AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These applications pertain to alleged construction being carried out by the Respondent No. 1 Project Proponent in contravention of the EIA Notification, 2006 and without having obtained the necessary Environmental Clearance (for short, 'EC') as required by the Project Proponent under the said notification. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1, in each of these cases the Project Proponent, applied for the grant of EC and the final decision on the same has not been taken so far by the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short, 'SEIAA').
We have considered the replies submitted on behalf of SEIAA and Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (for short, MPPCB). However, we do not wish to go into the specific objections raised with regard to the short-comings as reported, SEIAA is likely to take the final decision after having received the replies from the concerned Project Proponents on the queries raised in the earlier meetings of SEIAA and communicated to the Project Proponents as also the consequent action proposed against each of the Project Proponents for violation of the Environment Laws including initiation of proceedings under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. It is submitted that in the forthcoming meeting of SEIAA each of these cases are coming up for consideration and a final call on the same shall be taken by the SEIAA with regard to the permission sought.
In view of the above, we would accordingly direct SEIAA to take a decision in the matter in accordance with law on the pending applications of each of the Project Proponents in these three cases. In case on any account, if a final decision could not be arrived at or further query is required to be raised and clarification sought in the next meeting, the SEIAA will take a final decision positively in the subsequent meeting within six weeks from today and communicate the same to the Project Proponent.
While disposing of these three Applications, we would further direct, as was stated before use by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in all these three cases, the Project Proponents, awaiting the outcome of their application, shall not carry out any further construction and shall not create any third party rights in the property developed by them.
In the Application No. 154/2014 pertaining to M/s Regal Town and Ors, the interim order dated 17.07.2014 shall continue subject to the order being passed on the grant of EC.
In Application No. 192/2014, the Respondent No.1 has filed Misc. Application No. 436/2014 praying that the Original Application itself be dismissed. However, in view of our above order, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 does not wish to press the M.A.
Accordingly, the M.A.No. 436/2014 stands dismissed.
In view of the above, the Original Application No. 154 of 2014, Original Application No. 192 of 2014 and Original Application No. 194 of 2014 stand disposed of. No order as to cost.
The matter shall be placed before this Tribunal for reporting compliance on 20th October, 2014.