no trees anywhere except one park in the colony, making

¶124

the colony like a concrete jungle?

¶125

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶126

¶127

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶128

The grievances raised by the applicant have to be considered in the context of observations made in the report of the Joint Committee, submissions made in replies/reports filed by respondent no. 3-MVDA, respondent no.4-NNMV and respondent no.6 UPPCB and the replies filed by the project proponent respondent no. 7-SJPGL.

¶129

Our findings on the above-mentioned substantial questions relating to environment along-with reasons for the same are as stated hereinafter.

¶130

(i) Whether the Project required prior environmental clearance as per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006?

¶131

It is proved by the observations made in the report of the Joint Committee, submissions made in replies/reports filed by respondent no. 3-MVDA, respondent no.4-NNMV and respondent no.6 UPPCB and admissions of respondent no. 7-SJPGL that Project Shri Radha Florence was established in Khasra Nos. 844 to 848, 850, 851, 867 to 871, Mauza -Sunrakh Bangar, Tehsil and District Mathura, within the TTZ area in 2012 as per the map (copy annexed as Annexure-1 with report of the Joint Committee at pages no. 10 to 13 of the paper book) approved by Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura and as per CTE dated 15.02.2012 (copy at pages no. 14 and 15 of the paper book) granted by UPPCB which was valid upto 31.03.2013.

¶132

This Tribunal observed in its order dated 20.08.2024 that in its reply respondent no. 7 has neither disclosed as to what was the built up area nor whether provisions of Environment Impact Assessment notification dated 14.09.2006 are applicable and whether any EC was obtained for development of project in question;

¶133

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶134

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶135

¶136

In its reply dated 08.11.2024 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has submitted that total area under development as per the approved map was 94548.88 sq. meters. Out of this total area approval was given by authority to undertake construction on 54785.52 sq. meters. Number of units sanctioned for this project was 538. Out of Total approved 538 Units, respondent no. 7-SJPGL undertook construction for only 298 units which accounted for 19197.7 sq. meters.

¶137

The Central Government by Notification no S.O. 1533 (E) dated 14.09.2006 directed that on and from the date of publication thereof construction of new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to said notification or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities with addition of capacity or any change in product mix in an existing manufacturing unit shall be undertaken in any part of India only after the prior environmental clearance from the Central Government or the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, as the case may be, in accordance with the procedure specified in said notification. 29. Entry 8 in the Schedule of the EIA Notification, 2006 reads as

¶138

under:-

¶139

“(1)	(2) (3)	(4)	(5)
8	Building/Construction project	s/Area Development proj	ects and Townships
8(a)	Building and Construction projects	≥20000 sq.mtrs and <1,50,000 sq.mtrs. of built- up area#	#(built up area for covered construction; in the case of facilities open to the sky, it will be the activityarea)
8(b)	Townships and Area Development projects.	Covering an area ≥ 50 ha and оr built up area ≥1,50,000 sq.mtrs ++	++ All projects under Item 8(b) shall be appraised as Category B1

¶140

”

¶141

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶142

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶143

¶144

The definition of ‘built up area’ in original notification dated 14.09.2006 was amended vide amendment notifications no. S.O. 5733(E) dated 14.11.2018 and S.O. 5736 (E) dated 15.11.2018.

¶145

In order dated 22.11.2024, this Tribunal observed that built up area has not been shown in terms of amended definition of ‘built up area’ in EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 as amended vide S.O. 5736 (E) dated 15.11.2018 and that project cost has also not been disclosed by respondent no. 7-SJPGL.

¶146

In its reply dated 13.01.2025, respondent no. 7-SJPGL has referred to definition of ‘built up area’ in original notification dated 14.09.2006 and in amendment notifications no. S.O. 5733(E) dated 14.11.2018 and S.O. 5736 (E) dated 15.11.2018 and submitted that amended definition does not have retrospective application and even if calculated as per the definition provided in the notification bearing no. S.O. 5736 (E) dated 15.11.2018, the built up area of the project is still 19,197.7 Sq. meters, as evidenced by the summary provided by it.

¶147

In its reply dated 17.03.2025, respondent no. 7-SJPGL has submitted that the construction work for the said project was started after obtaining consent to establish (NOC) from UPPCB vide letter dated 15.02.2012 and complying with the terms and conditions of the consent to establish (NOC) and after getting approval of drawing map from MVDA. EC was not required to be obtained in terms of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 in view of the fact that total built-up area did not exceed 20,000 sq. meters and the threshold of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 for grant of Environmental Clearance has not been breached by respondent no. 7-SJPGL.

¶148

In its reply dated 13.01.2025 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has also submitted that in the absence of any damage to the environment and in

¶149

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶150

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶151

¶152

the light of the built up area of the project in question being below the threshold limit the disclosure of cost of the project is a irrelevant and has no bearing on merits of the present proceedings. However, respondent no. 7-SJPGL has also mentioned cost of the project to be Rs. 38.96 crores.

¶153

Even though in view of the fact that (as per own admission of respondent no. 7-SJPGL) approval was given by MVDA for construction on 54785.52 sq. meters out of 94548.88 sq. meters, respondent no. 7 was required to obtain prior environmental clearance as per the procedure specified in EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 but respondent no. 7-SJPGL could at any point of time modify/abandon part of its project so as to confine its activities so as to not breach the threshold for applicability of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. In its reply dated 08.11.2024 respondent no. 7- SJPGL has submitted (at page 281 of the paper book) that respondent no. 7-SJPGL has no further plans to construct any more villas at the site in question. Summary filed by respondent no. 7-SJPGL clearly shows that the total constructed/built-up area for the 298 units (22 Type-A duplex houses, 25 Type-B duplex houses, 235 Type-D simplex houses, and 16 Type-F simplex houses) is 19,197.7 square meters. Due to total 19,197.7 square meters built up area of the project being less than 20,000 sq. meters, clause 8(a) of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 is not applicable to the same. Since total 94,548.88 sq. meters area of the project is less than 50 hectares, clause 8(b) of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 is also not applicable to the same. Consequently, the Project did not require prior environmental clearance as per EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 and respondent no.7 SJPGL cannot be said to have violated the EIA Notification, dated 14.09.2006.

¶154

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶155

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶156

¶157

In its reply dated 08.11.2024 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has submitted (at page 281 of the paper book) that if and when, any construction is to be undertaken by respondent no. 7-SJPGL which may breach the threshold of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006, the Environment Clearance for entire project shall be undertaken before commencement of any such construction.

¶158

In view of the above, respondent no. 7-SJPGL is restrained from carrying out any further construction breaching the threshold of 20,000 sq. meters for applicability of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 without obtaining Environment Clearance for entire project before commencement of any such construction as undertaken by it in its reply dated 08.11.2024.

¶159

(ii) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition regarding establishment of STP ?.

¶160

In its reply affidavit dated 25.01.2024 respondent no. 3-MVDA has mentioned (at page 48 of the paper book) that Map no. 104/V-10-11 dated 10.05.2011 of Shri Radha Florance Colony was issued by respondent no. 3-MVDA which was revised by map dated 05.09.2011.

¶161

The eight conditions imposed in the above-said map are reproduced as under:

¶162

“a. The construction work will be carried out as per the sanctioned map.

¶163

b. There shall be no encroachment on the land of government or Municipality by any part of constructed work and nor project on them.

¶164

c. After obtaining permission for the construction, the permission holder shall inform this development authority (answering Respondent) about the work progress.

¶165

d. The said permission shall be valid only for five years, within which it will be mandatory to give the completion certificate, and the approved period for the completion of the construction can be extended only for one year onwards on the request of the permission

¶166

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶167

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶168

¶169

holder but such extension of time will be subjected to the rules and regulations prevailing at that time. The completion of construction after the approved time will be considered as illegal construction.

¶170

e. Any newly constructed, re-constructed, or altered constructed building will not be allowed to be occupied till the time unless a certificate is submitted from the Municipal Corporation, Mathura stating that the building is as per the rules and regulations and is habitable for living.

¶171

f. The aforementioned construction shall be done under Rules 79 and 30 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1957 and in that regard, full responsibility will be of the builder.

¶172

g. Shall make a provision for rainwater harvesting. h. On the marked site, the trees shall be planted such as Burflower trees, Ashoka trees, etc.”

¶173

It is evident from a perusal of the conditions in the map that condition of setting up of STP was not incorporated in the same.

¶174

In its reply dated 29.12.2023 respondent no. 7 has also emphasized (at page no. 96 of the paper book) that no condition regarding setting up of STP was mentioned in site map approved by respondent no. 3-MVDA.

¶175

The Project was granted NOC by Regional Office, UPPCB Mathura vide letter no. 1441/NOC-718/12 dated 15.02.2012 with the specific condition to install STP for the treatment of domestic effluent generated from the colony and to use the treated effluent for irrigation purpose in the Project premises.

¶176

In its report dated 28.08.2023, the Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal made the following observations:-

¶177

“4. As per the NOC point no-03 which is issued by UPPCB Mathura is annexed as annexure-2, the builder has to develop one STP for the treatment of the sewage generated in the project area but no sewage treatment plant has been established by the builder at the site. For the disposal of sewage, the builder has send a request letter on dtd 09-3-2012 to Development authority Mathura is annexed as annexure-3 for connection of sewage drain to the authority's permission. letter/agreement for connection of sewage of the project area to the

¶178

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶179

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶180

¶181

city drainage system. However, the project area sewage drain was connected to the city sewage drain network which is connected to the SPS of Rukmini Vihar. During visit builder could not present any documents of sewerage tax paid to the concern authority/Agreement etc.”

¶182

In its reply dated 25.01.2024 filed by respondent no. 3- MVDA has mentioned (at page no. 54 of the paper book) that Respondent no.3 directed its Junior Engineer to submit a report. The Junior Engineer inspected the site to file a reply in compliance with the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present case and submitted his report dated 19.01.2024. In his report, the Junior Engineer submitted that STP work is not part of the estimate of Radha Florence Colony. The development work of the sewer line in the Colony area is complete at the time of inspection of Radha Florence Colony. While sanctioning the map of the colony by the Authority, an amount collected as external development fee has been used for sewer line installed by the MathuraVrindavan Development Authority from Radha Florence Colony, to Rukmani Bihar Mathura located in STP, in which the sewer line of Radha Florence Colony is added by the Authority's consent. Due to which the sewerage is being disposed of. Since the Mathura-Vrindavan Development Authority has a combination in Rukmani Bihar STP with the sewer line. Therefore, there is no need for ASTP separately.

¶183

In its response dated 24.01.2024, respondent no.6-UPPCB has mentioned that the site of M/s SJP Global Limited was inspected by the official of regional office, UPPCB, Mathura on 18.01.2014. During inspection it was found that the project proponent has not installed Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) for the treatment of domestic effluent.

¶184

However, it may be observed here that Regional Officer, UPPCB, Mathura had written a letter dated 25.08.2023 to the General Manager, Water Works Department, seeking information whether the generated

¶185

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. I.A. No. 43/2024

¶186

¶187

sewage M/s SJP Global Limited (Project Shri Radha Florence) is connected to 08 MLD STP through SPS Rukmini Vihar, Vrindavan, Mathura or not. In response to the same, letter dated 19.01.2024 was written to the Regional Officer, UPPCB by the General Manager, Water Works Department, Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindavan informing that an inspection of the colony was done on 16.01.2024 by the water department and it was confirmed that there is no STP installed in the colony but sewer network is available in the colony and disposal of sewer line is in the trunk sewer line passing in front of the colony which is connected with 8.0 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant constructed on Mont Road via Rukmini Vihar SPS.

¶188

In its response dated 24.01.2024 respondent no.6-UPPCB has also mentioned that as per letter dated 19.01.2024 received from the office of General Manager (Jal), JalKal Vibhag. Nagar Nigam, Mathura Vrindavan, Mathura, the disposal of sewer line from the colony is connected with the trunk sewer line which ultimately goes to 8.0 MLD STP installed at Mont road, Mathura.

¶189

In its reply dated 23.01.2024, respondent no.4-NNMV has also mentioned that on inspection of the colony on 16.01.2024 by the water department, it was confirmed that there is no STP installed in the colony but the sewer network is available in the colony and disposal of sewer line is in the trunk sewer line passing in front of the colony; the disposal of this trunk sewer line is at 8.0 MLD Sewage Treatment Plant constructed on Mont Road via Rukmini Vihar SPS.

¶190

This Tribunal observed in order dated 20.08.2024 that the reply filed by respondent no.7 did not disclose whether for connecting the sewage line of residential area with the trunk line of Nagar Nigam any authority letter was obtained from NNMV.

¶191

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶192

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶193

¶194

Respondent no.5- District Magistrate, Mathura has filed an affidavit dated 25.08.2025 wherein the District Magistrate, Mathura has mentioned that vide letter dated 06.08.2025, he constituted a committee comprising of Vice Chairman, Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, Mathura, Regional Officer, UPPCB, Mathura and Deputy Registrar-I, Office Advocate of Deputy Registrar, Sadar, Mathura. The committee carried out inspection on 21.08.2025 and submitted report dated 21.08.2025. The relevant part of the observations from the inspection (copy at page 451 of the paper book) is reproduced as under:-

¶195

“d. In the project report submitted by the referred colony, the total quantity of domestic effluent was shown as 210 KLD/day, however, after assessment as per present standards, on the basis of constructed buildings and residing occupants in the colony, the total domestic effluent generated is approximately 350 KLD.

¶196

Formula used:-

¶197

Total No. of House x No. of Person x 135 LPD = 562 x 4 x 135-303480 Ltr. 303.48 KLD Assuming floating population it may be 350 KLD.

¶198

e. The domestic effluent generated by the referred colony is sent to the pumping station situated at Rukmani Vihar, which is at a distance of about 1.0 km from the colony, and thereafter the domestic effluent is sent for treatment to the 08 MLD STP, Mant Road, near 100-bed hospital, Mathura.”

¶199

It may be observed here that the Committee had observed that the project proponent has not obtained requisite permissions from the concerned authorities for disposal and treatment of sewage in the aforementioned pumping station and the STP.

¶200

In its reply dated 12.02.2024 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has submitted (at page no. 191 of the paper book) that respondent no. 7 approached the Vice Chairman of MVDA on 04.02.2012 for extending the

¶201

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶202

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶203

¶204

connection with STP of MVDA and vide letter dated 19.03.2012 the Vice Chairman, MVDA passed the order for connection with STP of MVDA.

¶205

In its reply dated 27.03.2025, respondent no. 7-SJPGL has mentioned (at page no. 409 of the paper book) that EDC amounting to Rs. 72,09,035/- lakhs has been deposited by respondent no. 7-SJPGL with respondent no.3-MVDA. In its additional reply dated 08.11.2024 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has mentioned (at page no. 282 of the paper book) that in the External Development Fee segment a total amount of Rs 83,69,904/- was deposited by respondent no. 7-SJPGL.

¶206

In its reply dated 12.02.2024 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has mentioned (at pages no. 194-195 of the paper book) that the Regional Officer, UPPCB had written letter dated 27.11.2023 to the Secretary, MVDA and in response thereto the Secretary, MVDA had sent letter dated 29.01.2024 indicating the facts of sewage connection. 55. In its reply dated 15.09.2024 respondent no. 4-Nagar Nigam Mathura has mentioned (at page 265 of the paper book) that payment of Rs. 12,055/- was deposited in the fund of Nagar Nigam, MathuraVrindavan vide receipt no. 218763/2188 dated 25.08.2023. 56. This Tribunal observed in order dated 20.08.2024 that it is not disclosed by NNMV as to what is the total sewage generation which is carried by said drain and whether STP is meeting the prescribed standards after treatment of sewage or not.

¶207

In its reply dated 15.09.2024, respondent no. 4-NNMV has mentioned (at page no. 265 of the paper book) that in compliance of order dated 19.03.2024, Respondent No. 4 constituted a 5-member Joint Committee vide office order dated 03.09.2024. The Joint Committee submitted report relevant part of which is reproduced as follows:

¶208

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶209

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶210

¶211

“i. As per the records, 562 small residential plots are to be developed by the builder in Shri Radha Florence Colony. At present, about 300 houses have been built in the colony. Construction work is in progress for remaining plots.

¶212

ii. The sewer line of Shri Radha Florence Colony is connected to the 400mm diameter sewer line of Nagar Nigam, and the payment for the same of Rs. 12,055/- is deposited in the fund of Nagar Nigam Mathura-Vrindavan vide receipt no.218763/2188, dated 25.08.2023. A true copy of the receipt dated 25.08.2023 of Rs. 12,055/- is marked and annexed herein as ANNEXURE B.

¶213

iii. The branch sewer line of Shri Radha Florence Colony is connected to the with the main of sewer line through a trunk of 400mm diameter on the road outside the colony. The provision for disposal of the same is located at SPS in Rukmani Vihar. Five pumps are installed in the sump well at Rukmani Vihar SPS. The capacity of Rukmani Vihar SPS is 06 MLD. At Rukmani Vihar SPS, seepage is being disposed through pumps through a sewer line of 500 mm diameter and 08 MLD, at STP.

¶214

iv. The Capacity of trunk sewer line of 400mm diameter is 01 MLD. Even if all the buildings of the colony are constructed, the maximum sewer disposal of 562 residential buildings will be 0.3 MLD, which is less than the capacity of the existing trunk sewer line of 01 MLD. Thus, the trunk sewer line has the capacity to take the maximum sewer disposal of the colony.

¶215

v. The 08 MLD STP built is operating at its full capacity. In which the sewer of the referenced colony is also being treated. The outlet parameters of the treated sewage are checked daily by Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam (Urban) in its laboratory and along with this, every week sampling is also being done by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Mathura. Further, the outlet parameters are being tested. Presently, the 08 MLD STP is operating at its full capacity and the outlet parameters of the treated sewage are also as per the standard.”

¶216

As per response filed by Regional Officer (In-charge) UPPCB, Mathura dated 24.01.2024, it is mentioned (at page no 32 of the paper book) that the Colony was transferred to Nagar Nigar Mathura, Vrindavan for infrastructural services on 01.11.2021.

¶217

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶218

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶219

¶220

In view of (i) the fact that no condition regarding setting up of STP was mentioned in site map approved by respondent no. 3-MVDA, (ii) permission to link the sewer was granted by the Mathura Vrindavan Development Authority, (iii) respondent no.7 SJPGL has made payment of Rs 83,69,904/-as External Development Fee to respondent no. 3-MVDA and deposited Rs. 12,055/- with respondent no.4-NNMV vide receipt no. 218763/2188 dated 25.08.2023, (iv) branch sewer line of Shri Radha Florence Colony is connected to the main of sewer line through a trunk of 400mm diameter on the road outside the colony and (v) provision for disposal of the same is made in Rukmani Vihar 06 MLD STP, establishment of STP by respondent no. 7-SJPGL was not essentially required and respondent no. 7-SJPGL cannot be said to have violated the condition regarding establishment of STP.

¶221

(iii) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition regarding rain water harvesting?

¶222

The Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2023 has mentioned that Builder has developed 05 rainwater collection tanks with a volume of 37 sqm each. 61. In its reply, respondent no. 3- MVDA has mentioned that Respondent no.3 directed its Junior Engineer to submit a report. The Junior Engineer inspected the site to file a reply in compliance with the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present case and submitted his report dated 19.01.2024. In his report, the Junior Engineer submitted that “Rain Water Harvesting System” is part of the estimate of Radha Florence Colony and that it was known from the inspection of Colony that this work has been done in Colony.

¶223

In its reply dated 24.01.2024 respondent no.6-UPPCB has mentioned (at page no. 32 of the paper book) that the project proponent

¶224

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶225

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶226

¶227

has constructed five collection pits (size 4×3 feet each) for rain water harvesting.

¶228

Respondent no.5- District Magistrate, Mathura has filed an affidavit dated 25.08.2025 wherein the District Magistrate, Mathura has mentioned that the committee constituted by him carried out inspection on 21.08.2025 and observed in its report that the project proponent has constructed five collection pits (size 4x3 feet) for rain water harvesting.

¶229

Consequently, the Project Proponent cannot be said to have violated the condition regarding rain water harvesting.

¶230

(iv) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition regarding arrangement for solid waste disposal and garbage is thrown on the empty plots or roads of the colony?

¶231

The Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated 01.08.2023 has mentioned that Builder has not developed any specific site for solid waste collection however, he has one rickshaw for door to door collection. Nagar Nigam Mathura has kept 04 solid waste collection bins inside the project area. As representative informed that Nagar Nigam daily collected solid waste from inside bins of project area for disposal at municipal solid waste site.

¶232

The Joint Committee did not find any garbage thrown on the empty plots or roads of the colony.

¶233

In its reply, respondent no. 3- MVDA has mentioned that Respondent no.3 directed its Junior Engineer to submit a report. The Junior Engineer inspected the site to file a reply in compliance with the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present case and submitted his report dated 19.01.2024. In his report, the Junior Engineer submitted that Garbage disposal work is not part of the estimate of Radha Florence Colony. But at the time of inspection, 04 large dustbins

¶234

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶235

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶236

¶237

are present in different places in the colony area, which found door-todoor collection. These big dustbins are being disposed of by the Municipal Corporation as per rules.

¶238

In its reply dated 24.01.2024 respondent no.6-UPPCB has mentioned (at page no. 32 of the paper book) that the municipal solid waste is collected by Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan on door to door basis.

¶239

Respondent no.5- District Magistrate, Mathura has filed an affidavit dated 25.08.2025 wherein the District Magistrate, Mathura has mentioned that the committee constituted by him carried out inspection on 21.08.2025 and observed in its report that the municipal solid waste is collected by Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan on door to door basis.

¶240

Since as per response filed by Regional Officer (In-charge) UPPCB, Mathura dated 24.01.2024, it is mentioned (at page no 32 of the paper book) that the Colony was transferred to Nagar Nigar Mathura, Vrindavan for infrastructural services on 01.11.2021 and the municipal solid waste is collected by Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan on door to door basis, respondent no. 7-SJPGL cannot be said to have violated the condition regarding making of requisite arrangement for disposal of solid waste.

¶241

(v) Whether the Project Proponent has violated the condition

¶242

regarding development of Green belt around the colony premises and there are no trees anywhere except one park in the colony, making

¶243

the colony like a concrete jungle?

¶244

In its reply respondent no. 7 project Proponent has mentioned that the project proponent has developed green belt on an area measuring 14513.71 Sqr. meters.

¶245

The Joint Committee constituted by this Tribunal vide order dated

¶246

01.08.2023 has mentioned in its report dated 28.08.2023 that Builder

¶247

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶248

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶249

¶250

has developed a green belt area along with one side of boundary wall of the project and a small- small area left over inside the project area.

¶251

In its reply dated 25.01.2024, respondent no. 3- MVDA has mentioned that Respondent no.3 directed its Junior Engineer to submit a report. The Junior Engineer inspected the site to file a reply in compliance with the order dated 30.10.2023 passed by this Tribunal in the present case and submitted his report dated 19.01.2024. In his report, the Junior Engineer submitted that Green Strip is part of the estimate of Radha Florence Colony includes the development the park is present in the estimate. When Radha Florence Colony is inspected, parks are developed in the Colony area and the work of plantation was found along with Boundary wall.

¶252

In its reply dated 24.01.2024, respondent no.6-UPPCB has mentioned (at page no. 32 of the paper book) that the project has developed green belt on an area measuring 14513.71 sq. meters. 75. In his affidavit dated 25.08.2025 Respondent no.5- District Magistrate, Mathura has mentioned that the committee constituted by him carried out inspection on 21.08.2025 and observed in its report that the project proponent has developed green belt on an area measuring 14513.71 sq. meters.

¶253

Consequently, the Project Proponent cannot be said to have violated the condition regarding development of Green belt around the colony premises.

¶254

Imposition of environmental compensation

¶255

In its reply dated 24.01.2024, respondent no.6-UPPCB has mentioned that UPPCB issued NOC to M/s S.J.P. Global imposing condition requiring the project proponent to establish S.T.P. for treatment of sewage and after treatment to reuse the same for agricultural

¶256

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶257

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶258

¶259

purposes. The project proponent did not comply with the condition of establishment of STP imposed in the NOC. Environmental Compensation of Rs. 1,11,06,250/- at the rate of Rs. 6,250 per day for 1771 days for violation from 16.02.2016 to 31.10.2021 was imposed vide letter no. H06155/C-4/NGT-175/EC/2024 dated 24.01.2024 on the Project Proponent. Recovery Certificate has been issued by the State Board vide Letter No. H27808/C-4/NGT-175/RC/Mathura/2025 dated 05.05.2025. 78. Respondent no.7 has challenged imposition of EC on respondent no.7 by UPPCB and submitted that EC has been imposed by UPPCB in a mechanical manner, without having considered the pertinent issue of Sewer Connection approved by the Mathura Vrindavan Authority and without analyzing the fact that if no treatment is taking place at Site as the sewer line is connected to common STP, and no trade or industrial activity is taking place, there is no requirement of installation of STP and consequently no requirement of Consent to Operate at the site. Respondent no. 7-SJPGL has also submitted that respondent no.7SJPGL submitted detailed reply dated 04.11.2023 to the show-cause notice issued by UPPCB but order dated 24.01.2024 imposing EC on respondent no.7 was passed without taking into consideration the same and without waiting for reply of Secretary of MVDA. Respondent no. 7- SJPGL has also mentioned about making of representations dated 07.02.2024 and 10.02.2024. 79. Respondent no. 7 has also challenged imposition of EC on the ground that UPPCB had no power to award EC under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 in view of judgement passed by Division Bench of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ.C No. 8804 of

¶260

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶261

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶262

¶263

2023 and judgement dated 03.10.2020 titled as M/s. Suraj Builders Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.

¶264

However, in Civil Appeal No(S). 757-760 of 2013 titled as Delhi Pollution Control Committee Vs Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Etc. With Connected Civil Appeal No(S). 1977-2011 of 2013 , Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 04.08.2025 has held that that State PCB can impose EC under sections 33 A and 31 A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. However, in the above said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the power to impose EC shall be enforced only after detailing of the principle and procedure incorporating basic principles of natural justice in the subordinate legislation.

¶265

In view of the material placed on record by the respondent no. 7- SJPGL, it is evident that prior EC was not required and the project was developed after obtaining CTE from UPPCB; sewage is being discharged in the MVDA sewer line which is connected to STP; five water harvesting pits have been constructed by the project proponent; solid waste is being collected by Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan and green belt has been developed by the project proponent and respondent no. 7-SJPGL cannot be said to have violated the conditions regarding the same imposed by UPPCB as discussed above.

¶266

Present Status of grant of CTO

¶267

This Tribunal observed in its order dated 18.09.2024 that the status of respondent no. 7 as to compliance with the environmental lawsthe Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 is not disclosed.

¶268

In its reply dated 08.11.2024 respondent no. 7-SJPGL has submitted (at page no. 281 and 282 of the paper book) that Consent to

¶269

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶270

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶271

¶272

Operate was not obtained since NOC in the form of Consent to Establish was mistaken as an NOC in perpetuity and as a matter of fact no other authority/corporation or statutory body had/has ever demanded Consent to Operate as a permission/clearance/licence. The Requirement was only for Consent to Establish. Moreover, neither any commercial activity was undertaken nor any manufacturing activity was carried out. Hence Consent to Operate, which is essentially granted for carrying out an industrial activity or any other activity which is categorized as industry, was not applied for. Respondent no. 7-SJPGL has further submitted that under the Water (Prevention and control of pollution Act) 1974, the term used for mandatory treatment is “TRADE EFFLUENT”. Respondent no. 7-SJPGL is not engaged in any kind of trade or industrial activity at the site. The domestic waste water is generated because of residential units and arrangement for sewer connection to STP was made by respondent no. 7-SJPGL upon payment of fees/charges to MVDA after request for connection of sewer line was approved by the MVDA.

¶273

In its replies dated 17.08.2024 and 15.09.2024, respondent no. 7- SJPGL has mentioned that respondent no. 7-SJPGL had applied to respondent no. 1 for CTO under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Hazardous & Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 which was rejected by UPPCB on 23.02.2024 on which respondent no. 7-SJPGL again submitted application on 09.08.2024 which was rejected by UPPCB vide order dated 11.09.2024.

¶274

Even though, as mentioned above respondent no.7-SJPGL has taken the plea that there was no need to seek Consent to Operate form the UPPCB as no discharge of untreated trade effluent or any kind of waste water was taking place at the site of respondent no.7-SJPGL and

¶275

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶276

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶277

¶278

the domestic waste water is being discharged in the approved sewer line and is being treated at the 8 MLD STP located at Rukmani Vihar, Mathura, but we do not agree with this submission and respondent no. 7 is directed to submit application to UPPCB again for grant of CTO and UPPCB is directed to look into all relevant aspects particularly the fact that respondent no.7 is not now required to establish STP and can not be said to have violated CTE condition in this regard and dispose of the application in accordance with law. It may be observed here that CTO can not be declined merely on the ground of pendency of proceedings before this Tribunal and CTO has to be granted in case of compliance. In case of any violation, conditional CTO can be granted subject to such compliance. In case of non-compliance on grant of such further opportunity, action of revocation of conditional CTO may be taken but in any such eventuality, UPPCB shall have to take further punitive, prohibitive and rehabilitative action in accordance with law and in taking prohibitive and rehabilitative action UPPCB shall also have to take into consideration the third party rights created in residential/commercial parts of the project and shall have to give opportunity of being heard to such third parties as may be required.

¶279

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in the absence of violation of environmental norms by respondent no. 7-SJPGL and consequential damage to environment, imposition of environmental compensation for the same was not warranted. However, the question of liability of respondent no. 7-SJPGL to pay environmental compensation for not obtaining CTO from UPPCB lies within jurisdiction of UPPCB and has to be decided after grant of opportunity of being heard to respondent no. 7-SJPGL and in compliance with principles of natural justice and also observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in its Judgment dated

¶280

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶281

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶282

¶283

04.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No(S). 757-760 of 2013 titled as Delhi Pollution Control Committee Vs Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Etc.

¶284

With Connected Civil Appeal No(S). 1977-2011 of 2013 and this

¶285

Tribunal .

¶286

In view of the above discussion order dated 24.01.2024 imposing EC of Rs 1,11,06,250/- on respondent no.7 is liable to be set aside without prejudice to imposition of EC by UPPCB for any proved past violations in accordance with law and directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal.

¶287

Directions by this Tribunal

¶288

In the present case it is proved by the material on record and also admission of the applicant in the course of hearing today that sewage is being discharged in the MVDA sewer line which is connected to STP; five water harvesting pits have been constructed by the project proponent; green belt has been developed by the project proponent and solid waste is being collected by Nagar Nigam Mathura Vrindavan the grievances raised by the applicant do not survive. However, regular maintenance has to be carried out by the project proponent and concerned authorities and periodical monitoring has to be done by UPPCB.

¶289

In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and the legal perspective the present original application is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶290

(i) Order dated 24.01.2024 imposing EC of Rs 1,11,06,250/- is set aside without prejudice to imposition of EC by UPPCB for any proved past violations in accordance with law and directions given by Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal;

¶291

(ii) Respondent no. 7-SJPGL is restrained from carrying out any further construction breaching the threshold of 20,000 sq. meters for

¶292

O.A. No. 435/2023 Jasbir Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

¶293

I.A. No. 43/2024

¶294

¶295

applicability of EIA notification dated 14.09.2006 without obtaining Environment Clearance for entire project before commencement of any such construction as undertaken by it in its reply dated 08.11.2024; and (iii) Respondent no. 7-SJPGL is directed to submit application to UPPCB again for grant of CTO and UPPCB is directed to look into all relevant aspects particularly the fact that respondent no.7 is not now required to establish STP and can not be said to have violated CTE condition in this regard and dispose of the application in accordance with law and observations made by this Tribunal hereinabove.

¶296

In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case, interim order dated 18.09.2024 is vacated.

¶297

The parties are left to bear their own litigation costs of the present original application.

¶298

Any I.A. pending shall also stand disposed of in view of the above order.

¶299

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶300

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶301

August 26^th , 2025 Original Application No. 435/2023 (I.A No. 43/2024 ) AB

Jasbir Singh vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh vs

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

Konkan Housing & Area Development Board (a Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Unit) vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Go Green Foundation vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Tarc Projects Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Devidas Khatri vs District Collector Bikaner

Anupam Verma vs

Sanjeev Kumar and Ors. vs

Mr. Vishal Shantaram Darwatkar vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Kanti Balram Mravi vs State of Chattisgarh

Niranjan Bagchi vs

Niranjan Bagchi vs

Niranjan Bagchi vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 22/2024 in Original Application No. 15/2014 of Tribunal on Its Own Motion vs Union of India Secice through the Secretary Ministry of External Affairs

Dulal Bora vs State of Assam

Lav Mishra vs