AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1) The applicant who is a resident of VGN Platina (a residential complex), has filed this application seeking a direction to the 3rd respondent to bring to an end the water and air pollution caused by the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) at VGN Platina, Ayapakkam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District and for other reliefs.
2) The applicant purchased a residential flat in VGN Platina together with an undivided share of land and has obtained the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) approval. There are as many as 672 apartments in VGN Platina out of which 480 flats are occupied. The apartments have been promoted by VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd., the 3rd respondent herein, who at the time of selling the apartments to the individual owners, collected a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from each apartment owner for the construction of STP as well as a Water Treatment Plant. The 3rd respondent at the time of obtaining sanction from the 2nd respondent for his plan, represented that each and every apartment block consisting of a plot, will have a separate septic tank and by assuring and undertaking so, obtained approval from the 2nd respondent.
3) The 3rd respondent had constructed the STP in Plot No. CS No.2 which is maintained by a Private Contractor to cater to the entire 672 apartments. There are no individual septic tanks for the plots containing apartments and the entire VGN Platina complex is dependent upon the STP. The applicant states that at the time of purchasing the flat, the 3rd respondent misrepresented that it is a housing scheme with facilities like STP and Water Treatment Plant and that the STP was approved by the 1st respondent as well as the 2nd respondent and it is working efficiently. It was assured that the STP has got adequate facility in curbing water pollution by treating sewage generated in the entire 672 apartments in VGN Platina and further, there would be no air pollution also. But the STP is not functioning properly and is not authorised either by the 1st or the 2nd respondent and further, it has become not only a nuisance but also a source of air and water pollution for the inhabitants of VGN Platina in particular and for the nearby residents in general.
4) The applicant lists the following discrepancies in respect of the impugned STP:
a) The STP has not been licensed either by the authorities of the local Panchayat or by the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board (Board). Since, the STP is not authorised, its functioning cannot be audited by the 1st respondent. The STP has been constructed by the 3rd respondent, without taking into consideration of the approval from the 2nd respondent.
b) As per the sanctioned original plan of the lay out and subsequent construction plan obtained from the 2nd respondent by the 3rd respondent, no specific place has been earmarked for the construction of the STP and the land in which the STP is established, was originally earmarked for the construction of a shop and it is not suitable for constructing STP.
c) The waste water treatment plants need to be located away from the residential areas or at least 300 feet from the nearest residence to prevent overflow of sludge or waste water into the next plot. In the instant case, the STP is built just within 3 feet from the nearest residence. An ideal STP should be compounded on all sides not only to prevent unauthorised personnel from entering the same, but also to prevent reversal flow of water but here, there is no compound wall between the STP and the residential area.
d) An ideal STP should be capable of handling at least 7 KLD of sewage for a community of 670 flats but the impugned STP is designed to handle only 5 KLD of sewage resulting in overflow of sludge and waste water and the percolation of waste water into the ground leading to ground water pollution. Excess water from the water treatment plant and water from rain water harvesting structures also flow into the STP and thereby create an additional load which it is not designed to handle. The collection tank is not sufficient to hold the sewage water coming during peak time, which results in flooding of other process tanks thereby resulting in untreated water mixing with semi treated water and this makes the entire process, procedure and exercise futile and results in untreated water being discharged.
e) Due to the over flowing of the STP, an unimaginably pungent odour is being generated which may be composed of harmful gases.
5) The 1st respondent in its reply stated that, based on the complaint received from the residents of M/s. VGN Platina, against the 3rd respondent regarding the pollution caused and improper designing of STP, an inspection was carried out by the District Environmental Engineer (DEE), Ambattur of the Board along with the Assistant Environmental Engineer on 24.10.2014. During the inspection, Site Engineer of M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Limited and some of the complainants were present and it was observed that the STP was built nearer to the residential flats without leaving any buffer area. The DEE vide a letter dated 27.10.2014 & 29.11.2014, instructed the Managing Director of 3rd respondent to revamp the STP, leaving adequate buffer area in between the STP and the residences so as to avoid such problems to the nearby residents and also to submit the action taken report immediately. It was also informed not to dispose any treated or untreated sewage outside the premises directly or indirectly.
6) Subsequently, the above said location was again inspected by the DEE on 10.12.2014 and a show cause notice was issued under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (Water Act, 1974) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (Air Act, 1981) vide Proc. No.TNPCB/DEE/NA/SCN/W & A/2014 dated 11.12.2014, since the respondent has not taken any steps in respect of revamping of the STP. The respondent was also instructed to submit the action taken report but no action taken report was submitted. During the inspection, it was observed that revamping works were not carried out and consent was not obtained from the Board under the Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981. The STP components were found to be constructed as underground structures and were filled with sewage and during inspection they were under operation. Therefore, at the time of inspection, the size of the components of STP provided by the unit could not be assessed. Hence, the 3rd respondent was requested to submit the details of quantity of sewage generated and the design capacity of STP components by the DEE vide Letter. No. TNPCB/DEE/AMB/NGT-291/2015 dated 17.03.2015. The 3rd respondent submitted the details vide letter dated 31.03.2015 stating that the STP is located underground with a design of 500 KLD capacity to treat 400 KLD of sewage generated. The unit has been provided with Automatic Bar Screen Chamber, Collection tank, Anaerobic Reactor, Fluidised Bed Bio-Reactor (FBBR), Settling tank, Clarified water tank underground and has provided Pressure sand filter and activated carbon filter above ground. Treated water is used for gardening the parks, pathways and for maintaining the greenery. The analysis of STP outlet sample collected on 22.04.2015 reveals that the parameters are within the limit. But, the dimensions of the components of STP could not be assessed as it was filled with sewage continuously.
7) The 2nd respondent in his reply stated that the Member Secretary, CMDA, vide Ref. PPD/49/2009/L1/12195/09 dated 21.10.2009 issued planning permit for laying 178 plots in 16.32 acres of land in Ayapakkam First Grade Panchayat in Villivakkam Panchayat Union and permission was granted by the Commissioner, Villivakkam Panchayat Union vide Ref.2113/09/A3 dated 23.10.2009. Building permission was granted by the 2nd respondent vide Ref. No.310/10-11. It was found at the time of inspection that the 3rd respondent has unauthorisedly constructed the STP causing air and water pollution to the inmates of the complex and to the neighbourhood and it was also noticed that illegal constructions were made in setback areas and a Commercial Complex and Club House were illegally constructed. There was encroachment of the Panchayat Road and Public Pond too.
8) The 2nd respondent issued notice to the 3rd respondent on 22.07.2014 under Rule 34 of Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 pointing out the irregularities regarding the STP and to remove unauthorised constructions. The 3rd respondent vide a letter dated 08.08.2014 accepted that the STP has been constructed unauthorisedly and sewage water is drained across the public road. But, the 3rd respondent has neither demolished the unauthorised construction of the STP nor created individual septic tank for each house as per the approved plan. An explanation was also sought from the 3rd respondent regarding the unauthorized construction of a commercial complex measuring 3000 sq.ft in Plot No.112 and of high tension electric motors and sewage purification machineries at a depth of 15 feet below it, for which the 3rd respondent had replied that proper approval has already been obtained but the 2nd respondent who is the competent authority had not granted any approval.
9) The 3rd respondent in its reply stated that, the STP was built considering the welfare of the occupants of flats in the VGN Platina and with a good intention of providing pollution free environment to the occupants of this project as the area was devoid of a well developed public sewage system. The layout was originally promoted by one, Mr. Aswin, who obtained CMDA approvals vide Letter No.L1/12/95/09 dated 21.10.2009 for individual plots and thereafter, sold the same to the 3rd respondent. Thus, CMDA approval was obtained by the previous owner of the land for the layout plan only. Further, houses at affordable cost were constructed in each plot with common facilities such as Water Treatment Plant and STP, with advanced technology, with a view to cater to the needs of the lower income group though it was not mandated as per the rules and regulations then in existence. Keeping in mind the best interests of the purchasers/occupants of the various houses constructed in the said plots and with a view to provide adequate and hygienic facilities for treating water and sewage which would also be environment friendly, the 3rd respondent constructed a common STP to cater to the needs of entire houses built in VGN Platina. It is submitted that, the construction of individual septic tanks would not have been as efficient as the common STP and would have resulted in causing much damage to the environment as well as an increase in cost for the residents of VGN Platina.
10) The 3rd respondent further stated in its reply that the STP system installed at VGN Platina is based on anaerobic baffle reactor technology and is functional and continues to be efficient in treating the sewage drained into it. Insofar as the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned, there are no specified rules with respect to the construction of a standalone STP for residential houses and also, no policy/directive exists to obtain authorization from the 1st or 2nd respondent. Samples from the output of the STP are being tested in reputed labs every month and it has been ensured that the treated water is well within the parameters of Board norms. The 3rd respondent further states that approvals have been obtained individually for each plot from the CMDA, Local body and the STP has been constructed considering the welfare of the residents in the VGN Platina. The STP is being maintained by a private contractor who periodically monitors the functioning of the unit. The entire project has been handed over to the purchasers during 2013 itself and it is pertinent to state in this regard that, the 3rd respondent had already replied to the 2nd respondent through a letter dated 08.08.2014.
11) The discrepancies in the STP were denied on the following basis by the 3rd respondent:
a) No clear cut sewage treatment policy is in existence in the State of Tamil Nadu to obtain approval for the construction of a standalone STP in a cluster of ordinary residential buildings either from the 1st or the 2nd respondent.
Neither there are any specifications laid for construction of STP and to monitor its functioning. It was only due to the persistent efforts of the 3rd respondent that the residents of VGN Platina enjoy a clean environment with better facilities using advanced technology.
b) STP storage tanks have been constructed underground, wherein the drained sewage from the residents is treated and is thereafter sent to the collection tank which is also located underground. The underground collection tank where the raw sewage flows into it is located at a distance of about 100 feet from the nearest residence and this leaves adequate buffer space. The area where the STP is located is fenced on all sides so as to prevent unauthorized personnel entering the site, considering the safety of the residents. The allegations with regard to overflowing of sewage and untreated water into nearby lands are denied as false and vexatious. No environment pollution is caused due to the functioning of the STP and also, there is no violation of any norms of the approved plan.
c) The STP built is designed to handle 500 KLD of sewage and the same will be more than sufficient to take care of 672 residential units at VGN Platina. At no point of time, since its inception, sewage has been discharged untreated from the STP. The Collection tank is sufficient to hold the sewage water during peak time and no untreated water has ever been discharged into the open owing to the improper functioning of the STP. The sewage water does not flow into the nearby ponds as alleged by the applicant. On the contrary, the treated water is distributed for watering plants grown in VGN Platina. There are no hidden pipes to discharge untreated water to nearby ponds as alleged by the applicant and these allegations are unwarranted. The treated water is distributed in setbacks, parks, roads etc. and this would recharge the ground water and benefit the residents in that area.
d) The applicant and other anti-welfare elements of the association at VGN Platina caused the non-functioning of the STP by disconnecting the power supply in collusion with the 2nd respondent.
Finally, the 3rd respondent prayed for the dismissal of the application.
12) The respondents 4 to 15 in their joint reply stated that they have purchased flats in VGN Platina and are residing there since 2011. They allege that the residents are suffering with the menace of water, air and noise pollution continuously and the STP poses a very serious health hazard since it is located very near to the tenements. The stench emanating from the STP is unbearable, forcing all the residents to keep their doors and windows closed all the time and that apart, untreated water is flowing over in the open spaces and gets stagnated all over the complex throughout the year leading to the breeding of mosquitoes. The noise emanating from the STP, which runs round the clock, is very high and unbearable. The smoke emanating from the chimney provided in the STP gets engulfed in the complex. The construction of the STP does not conform to any norms and the 3rd respondent has constructed the STP with scant regard to the pollution control rules and the 1st respondent is duty bound to initiate emergency measures under Section 32 of the Water Act, 1974 to prevent the water pollution in the nearby water stream.
13) The 16th respondent, VGN Platina Welfare Association, in its reply states that there is no air and water pollution as alleged and the 3rd respondent has provided the STP with a capacity of 500 KLD and not 5 KLD as alleged which is more than enough for handling the domestic sewage. However, the 3rd respondent has not obtained any consent from the 1st respondent to operate the STP and therefore, the 16th respondent had requested the 3rd respondent to obtain necessary permission from the 1st respondent. The contractor periodically takes water samples of the treated water. However, no test results have been furnished to the association. The 16th respondent alleges that the respondents 4 to 15 are not residing near the STP and they were impleaded on the instructions of the 2nd and 4th respondent only to portray falsely that an environmental problem has been caused by the establishment of the STP.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
14) This is a case wherein the applicant has sought reliefs to direct the 3rd respondent to stop the water and air pollution caused by handling the sewage in the STP located in the residential complex where the applicant himself resides.
It is a fact that the 3rd respondent has developed the aforesaid residential complex consisting 672 apartments which are meant only for residential purpose and no commercial or industrial activities are permitted. As per the records placed before us, it is clear that while getting the layout approved and also for sanctioning of the plan, the respondent builder has made a provision for construction of individual septic tank system for all the apartments and no specific area was earmarked in the layout for the construction of a STP. But only after the structures have been completed, the builder has gone for common sewage disposal system by establishing STP instead of individual septic tanks and justifies his action stating that a centralized and environment friendly STP is more appropriate rather than having individual septic tanks and gone ahead with the construction of underground STP with a good intention to provide pollution free environment as the area where the complex is built, is devoid of a well developed public sewerage system. The STP is designed with a capacity of 500 KLD to treat 400 KLD sewage in the complex which according to the builder is located in the site area under its own control and which has not been earmarked for any other purpose. The 3rd respondent builder further pleads that a centralized sewage disposal system to cater to the needs of all the houses in the complex is more hygienic rather than individual septic system and therefore, there is nothing wrong in taking up the project and making it functional. But, here the point to be noted is that the applicant has come forward with an allegation that rather than mitigating the pollution, the STP is causing pollution apart from emanating bad odour, therefore, it is appropriate that the STP meets the standards and be repaired and scientifically operated. It is also to be noted that some of the residents who are impleaded in this application as respondents 4-15 are in support of the applicant while the 16th respondent association is in support of the 3rd respondent, builder. Therefore, based on the complaint, the DEE of the Board has inspected the STP on 24.10.2014 and observed certain shortcomings and directed the 3rd respondent to revamp the STP. The unit was again inspected by the DEE on 10.12.2014 and a show cause notice was issued on 11.12.2014 since the 3rd respondent has not taken any steps in revamping the STP and also no consent was obtained from the Board under the Water Act, 1974 and Air Act, 1981. Subsequently, the DEE also requested the 3rd respondent for technical details and design of the STP. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent furnished the details that the unit is provided with Automatic bar screen chamber, Collection tank, FBBR, Settling tank, Clarified water tank underground and has also provided Pressure sand filter and Reactivated carbon filter above ground and the treated water is used for gardening and for maintaining the greenery in the complex. The Results of the laboratory analysis of the STP outlet samples are within the permissible limits. As the shortcomings pointed out by the DEE reveal that the STP was under operation without consent and not made to function properly, a show cause notice was also issued.
15) The Tribunal paid its anxious consideration and directed the DEE to inspect the unit once again and to furnish the inspection report. Accordingly, the DEE filed the report on 15.12.2015 stating that the unit was inspected on 09.12.2015 and is reproduced below:
Buffer zone distance criteria and consent for establishment of STP
a) It is respectfully submitted that Sewage Treatment Plant for a residential complex is generally located based on the contour of the site within the project areas and there is no buffer zone siting criteria prescribed by the TNPCB for housing sewage treatment plant for handling the sewage generated from a residential complex.
b) It is further submitted that M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd has filed application for the consent of the Board in the name of M/s. VGN Developers Private Limited - Platina project, at Ayapakam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District for its 500 KLD capacity STP on 08.10.2015 through online and the application was returned to the unit through online on 24.10.2015 for want of additional details. But the unit has not resubmitted the application for the consent of the Board till date.
Regarding revamping of STP, etc.
It respectfully submitted that the unit has provided Sewage Treatment Plant with a capacity of 500 KLD to handle the sewage generated from its residential complex. The unit had provided the following units of Sewage treatment plant viz. Collection Tank, Anaerobic Reactor, FBBR (Aeration Tank), Settling Tank, Clarified water tank below the ground level and provided Mechanical Bar Screen Chamber, Pressure Sand Filter and Activated carbon filter above the ground level.
S.No
Description
No. of Units
Dimensions in mm
1
Bar Screen Chamber
01
2200×500×800
2
Collection Tank
01
7000×6000×4600
3
Anaerobic Baffle Reactor
01
7000×2625×3700
4
FBBR(Aeration Tank)
01
3350×2550×3700
5
Settling Tank
01
3350×5800×3700
6
Clarified water
01
3350×3250×3700
7
Treated water
01
5293×8725×3700
8
Pressure Sand Filter
01
1800 dia×1500 HOS
9
Activated Carbon Filter
01
1600 dia×2000 HOS
Subsequent to the issue of Show Cause Notice to the unit vide Proc. dated 11.12.2014, the unit has revamped the Sewage Treatment Plant and the treated sewage samples was collected on 22.04.2015 from the final outlet of STP and the Report of Analysis of treated sewage samples collected from the outlet of STP reveals that the parameters analysed satisfies the standards prescribed by the Board (Copy enclosed).
Present status of STP today.
It respectfully submitted that the said Sewage Treatment Plant was again inspected on 09.12.2015. During the inspection, it was noticed that all the treatment unit of STP was in operation and a sample of treated sewage was collected from the outlet of STP. The Report of Analysis of the treated sewage reveals that the parameter pH & BOD satisfy the standards prescribe by the Board. Whereas the total suspended solids is 38 mg/lit as against the 30 mg/lit (Copy enclosed). The unit has provided G.I sheet cover of 28 feet height in the Northern side of the STP i.e. between the residential apartments and STP, G.I sheets cover of 13 feet in the Southern and Western side and a compound wall of 5 feet height in the Eastern side. The unit has also provided DG set of capacity 63 KVA as a standby power source for operating the STP. The said STP is located adjacent to the residential apartments (Plot No. 72)
Applicability of Environmental Clearance:
It respectfully submitted that the Hon'ble National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in its order dated 12.09.2013 in Application No. 124 of 2013, directed the Respondent State of Haryana, Public Works Department (Water Supply & Sanitation) to seek Environmental Clearance from State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for installation of Common Sewage Treatment Plant, as the activity falls under the Schedule to Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 Category B Clause 7(h)- Common Effluent Treatment Plants & 7 (i) - Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility (CMSWMF) stating that (Para 35 of the Judgment) that the sewage in any town travels through open drains where large amounts of industrial waste, domestic discharge and trade effluents are directly or indirectly discharged into such drains. Before these drains reach the STPs, they undoubtedly contain sewage and other trade effluents, including chemical effluents, in other words, it is mixed effluent and not a sewage waste simplicitor. Whereas in this case, the Sewage Treatment Plant installed by M/s. VGN Developers Pvt. Ltd. - VGN Platina, at Ayapakam Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvallur District, sewage generated from the 674 dwelling units only is connected for treatment and no other source of waste water is getting mixed.
It respectfully submitted that in the case of the above judgment, the location of the treatment plant can be identified by the authorities after conducting Environmental Impact Assessment study and ascertaining the suitability of the site, whereas in this case the Sewage Treatment Plant to treat the sewage generated from the residential apartments has to be necessarily located within the premises".
16) The site where the aforesaid residential complex VGN Platina is constructed lies in an underdeveloped area and there is no public sewerage disposal system or construction of sewer lines linking to a Common Effluent Treatment Plant maintained by the civic authorities. Therefore, it is necessary that the complex should have its own sewage disposal mechanism to treat the domestic sewage either by constructing an individual septic system which consists of a septic tank linked with soak pit for each of the dwelling units or a well designed and well operated centralized STP to treat the sewage generated in the complex. It is a fact that initially, it was planned to have individual septic systems but the builder argues that the construction of individual septic tanks would not have been as efficient as the common STP and would have resulted in causing more damage to the environment besides increasing the cost to the residents. He further points out that there is no clear cut Sewage Treatment Policy or guidelines issued either by the 1st respondent or the 2nd respondent for its implementation in a cluster of ordinary residential buildings and neither there are any specifications laid down for the construction of STP or monitoring its function. The STP is built underground and only the clarified water is processed through the Pressure sand filter and Activated carbon filters and there is no direct discharge of waste. The underground collection tank where the raw sewage is collected is located at a distance of about 100 feet from the nearest residence and this leaves adequate buffer space.
17) We do not agree with the contention of the applicant that individual septic tanks would have been more environment friendly than centralized STP. For small development projects with limited population it may be ideal to go in for individual septic systems particularly where the soil conditions are conducive for filtration and percolation of the treated water to subsoil layers without causing groundwater pollution. But here, there are 672 residential units and once all the units are occupied, the total population residing in the complex may range between 3000 - 4000 and hence, having a centralised and well designed STP, if operated properly, will not be a cause for any concern and in fact the STP will result in proper utilization of sewage as the treated water can be utilized for watering the plants and for maintaining the greenery in the complex.
18) The latest report of the DEE gives a clear picture of the existing STP and no adverse remarks have been reported against the unit as the unit has been revamped and defects are rectified. No doubt, improper maintenance may lead to pollution but that cannot deter in establishing the unit in interest of the residents. However, if the centralized STP is not maintained well it may become a potential source of nuisance to the residents and therefore due consideration needs to be given to minimize noise and odour problems. Though the distance from the nearest residence is short, the measures taken by the builder in revamping the unit and providing fence with G.I. Sheets on three sides and compound wall on one side, etc. as reported by the DEE, may take care of the apprehensions of the applicant.
19) With regard to obtaining consent from the Board, it is clear that the 3rd respondent builder failed to get consent before the establishment of the STP and making it functional. However, the latest report of the DEE indicates that the builder has filed an application for consent on 08.10.2015 but it was returned on 24.10.2015 for want of additional details and it is yet to be resubmitted. In the above circumstances, we feel it necessary to issue the following directions to ensure that the STP is made to function properly without creating any nuisance to the residents and also without causing any pollution:
i) We direct that the 3rd respondent if not yet resubmitted the application for getting the consent, shall submit the application returned by the Board, duly attending to the shortcomings pointed out by the Board within a fortnight from the date of this order and the Board shall process the application and take appropriate decision on granting the consent within 4 weeks thereafter.
ii) The record placed before us reveals that the functioning of the STP is assigned to a contractor by the 3rd respondent. The contractor shall deploy only competent Technicians to operate the STP who shall be fully conversant with the recommended operating procedure for which purpose, Operation and Maintenance Manual shall be prepared if not yet prepared. For this purpose a detailed Terms of Operation of Contract shall be finalised and implemented.
iii) Testing of samples shall be done at periodic intervals to enable proper control of the STP's performance.
iv) Operational parameters shall be regularly analyzed in a reputed accredited lab and the data shall be utilized for performance optimization of the plant. The results of the analysis should be accessible to all the residents and shall be displayed on the notice board in the complex.
v) Hours run meters shall be provided for all the machinery and equipment and the total hours operated shall be recorded in a log book which should be made available to the residents' welfare association as well as the inspecting Board officials to satisfy that the equipments are not switched off in order to save on power bills.
vi) Generally, it is observed that removal of sludge is the most neglected aspect of STP operation. This should be avoided and sludge shall be removed periodically.
vii) The STP should be kept in a tidy state by good housekeeping by cleaning and painting metal works, maintaining with adequate lighting etc.
viii) Screenings should be removed as per schedule and dripped dry for subsequent disposal.
ix) The operation and maintenance of the STP need to be streamlined and upgraded if any shortcomings are noticed in future.
x) Sufficient spare parts for periodical maintenance as per manufacturers' recommendation shall be made available so that there is no occasion for any impediment functioning of the STP.
xi) Standards prescribed for operating the standby DG set shall be strictly followed so that there is no air and noise pollution and necessary consent in this regard is obtained from the Board.
20) With regard to the deviation from the approved plan and indulging in violation of the Tamil Nadu Panchayat Building Rules, 1997 and approval granted by the CMDA, by the 3rd respondent, as alleged by the applicant, we cannot go into the matter since the Tribunal is mandated to look into the environment and pollution issues that too pertaining to the enactments listed in Schedule - I of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
21) With the above directions, we dispose of this application. However, there is no order as to costs.