AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The application seeks review of order dated 15.07.2022 in O.A. No. 764/2018, Kissan Udey Samiti vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. and other connected matters. By the said order, the Tribunal dealt with the issue of violation of environmental norms in construction of housing projects, particularly constructions without EC or in violation of EC conditions. Finding the violations established, the Tribunal disposed of the matter with a direction to the violating PPs to pay compensation to be utilized for restoration of environment.
The operative part of the order is reproduced below:-
“220. We, accordingly, dispose of OA 774/2018, OA 155/2020 and all pending IAs and MAs with following directions:
(i) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for TDI Kingsburry Apartments), G.T. Road, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 72 Crores as environmental compensation.
(ii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for My Floor 2, Sector-60, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 10.8 Crores as environmental compensation.
(iii) M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. for Tuscan City, Sector-58, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 12.28 Crores as environmental compensation.
(iv) M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 17.1 Crores as environmental compensation.
(v) M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers), (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.) Sector-61, Kundli, Sonipat shall pay Rs. 40.48 Crores as environmental compensation.
(vi) M/s. Narang Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Sector-62, Kundli, Sonipat, shall pay Rs. One Crore as environmental compensation.
(vii) The above amount shall be paid within three months with HSPCB by PPs. However, we make it clear that if there is any otherwise order by Supreme Court or High Court in regard to the present matters, the same shall operate and above direction would be subject to interim order/final decision of such Court.
(viii) This amount shall be utilized for rejuvenation/restoration of environment in the area concerned on the recommendation of a joint Committee comprising Additional Chief Secretary, Urban Development, Haryana; Additional Chief Secretary, Environment Haryana; CPCB; HSPCB and District Magistrate, Sonipat who shall prepare a plan within three months and execute the same within further six months from the date of deposit of environmental compensation by PP. District Magistrate, Sonipat and CPCB shall be the nodal authority for this purpose.
(ix) PPs i.e. M/s. TDI Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Parker Estate Development Pvt. Ltd., M/s. CMD Built-Tech Pvt. Ltd. (Ushay Towers) (now Pardesi Developers Pvt. Ltd.) and M/s. Narang Constructions Pvt. Ltd shall not create any further third party rights in the questioned projects unless and until environmental laws and norms are complied with.
(x) PPs shall not undertake any further activities of development in projects in question unless the requisite clearances/NOCs/ permissions under environmental laws from Competent Authorities are obtained and other provisions of environmental laws requisite to be observed before commencement of construction proceedings are complied with.
(xi) PPs are directed to take necessary steps in consultation with HSPCB and HUDA for discharge of sewerage, complying/ maintaining the prescribed standards under Water Act 1974 and Rules framed thereunder.
(xii) HSPCB and District Magistrate, Sonipat are directed to ensure that untreated sewage water generated in the premises of questioned projects, is not discharged on open lands by transporting the same by tankers.
(xiii) HSPCB shall ensure that the diesel generators are not allowed to run in the questioned areas unless the provisions of Air Act 1981 are complied with and all precautions to maintain standard of air are observed/taken.
(xiv) Since environmental laws are notified and included in schedule I of PMLA 2002 as discussed by Tribunal in OA No. 64/2016 (WZ), Akhil Bhartiya Mengela Samaj Parishad vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Ors. and constitute an offence under the said Act, let a copy of this order be sent to Enforcement Directorate for appropriate action against violators under PMLA 2002.”
In the present Review Application, it is submitted that though the Project Proponent is common, project involved in O.A. No. 155/2020 involved only plotted project which is different from the project involved in O.A. No. 764/2018. However, compensation has been assessed with reference to the project in O.A. No.764/2018 only, without considering the project cost of O.A. No. 155/2020 and thus, compensation needs to be enhanced. We are unable to accept the submission as the Tribunal has gone into all the concerned projects.
Thus, we find that the application is in the nature of seeking rehearing, which is not permissible.
The same is accordingly dismissed.