compliance with statutory and environmental requirements. Any attempt now to penalize or restrict their right to reside or access essential services, despite the developer's compliance through payment of penalties and acquisition of NOCs, would defeat this legitimate expectation. The residents cannot be made scapegoats for any alleged procedural lapses of the builder. The denial of access to essential amenities such as water and sanitation strikes at the very core of Article 21 violates the Right to Live with Human Dignity, as recognized in numerous constitutional and judicial pronouncements. The Answering Respondent submit that "access to water is not a mere amenity but a basic human right, integral to the sustenance of life. Any attempt to obstruct water supply or disable borewells in an inhabited residential society would amount to depriving the Answering Respondent of this basic right, leading to inhuman living conditions, health hazards, and social hardship. Such deprivation would clearly be unconstitutional, unreasonable, and contrary to the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience. The Answering Respondent further submit that the principle of sustainable development requires a balanced approach where environmental protection and the right to housing co-exist in harmony. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that development and environmental conservation must proceed hand in hand. Therefore, while environmental compliance is of utmost importance, it cannot come at the cost of depriving citizens of their homes or essential utilities, particularly when the original violator has already remedied the alleged infraction. The Answering Respondent humbly submit that the Tribunal, while exercising its jurisdiction, must uphold this
