Saviour Park Apartment Owners Association vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

The Issue – Applicant’s case

Grievance in this application is against violation of environmental norms in setting up of a construction project – “Saviour Park”, Plot No. 108, Katori Mill, Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP, by Respondent No. 10 – Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., without valid Environmental Clearance (EC) and without requisite safeguards. It is further stated that EC conditions and environmental norms are being violated.

Case set out in the application is that the applicant is association of apartment owners. The project site plan was approved by the Ghaziabad Development Association (GDA) on 21.06.2011. The project falls under category 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. Proposed built up area was 1,55,000.00 sqm. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), UP granted EC dated 04.03.2013. However, in violation of EC conditions, the Project Proponent (PP) started construction and selling of the flats to general public and also handing over possession before completion of construction. Further, EC for expansion was granted on 04.03.2021 without requisite appraisal. The PP has violated EC conditions by constructing 1102 units against 980 units sanctioned vide EC dated 04.03.2021. There is no arrangement for safe disposal of waste water and solid waste and there is violation of EC conditions in use of the diesel generators sets and maintenance of noise emission standards, effluent management and sagacious use of water including ground water and other measures to safeguard adverse impact on environment. Completion certificate has been granted on 07.04.2018 for Tower D-1 and partial completion certificate for Block- D-2 and Block D-3. The PP has dug out several groundwater extraction borewells to use fresh water in the construction process as well as for drinking purposes without requisite NOC from Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA). This is against the statement by the PP in Form-1 and Form-1A dated 03.12.2019 that no ground water will be extracted. Further violations of EC conditions alleged by the applicant are:

“(a) General Condition no 1, 15, 17, 37, 58 —The Project Proponent failed to regularly monitor the parameters related to groundwater, soil, ambient noise and DG sent noise and as pointed out by Dr. Susheel Kumar, the reports related to these parameters should have been sent on a regular basis to the MoEF&CC as part of statutory reporting, however this was never followed.

(b) General Condition no. 4 & 7 - The Project Proponent failed to submit Land use certificate, surface hydrology report and water regime report to the MoEF&CC.

(c) General Condition no. 11 - The Project Proponent failed to submit STP water bills claimed to be used for construction work to the MoEF&CC for suitable verification.

(d) General Condition no. 12 & 20 – The Project Proponent failed to submit Hazardous waste authorization certificate to the MoEF&CC.

(e) General Condition no 24- The Project Proponent failed to follow the green building concept suggested by the Indian Green Building Council, which is a part of CII-Godrej GBC since 2013.

(f) General Condition no 31 - The Project Proponent failed to place Environmental awareness related hoardings.

(g) General Condition no 38 —The project proponent failed to submit the justification for selecting alternate technologies to chlorination (for disinfection of wastewater) including methods like Ultraviolet radiations, ozonation etc. since 2013.

(h) General Condition no. 39 - The Project Proponent failed to submit detailed plantation details, including the area covered, number and species of trees planted etc. to the MoEF&CC.

(i) General Condition no. 41- The Project Proponent failed to submit structural stability certificate to the MoEF&CC. This is a critical violation as the entire basement area of the project is severely affected with heavy seepage and large number of cracks are visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides. The Residents of the Project have made several complaints to the Respondent No. 9; however, no action has been taken by the Project Proponent or the Respondent No. 9. The said issue has also been highlighted in the local newspapers. Copy of the photos depicting seepage and cracks in the Project is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-19. Copy of the newspaper clippings is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-20. Copy of the Minutes of the meeting held between the representatives of the residents, Project Proponent and Respondent No. 9 on 21.11.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-A-21.

(j) General Condition no 54 - The project proponent has failed to indicate that the cost of environmental activities is part of the overall project cost and additionally there is complete lack of highlighting the management issues and involvement of residents is completely ignored.

(k) General Condition no. 66 - The project proponent has failed to monitor groundwater downstream of rainwater harvesting pit nearest to STP for bacterial contamination and additionally has failed to provide hand pumps for sampling.

(l) General Condition no. 72 - The project proponent has failed to undertake Rapid EIA status for three months during the non-monsoon period as per the latest norms of the MoEF&CC.

(m) General Condition no. 72 - The project proponent has failed to obtain ISO: 14001 certification and also failed to include all general and specific conditions mentioned under this in the environmental manual to be prepared for the certification purposes and compliances.

(n) General Condition no 73 -The project proponent has failed to create corpus of funds for implementation plan under social corporate and environmental responsibility of 2% of total project cost. This condition was to be fulfilled by the Project Proponent within 1 month of EC, failing which the EC was deemed to be cancelled. The Respondent No. 2 & 3 not only failed to cancel the original EC of the Project Proponent in spite of the above violation but also grated a new EC for expansion and modification. This clearly shows that the Respondent No. 2 & 3 are hand in gloves with the Project Proponent.

xxx ………………………………..xxx …………………………….xxx

(a) General Condition 29 - The Project Proponent failed to submit a detailed report showing how much power of institution can be provided through solar energy so that use and polluting effect of DG sets can be minimized. The Project Proponent also did not make provision of solar energy as an alternative source of energy with the illumination of common areas, street lighting, gardens.

(b) General Condition 35 - The Project Proponent failed to submit report on the energy conservation measures confirming energy conservation norms finalize by the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE)to incorporate details about building materials and technology, R and U factors, etc.

(c) General Condition 46 - The Project Proponent failed to ensure that all street and park lighting area least 50% solar-powered.

(d) General Condition 47- The Project Proponent was under obligation to install solar water heater with a maximum possible capacity and additionally in spite of repeated requests to the Builder, no provision for centralized water heating system has been made as Residents at an individual level cannot install solar heaters as it requires a centralized facility, such as building rooftops.

xxx ………………………………..xxx …………………………….xxx

(a) General Condition 16 - The Project Proponent has failed to install Wind breaking walls and dust-prevention curtain sat the ongoing construction site which severely affects the air quality of the surrounding area.

(b) General Condition 23 - The project Proponent has installed fully impermeable pavements at various locations across the project area where the provision of interlocking tiles was there for environment protection as the said impermeable pavements do not permit the water to seep through and in turn stops groundwater recharging and also do not allow suitable aeration and nutrition to the trees.

(c) General Condition 32 & 52 - The Project Proponent has illegally sold parking areas with no demarcation of appropriate guest parking and even the approved layout plan does not indicate designated parking areas for guests which in turn creates traffic congestion inside and outside the project area and also leads to air pollution which is in violation of the norms provided by the MoEF&CC and the building by laws.

(d) General Condition 39 - The Project Proponent has failed to follow the green belt norms across the plot boundary. A significant stretch of the project boundary is fully paved with concrete obstructing any possibility of developing a green belt in the future as well. This also compromises the air quality as well as allows noise levels to increase beyond the permissible attenuation factor(s). A copy of the photographic evidence showing violation of green belt norms is annexed and marked herewith as Annexure A-24.

(e) Specific Condition 1 & General Condition 55 - The Project Proponent has failed to provide detailed plans which was to be submitted within 1 month of the EC for safe disposal of STP sludge along with mention of ultimate disposal location, quantitative estimates and measured proposed.

(f) General Condition 61 - The Project Proponent has failed to construct roads in the project area with the use of suitably processed plastic waste.

(g) General Condition 63 - The Project Proponent has failed to give a plan about the safe disposal of biomedical waste arising out of a proposed dispensary at the project site.”

The applicant filed a representation dated 15.04.2021 to SEIAA, UP with copies thereof to MoEF&CC, State PCB and CGWA but no remedial action has been taken.

Procedural History – investigation of facts independent Committee

The matter was earlier considered on 13.08.2021. The Tribunal directed remedial action against violations. Two Committees were constituted – (i) a two-member committee comprising Additional Secretary, MoEF&CC, to be nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, CPCB to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, UP to find out how frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied and (ii) a joint Committee of MoEF&CC, CPCB, SEIAA, UP, State PCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad to verify the factual aspects with regard to the alleged violations by undertaking visit to the site interacting with stake holders including PP.

Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

“1to3…xxx……………………………xxx……………………………….xxx

We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. We have also considered the question whether in absence of an appeal against the EC, the issue raised in the application can be gone into. Learned Counsel submitted that if the Tribunal finds it appropriate, the application may be treated as an appeal against EC dated 04.03.2021 as appeal will be within extended limitation period in view of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, extending limitation during pandemic. He further submitted that in any case, action against violation of EC conditions is within the scope of jurisdiction under Sections 14 and 15 of the NGT Act, de hors the appellate jurisdiction. Learned Counsel for the applicant also submitted that there is large scale violation in construction projects. The constructions start before EC, built up area is expanded, groundwater is illegally extracted, proper waste management and other safeguards are not provided, open spaces are not provided and third party rights are created. Inspite of such rampant violations, ex post facto EC is granted without adequate appraisal of mitigation measures. Reference has been made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI 2018) 18 SCC 257, Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 and Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare (2020) 2 SCC 666.

Reliance has been placed on order of this Tribunal dated 24.05.2021 in Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors., wherein this Tribunal noted rampant and continuous violation of environmental norms in completion of construction projects without valid ECs and the regulatory authorities failing to prevent such violations by requiring demolition or payment of compensation. This is not checked, rule of law cannot be upheld. Reliance has also been placed on order of this Tribunal dated 08.06.2021 in OA No. 13/2021 (WZ), Shashikant Vithal Kamble v. M/s. Key Stone Properties & Ors. The relevant part of the said order is reproduced below:

4 “2. The said order further directed disconnection of water and electricity connections of the building. Ignoring these developments, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Maharashtra issued Environmental Clearance (EC) on 24.01.2020 in violation of mandate of prior EC in terms of EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347, Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare (2020) 2 SCC 666, Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI (2018) 18 SCC 257 and Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors. (2020 SCC OnLine SC 328

From the above, prima facie it appears that EC has been granted in violation of law and without any application of mind. This is not for the first time we have come across this situation. Such allegations are frequent. In Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. which was taken up for hearing on 24.05.2021, we directed SEIAA to review its working of mechanically granting Ex-post facto EC, in violation of law. The Tribunal also constituted an expert committee to look into the violations of that particular project and recommend remedial action. The observations therein are:

“ xxx…………………xxx…………………………………..xxx

It is submitted that the construction project is illegal being without the mandatory prior EC. Ex-post facto EC is not substitute for prior EC as evaluation of impact on environment cannot be fully gone into as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the same PP viz. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v UOI (2018) 18 SCC 257. There are further judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to the same effect in Alembic Chemicals v Rohit Prajapati 2020 SCC OnLine SC 347 and Keystone developers v. Anil Tharthare (2020) 2 SCC 666. If the construction project is without prior EC, the project has either to be demolished or if it is found that environmental damage can be restored, the project can be permitted on payment of assessed compensation on polluter pays principle which needs to be spent for restoration of the environment. The authorities have thus failed to follow the binding law.

Since we are coming across the grievance of continuous violation of environment norms in construction projects being completed without prior EC and the SEIAA, Maharashtra is neither requiring demolition nor payment of assessed compensation to comply with the rule of law and protection of environment, it will be appropriate to require the SEIAA, Maharashtra to review its working in the light of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and violations frequently being alleged, including the present case. A proper SOP be laid down for grant of EC in such cases so as to address the gaps in binding law and practice being currently followed. The MoEF may also consider circulating such SOP to all SEIAAs in the country. In this regard, we may refer to the directions in the earlier order of this Tribunal dated 1.2.2021 in OA 837/2018, Sandeep Mittal vs. MoEF, wherein it was inter-alia, directed:

“MoEF&CC may give due attention for proper constitution of SEIAAs in the States to ensure the projects of category ‘B’ and ‘B-1’ are properly scrutinized.”

The MoEF&CC may file its action taken report in the matter before the next date.

We also constitute a joint Committee of MoEF&CC, CPCB, and Maharashtra State PCB to look into the present matter and suggest a remedial action plan for the present case, including the quantum of compensation to be recovered, as far as possible within three months. The CPCB and State PCB will be nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Another connected matter between same parties for a different project being Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ) is also being dealt with by a separate order today and this direction will also apply to the said case. Infact, to avoid duplication if the SEIAA, Maharashtra itself reviews all such cases, to avoid unnecessary and repeated litigation. The Committee may conduct proceedings online but if possible, visit the site. The Committee may also interact with the concerned parties. The report of the joint Committee may be filed by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF before the next date. While submitting the report to this Tribunal, a copy of the report thereof be also forwarded to the PP and the applicant who may file their comments, if any, before the next date by e-mail.”

Since the allegations of this nature are frequently being made before this Tribunal and prima facie there appears to be fundamental flaw in working of the SEIAA in question, resulting in defeating the statutory mandate of prior EC and directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we direct constitution of a two-member Committee comprising Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, Maharashtra to find out how such frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied. The Committee will be free to take assistance from any other expert/institution and interact with the stake-holders. This is necessary for protection of environment. If mechanically ex post facto ECs are granted by SEIAA, the purpose of requiring prior EC will be defeated. The ‘Precautionary’ and ‘Sustainable Development’ principles considered in the above judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court will be rendered nugatory. Precautions during the course of construction and compliance of conditions after constructions will be rendered difficult. EC is not a mechanical exercise. It may be after application of any mind and granted only after evaluation of impact and efficacy of mitigation measures proposed. Conditions imposed must be faithfully observed and monitored. If there is any violation, steps must be taken for restoration of damage at the cost of the project proponent. The persons manning SEIAA who have acted illegally need to be made accountable in civil and criminal law. It is further surprising in the present case that inspite of order of State PCB to disconnect water and electricity, it is not clear how the project is functioning. Present status of compliance of environment norms in the project and remedial action against non-compliances also needs to be ascertained.

Accordingly, apart from a Committee for the conduct of functional audit of functioning of SEIAA in the matter of grant of ECs, there is need to conduct audit of compliance of environmental requirements in the project in question by an independent Expert Committee. For this purpose, we constitute a four-member Expert Committee comprising nominees of MoEF&CC, CPCB, IIT Bombay and Member Secretary, State PCB. The Committee will be at liberty to take assistance from any other expert/institution. The CPCB and State PCB will be nodal agency for coordination and compliance. The Committee may visit the site and conduct the proceedings online, wherever necessary and also interact with the stakeholders. The functional audit report as well as the Expert Committee report about status of compliance in the project may be furnished within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF before the next date with an advance copy to the PP for its response, if any, before the next date. Copy of second report about status of compliance of the project may be furnished to the PP in advance for its comments, if any, before the next date. Copy of the first report about functional audit may be furnished to the MoEF&CC also for its response in terms of action taken before the next date.

The first Committee may also consider the orders of this Tribunal dated 24.05.2021 in Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. and Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. inter alia requiring SEIAA, Maharashtra to review its working in the light of Supreme Court judgements and frequent violations alleged in the grant of EC and also in the gaps in compliance of EC conditions. The second Committee may also coordinate and work in tandem with the joint Committee constituted in Appeal No. 32/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors. and Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ), Tanaji B. Gambhire v. Chief Secretary Government of Maharashtra & Ors.”

We are of the view that on the pattern of above orders passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 34/2020(WZ) and OA No. 13/2021 (WZ), apart from considering the remedial action against violations, two-member Committee comprising Additional Secretary, MoEF&CC, to be nominated by the Secretary MoEF&CC and the Chairman, CPCB need to conduct functional audit of SEIAA, UP to find out how frequent blatant violations are taking place and how the situation can be remedied. The Committee will be free to take assistance from any other expert/institution and interact with the stake-holders. SEIAA, UP has to review its working in the light of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in the light of frequent and rampant violations. Considering the report, an appropriate SOP may to be laid down by the MoEF&CC to deal with such ECs which may be circulated to all SEIAAs.

Apart from above, remedial action appears to be necessary under Section 15 of the NGT Act after verification of factual position. Accordingly, we also constitute a joint Committee comprising of MoEF&CC, CPCB, SEIAA, UP, State PCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad. CPCB and SEIAA, UP will jointly be the nodal agency for coordination and compliance. Joint Committee may give its report covering issues mentioned in para 2 above and availability of basic infrastructure facilities like sewerage and solid waste management. Meeting of the joint Committee may be held within 15 days from today to take stock of the situation. The joint Committee may visit the site and interact with the stakeholders including the PP to verify the status of compliance. Based on the facts found, the statutory authorities may take remedial action including stopping creation of third party rights and further construction activities, if the same are found to be in violation of law. Needless to say that if adverse action becomes necessary, the same may be taken by following prescribed procedure. The report of the joint Committee report may be furnished to this Tribunal within three months by e-mail at [email protected] preferably in the form of searchable PDF/ OCR Support PDF and not in the form of Image PDF, and if the report is adverse to the PP, a copy thereof may be furnished to PP for its response, if any, before the next date.”

Report of the Committee dated 27.1.2022 finding violations and Order of the Tribunal dated 4.2.2022 on consideration thereof

The matter was last considered on 04.02.2022 in the light of report of the joint Committee dated 27.01.2022, after undertaking visit to the site confirming the violations. The Tribunal noted that consents under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 were granted before grant of EC and EC for expansion was granted overlooking the expansion work already executed  and  in  violation  of  conditions  of  original  EC.  The  Tribunal observed that as per applicable procedure, violation cases were required to  be  appraised  by  MoEF&CC  and  not  by  SEIAA.  The  compensation  suggested did not cover the pre-expansion period.

Thus, it was found that the recommendations of the joint Committee were required to be re-visited after ascertaining the consents with regard to disposal of waste, operation of DG sets, functioning of RWH systems and greenery. Operative part of the order is reproduced below:-

“

The report confirms violations of the environmental norms and shows that regulatory authorities have not monitored the project activities. The PP has disregarded environmental laws. However, the Committee has also not mentioned about the existence of sewer line in the area and the mode of disposal of sewage, quantity of solid waste generated and disposed.

It is thus prima facie clear that the State PCB has issued consents under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 even before grant of EC. EC for expansion has been granted on 04.03.2021 overlooking the violations which are already undertaken, including expansion work. In such cases, as per the procedure laid down, violation case is required to be appraised by the MoEF&CC. The violations do not end with the procedural aspects. There violations of environmental norms have also been found. The Committee has not responded to all the violations alleged by the applicant noted in the earlier order. Recommendations for the compensation ignore the period of violations and only relate to the period post inspection. In respect of violation of ground water extraction, the violations have been taken only on the date of application to the CGWA. The joint Committee may need to revisit its recommendation accordingly. The Committee may also ascertain the mode of disposal of sewage and solid waste and compliance in operation of DG sets, functioning of RWH systems and maintenance of greenery. The environment compensation should be the liability of the PP and not the flat owners. PP is given opportunity to respond to these observations before this Tribunal as well as before the Committee within one month.

In view of prima facie violations of serious nature, mentioned herein above, we restrain the PP from creating any third-party rights till the next hearing.”

The Tribunal also noted that the report about functional review of SEIAA, U.P has not been furnished which was required to be furnished.

Consideration of the matter today - Further Report of the Committee on factual aspects of violations dated 29.04.2022 and the report of the Committee about functional audit of SEIAA UP dated 02.05.2022

In pursuance of above, the joint Committee has filed its revised report dated 29.04.2022. MoEF&CC has filed its report on 02.05.2022 with regard to functional audit of SEIAA U.P. SEIAA, U.P has filed its reply on 20.04.2022. The Project Proponent (PP) has filed I.A No. 104/2022 for re-call of order dated 04.02.2022 and reply to the joint Committee report dated 27.01.2022. We will refer to the same at appropriate place in the order.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on record.

First question to be considered is the issue of violation of the environmental norms by the PP and remedial action required. Further question is also about the failure of the SEIAA, U.P to function as per the mandate as found in the report in respect of functional audit.

Consideration of issue of violations by the PP and the remedial action

With regard to the first question, we take up for consideration the joint inspection report dated 29.04.2022. The joint Committee comprised of the MoEF&CC, CPCB, State PCB, SEIAA, U.P and District Magistrate. There is no question raised about credibility of the Committee nor about contents of the report. The Committee has undertaken visit to the site after due notice to the PP as well as the applicant. It has also considered the documents furnished by the PP and the applicants. The status of EC violations  has  been  given  in  a  tabular  form.  The  violations  include expansion of project without prior EC, violation of EC conditions such as inadequacy of the plantations, absence of safeguards in construction of basement, failure to utilize solar energy, absence of requisite parking, absence  of  safe  disposal  of  STP  sludge,  non-functioning  of  STP,  not providing the requisite funds in terms of the EC conditions for out of CSR, illegal extraction of ground water. The Committee recommended levying of environmental compensation for the violations including expanding the project without prior EC, apart from suggested compensation of Rs. 12.80 Crores approx. for violation of maintaining STP and Rs. 7.43 Crore approx. for illegal extraction of ground water. Relevant extracts from the report are:-

“3. Observations

On the basis of inspection of project “Saviour Park” conducted by Joint Committee on 23/09/2021 and going through the submissions made by the applicant and project proponent following observations are made:

a.. M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd has set-up. Saviour Park” at Plot No. 108, Katori Mill, Loni Road, Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.

b. As per the submitted documents by PPs, it has been reflected that PPs have obtained the CTE from UPPCB vide letter no. F08023/C-1/NOC/G-752/2012/6 dated 26.07.2012, before obtaining the Environmental Clearance dated 04.03.2013.

c. PPs have obtained the CTO from UPPCB for previous EC and existing CTO is valid till 31.07.2025. CTE for expansion project is rejected by UP PCB.

d. The documents submitted by the applicant indicate that, PP got the approval for the site plan from Ghaziabad Development Authority on 21.06.2011, followed by Prior Environmental Clearance from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2013 and Environmental Clearance for expansion from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2021.

e. The total project cost of project is 251 Crores after expansion as per EC dated 04.02.2021.

f. PP has informed that approximately 3044.5 Kg of solid waste would be generated per day.

g.. Approx 800 flats are occupied and 800 families are currently residing in project. Approximately.

h. Assuming four person in one family.

Current Sewage generation and Solid Waste generation are estimated as follows:

A. Assuming Consumption of 135 LPCD

Approx. sewage generation is 135*0.8*4*800 = 345.6 KLD

B.Approx Solid Waste Generation is 800*4*0.5 = 1600 kg

i. Sewage is being discharged into municipal drain.

j. Project Proponent is supplying water to township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA.

k. Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.

Results of sample analysis obtained from pit of RWH is tabulated below:

pH

COD

BOD

TSS

NH3 - N

PO43-  - P

TC

FC

8.0

155

17

72

09

0.54

16 X 107

35 X 106

l. The 400 KLD STP operated by M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd in apartment is not functioning properly

a. Media was not visible in aeration tank.

b. Filter press was found not in use.

c. The sample obtained from STP outlet is not complying the prescribed standards:

pH

COD

BOD

TSS

NH3 - N

PO43-  - P

TC

FC

Inlet

7.5

325

114

208

11

1.24

17 X 1011

11 X 1011

Outlet

7.3

251

49

73

23

0.87

17 X 106

17 X 106

Standards

-

250

30

100

-

-

-

-

m. During the site visit, entire basement area of the project was found affected with seepage and large number of cracks was visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides.

n. Violation of Environment Clearance Conditions: As per the available office record, the project was inspected by MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow on 30.05.2019 to review the status of stipulated EC conditions granted by SEIAA, U.P. on 04.03.2013. Subsequently, a letter of non-compliances was sent to PPs vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL-UP/510/2019/422 dated 13.08.2019. The certified compliance report indicating various non-complainces with detailed monitoring report was also sent to PPs with a copy to SEIAA, UP vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL-UP/510/2019/423 dated 13.08.2019. However, no response has been received to IRO, Lucknow against the above mentioned letter. Additionally, PPs have obtained the Expansion EC from SEIAA, U.P. vide letter no. 788/Parya/SEAC/6057-5683/2019 dated 04.03.2021. Further, PAs are irregular in submitting the compliance report to MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow since 2019 onwards.

The detailed status of EC conditions violations, which was alleged by the applicant are given below as:

S.

No.

Environmental Clearance Conditions of previous EC

Observations of the Joint Committee

Part A – General Condition:

1

It    shall    be    ensured    that    all standards    related    to    ambient environmental    quality    and    the emission/effluent    standards    as prescribed by the MoEF are strictly complied with.

Six    monthly    Compliance    report    not submitted   by   Project   Proponent   since 2019.  STP  outlet water  is  not complying the   prescribed   standards.   Hazardous waste authorization was not obtained by Project Proponent

4

The proposed land  use  shall  be in accordance  to  the  prescribed  land use. A land use certificate issued by the  competent  Authority  shall  be obtained in this regards.

Submitted by PP.

7

Surface    hydrology    and    water regime of the project area within 10 km should be provided.

Project proponent has not been submitted surface    hydrology   report   and   water regime  of  project  but  informed  that  it  is submitted before SEAC.

11

Obtain   necessary   clearance   from the   competent   authority   on   the abstraction   and   use   of   ground water  during  the  construction  and operations phases.

Project Proponent has not provided copy of NOC from CGWA. There are approx. 03-04 no  s.  bore  well  inside  premises  .CGWA permissio  n  has  not  been  obtained  by project proponent.

12

Hazardous/inflammable/explosive materials likely to be stored during the   construction   and   operations phases  shall  be  as  per  standard procedure as prescribed under law, necessary     clearances     in     this regards shall be obtained.

PAs has not obtained the authorization for Hazardous waste disposal from UPPCB.

15

The  emissions  and  effluents  etc. from   machines,   instruments   and transport  during  construction  and operations     phases     should     be according      to      the     prescribed standards. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.

DG set installed with acoustic enclosure. Additional DG set found installed without adequate  stack height.  PP should obtain CTO for all DG set installed in premises.

16

Water  sprinklers  and  other  dust control     measures     should     be undertaken  to  take  care  of  dust generated  during  the  construction and  operation  phases.  Necessary plans   in   this   regard   shall   be submitted.

Partially complied during visi

17

Suitable noise abatement measures shall    be    adopted    during    the construction  and  operation  phases in  order  to  ensure  that  the  noise emissions    do    not    violate    the prescribed         ambient         noise standards. Necessary plans in this regard shall be submitted.

No details provided by Project Proponent.

20

Hazardous/solid wastes generated during     the     construction     and operations     phases     should     be disposed  off  as  prescribed  under law.  Necessary  clearances  in  this regards shall be obtained.

Hazardous  waste  authorization  was  not obtained.  Details  not provided  regarding disposal of STP sludge

23

Pavements shall be so constructed as  to  allow  infiltration  of  surface run-off     of     rain     water.     Fully impermeable  pavements  shall  not be   constructed.   Construction   of pavements around trees shall be as per         scientifically         accepted principles    in    order    to    provide suitable   watering,   aeration   and nutrition to the tree.

Not complied

24

The      green      building      concept suggested by Indian Green Building Council,  which  is  a  part  of   CII- Godrej  GBC,  shall  be  studied  and followed as far as possible

No details provided

29

Make  suitable  provision  for  using solar energy as alternative source of energy,   solar    energy   application should       be       incorporated       for illumination     of     common     areas, lighting    for    gardens    and    street lighting  in  addition  to  provision  for solar    water    heating.    Present    a detailed  report  showing  how  much percentage   of   backup   power   for institution  can  be  provided  through solar    energy    so    that    use    and polluting  effects  of  DG  sets  can  be minimized.

During  inspection,  Joint  Committee  not found solar energy utilization.

31

Educate      citizens      and      other stakeholders by putting up hoarding at     different     places     to     create environmental awareness.

Details  not provided.  Sufficient hoarding not visible during visit.

32

Traffic congestion near the entry and exit points from the roads adjoining the  proposed  project  site  must  be avoided.   Parking   should   be   fully internalized   and   no   public   space should be utilized.

No arrangement made for internal visitor parking  causing  traffic  congestion  near entry and exit point.

35

A report on the energy conservation measures    confirming    to    energy conservation    norms    finalize    by Bureau  of  Energy  Efficiency  should be   prepared   incorporating   details about     building     materials     and technology, R and U factors, etc.

Details not provided.

37

The   DG   sets   to   be   used   during construction  phase  should  use  low sulphur   diesel   type   and   should confirm  to  Environmental  Protection Rules  prescribed  for  air  and  noise emission standards.

DG Set with acoustic enclosure found. No information  available  w.r.t  use  of  low Sulphur diesel.

38

Alternate technologies to chlorination (for   disinfection   of   waste   water) including   methods   like   Ultraviolet radiation,  Ozonation,  etc.  shall  be examined  and  a  report  submitted with     justification     for     selected technology.

PP has  not submitted the  STP  adequacy report till date

39

The   green   belt   design   along   the periphery  of  the  plot  shall  achieve attenuation  factor  confirming  to  the day   and   night   noise   standards prescribed  for  residential  land  use. The   open   spaces   inside   the   plot should  be  suitably  landscaped  and covered       with       vegetation       of indigenous variety.

PP has submitted that about 419 nos. of plant   species   are   planted   within   the premises. However, the plantation found during   the   site   visit   was   inadequate around    the    project   premises.   PP   is required to submit the details of the area covered  for  plantation  and  should  also planted the plant species of thick canopy with long lives.

41

The building should be designed so as   to   take   sufficient   safeguards regarding seismic zone sensitivity

Seepage  observed  in  basement  during Joint       committee       inspection.       An independent structure audit to be carried out by PP.

46

It shall be insured that all street and parks lighting is solar powered. 50% of  the  same  may  be  provided  with dual (solar/electrical) alternatives

No utilization of solar energy was  found during joint committee inspection

47

Solar water heater shall be installed to  the  maximum  possible  capacity. Plans may be drawn up accordingly and submitted with justification

Arrangement/infrastructure for utilization of  solar  energy  not  found  during  joint committee inspection.

52

Parking     areas     should     be     in accordance with the norms of MoEF, Government of  India.  Plans  may  be drawn      up       accordingly      and submitted.

Residents informed that visitor parking is not provided leading to traffic congestion at entry and exit point.

54

The  environment  management  plan should   also   include   the   breakup costs  on  various  activities  and  the management issues also so that the residents   also   participate   in   the implementation  of  the  environment management plan.

Project Proponent has submitted following information :

“  Environmental  management  plan  has been drawn up and is being implemented with a capital cost of 159.0 lakhs and a recurring cost

of   Rs.   23.0   Lakhs   in   the   following components.

• Solid waste management. Capital Cost

10.0     Lakhs.     Recurring     cost     2.0 Lakhs/year.

•  Environmental  monitoring.  Capital  cost

4.0 lakhs. Recurring cost 2.0 lakhs/year.

•  Horticulture/green  area.  Capital  cost

15.0 Lakhs. Recurring 3.0 lakhs/year.

•     Fire     fighting.Capital     cost     20.0 lakhs.Recurring cost Rs. 4.0 Lakhs/year.

•   Health   safety   and   Energy.   Capital cost15.0    Lakhs.    Recurring    cost    2.0 lakhs/year.

•     Sewage     Treatment     plant.Capital cost95.0    lakhs.    Recuring    cost    10.0 lakhs/year.”

55

Detailed  plans  for  safe  disposal  of STP  sludge  shall  be  provided  along with    ultimate    disposal    location, quantitative estimates and measures proposed.

No  details  provided  by  PP.  Filter  press found in unused condition

58

The DG sets shall be so installed so as  to  conform  to  prescribed  stack heights and regulations and also to the  noise  standards  as  prescribed. Details should be submitted.

Additional DG set found installed without adequate  stack height.  PP should obtain CTO for all DG sets installed in premises.

61

The use of suitably processed plastic waste  in  the  construction  of  roads should be considered.

Not complied.

63

Dispensary   for   first   aid   shall   be provided.

No details provided by Project Proponent.

66

Ground  water  downstream  of  rain water harvesting  pit nearest to  STP should  be  monitored  for  bacterial contamination.     Necessary     hand pumps    should    be    provided    for sampling.  The  monitoring  is  to  be done both in pre and post monsoon season

No  information  provided.  Contamination found in sample obtained from RWH pit.

72

Project  proponent  shall  endeavor  to obtain  ISO:  14001  certification.  All general    and    specific    conditions mentioned under this environmental clearance should be included in the environmental      manual      to      be prepared     for     the      certification purposes and compliance.

Not complied.

73

2%  of  total  project  cost  should  be reserved to create a corpus of funds for  implementing  plan  under  social corporate       and       environmental responsibility        and        proposals submitted    within    a    month    of issuance of environmental clearance. Failing    which    the    environmental clearance deemed to be cancelled.

Not  complied.  No  documentary  evidence submitted for compliance of condition. PP has only informed that they have reserved funds .

Specific Conditions

Observation of Joint Committee

1

The    project    proponent    shall    be responsible                                    for

management/disposal                    of sewage/sewage         sludge         till necessary       arrangements        are provided      by      the      Ghaziabad Development   Authority.   Necessary plan    in    this    regards    may    be submitted within a month.

Sewage Treatment Plant is not functioning properly and is  not treating  and reusing grey   water   as   per  EC   conditions.   No information  provided  related  to  Sludge disposal  and  filter  press  was  found  in unused condition

Assessment of environment compensation for the damage to the environment

In compliance to the directions of Hon’ble NGT, Joint committee has carried out assessment to calculate lump sum Environmental Compensation as per approved formula. Details of Environment compensation imposed are given below:

4.1 Environmental Compensation for Non complying STPs.

v  Name of Unit: M/s SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

Violation is assumed from Date of Partial Completion certificate, as STP is not complying the prescribed standards and unused filter press indicate violation from long duration.

PP has obtained first Partial Completion certificate on 04/07/2015 and STP was found non complying during visit on 23/09/2021. So Lump Sum Environmental Compensation is calculated for 2274 days’ violation .

Ø  The Environment Compensation is calculated based on the following formula

Ø  Environmental Compensation = P.I x N x R x S x LF

Ø   Where, EC = Environmental Compensation

Ø  P. I = Pollution Index of Industrial sector = 100 for Red Category

Ø  N = No of days of Violation = 2274 days approximate (Period from 04/07/2015 to 23/09/2021)

Ø   R = Factor in rupees = 250, Category of the Unit: RED

Ø   S = Factor for scale of operation = Scale of the Unit: Large, 1.5 for Large

Ø   L.F = location Factor = 1.5 for Ghaziabad and nearby area,

Ø

v  Environmental Compensation = 100x 2274 x 250 x 1.5 x 1.5 = 12,79,12,500 Rupees. On the basis of above calculations Environmental Compensation of Rupees 12,79,12,500 /-Tweleve Crore Seventy Nine Lakh, Twelve thousand, Five hundred only.) is to be levied on M/s SAVFAB Buildtech Pvt. Ltd.

4.2 Environmental Compensation for illegal extraction of ground water

Assuming violation from date of application in 2010 to CGWA to date of inspection 23.09.2021 for 03 nos. of bore wells), as no other details are available. EC may be increased, till PP obtain approval for bore wells and if additional bore wells found by CGWA/Local authority.

ECGW = Water Consumption per Day x No. of Days x Environmental Compensation Rate for illegal extraction of ground water (ECRGW)

Pump Yield = 18 m3/hr . (From CGWA application)

Daily Consumption = 18 x 7 = 126 m3 (From CGWA application) ECRGW = 45 Rs./m3 (Ghaziabad in over exploitation region) EC to be levied = 45 x 126 = 5670 Rs./day

Total time period = 4368 days Then, ECGW = 5670 x 4368 = 24,766,560

Calculated ECGW = 24,766,560 Rs. For one bore well. Total EC for three bore well = 24,766,560 * 3 =7,42,99,680

= Rs Seven Crore, Fourty Two Lakhs Ninty Nine thousand, Six hundred Eighty Only.

Conclusion

Applicant claimed, that expansion was initiated before obtaining the Environmental Clearance for expansion from SEIAA, UP on 04.03.2021 on the basis of copy of Progress report submitted by the builder to RERA available on portal of UP RERA. CPCB vide letter dated 08/11/2021 has sought details of progress report submitted by Project proponent from UP RERA to verify the allegations and data is received from UP RERA. Based on data received from UP RERA and Project Proponent it is observed that PP has Prima Facie started constructed for expansion project before obtaining EC.

Project proponent is extracting Ground Water without permission

Project Proponent has not obtained Hazardous waste authorization

Project proponent is not operating STP as per consent conditions.

Project Proponent is not managing solid waste as per EC conditions.

Seepage was observed in basement, which may have affected structural stability of the project. An expert should be engage by Project Proponent to assess structural safety.

Parking facility for visitors not allocated and it causes traffic congestions at outside of society.

6.0 Joint Committee’s Recommendations

Following recommendations have been made by the Joint Committee Members:

i. Project Proponent has prima facie violated Environmental Clearance conditions and has started constructed for expansion project before obtaining EC. Hon’ble NGT may include UP RERA in Joint Committee for further investigation. Hon’ble NGT may impose additional Environmental Compensation as per direction of Hon’ble NGT in 661/2018, 764/2018 and Goel Ganga Developers Vs UOI).

ii. With  regard  to  violation  of  STP  functioning,  M/s  Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. shall deposit compensation of Rs 12,79,12,500 (Twelve Crore Seventy Nine Lakh, Twelve thousand Five hundred only.(If assuming violation from date of first Partial Completion certificate date 04/07/2015 to date of inspection on 23/09/2021. Environmental Compensation is calculated for 2274 days’ violation).

iii. With regard to withdrawal of ground water, M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. shall deposit compensation amount of R s. Seven Crore Fourty Two Lakh Ninty Nine Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Only (7,42,99,680) only (Assuming violation from date of application in 2010 to CGWA to date of inspection 23.09.2021 for 03 nos. of bore wells), as no other details are available.EC may be increased if additional borewell found by CGWA/Local authority.

iv. M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd shall engage third party expert for determining structural stability and taking corrective actions.

v. Project Proponent to comply with all EC conditions and seek approval from CGWA for use of bore well.

vi. Project Proponent to comply with provision of Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and EC conditions for Solid Waste Management and to ensure proper collection, segregation, and treatment of biodegradable waste in compost as per EC conditions.

vii. Project Proponent to allot parking for visitors as per norms of MoEF&CC to avoid traffic congestion outside society.

viii. Project Proponent to obtain authorization for Hazardous waste and remove additional gensets (not included in consent and installed in society without adequate stack height).

ix. The grey water should be treated- up to tertiary level in decentralized STP and treated water should be reused as per Environment Clearance conditions.

x. PPs should comply and submitted the compliance status report to MoEF&CC IRO, Lucknow for the stipulated conditions of EC granted by SEIAA, UP for Saviour Park on 04.03.2013 and its expansion project on 04.03.2021 on regular basis.

The Hon’ble Tribunal may issue appropriate directions as it deems fit, which the Committee is bound to comply with.”

The stand of the PP does not dispute that there are violations as found. However, PP has stated that it has taken certain steps in the matter as follows:-

“

(i) Non Submission of Surface Hydrology Report and Water Regime:

In terms of the EC, the Project Proponent, vide letter, dated 27.07.2019 submitted the land use certificate, surface hydrology report and water regime report with Dr. Susheel Kumar, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. This letter has been duly acknowledged and stamped by the Ministry. Therefore, there is no violation with respect to submission of the above mentioned Reports.

True Copy of letter dated 27.07.2019 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-2.

(ii) Non use of alternate technology for disposal of solid waste:

The Project Proponent has been using two methods for disposal of solid waste-

(a) Solid waste disposed of through STP; &

(b) Solid waste being disposed of through an Organic Waste Convertor (OWC). The Project Proponent has been using the present Organic Waste Convertor since December 2021.

Apart from the above mentioned technologies used, the Project Proponent has also executed Work Order, dated 14.12.2021, wherein the Project Proponent has engaged a vendor for single point collection, secondary segregation and disposal of all solid wastes generated including installing, operating and maintaining Organic Waste Composting Machine for the project. Hence, the answering Respondent is using alternate technology for disposal of solid waste. Photograph of the Organic Waste Convertor is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-3.

True Copy of the Work Order, dated 14.12.2021 is marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-4.

(iii) Non use of recycled water and water from local municipal authority and exploiting groundwater for construction and operational purpose:

Firstly, the Project Proponent since November 2015 till February 2018 have been using treated water from STP for construction purpose. Thereafter, the answering Respondent installed a STP at the Project premises. It is submitted that the Project Proponent uses the treated water from STP in its premise for construction activities. True Copy of the invoices for STP water utilized by Respondent No.10 from November 2015 to February 2018 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-5 (Colly).

Secondly, insofar as the groundwater is concerned, it is extracted from borewells. It is pertinent to point out here that the only requirement under the EC for extraction and use of ground water was that the answering Respondent had to obtain clearance from the competent Authority.

On 04.08.2018, the answering Respondent had applied for NOCs to extract water from bore wells with the CGWA. However, the same was rejected on 16.12.2020 by the CGWA on the ground that Uttar Pradesh Government has its own regulations for groundwater and directed the answering Respondent to apply for NOCs from the Ground Water Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 03.09.2021, the answering Respondent submitted applications with the Ground Water Department, Government Of U.P. for permission to extract water from 3 borewells. On 05.01.2022, NOC was issued by the Ground Water Department for 2 borewells. The answering Respondent expects that the NOC for the remaining borewell will be issued shortly. In this manner, the answering Respondent has adhered to the terms of the EC. Furthermore, the groundwater is not used for construction purpose and only for domestic use by the residents of the Project.

(iv) The Sewage Treatment Plant is not functioning properly and is not treating and reusing grey water. Analytical Results of water samples collected from STP and RWH pit indicate that most of the parameters are exceeding the limit. Mixing of sewage effluent into the storm water drain cannot be ruled out:

As on date, the Sewage Treatment Plant is fully functional. It is submitted that the Project Proponent recycles and uses water from the STP for horticulture and construction activities. Further, the answering Respondent is ready if the samples are collected from STP and RWH pit and tested.

(v) No information provided for sludge disposal and filter press was found in unused condition:

On 13.08.2019, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Central Region) (“MOEFC”) sent a Compliance Report to Member Secretary, SEAC, Directorate of Environment for the project developed by answering Respondent. Perusal of Serial No.55 of the Compliance Report makes it evident that the detailed plans for the disposal of STP sludge have been complied with. The tertiary level treated domestic waste-water by STP is used for flushing, gardening and water sprinkling and compost used as manure for horticulture at site.

True Copy of the Compliance Report of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Regional Office (Central Region) are marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-6.

(vi) Maintenance of 3 RWH structures were in poor condition. All RWHs were choked and analytical results of water samples collected from RWH pit indicate presence of sewage in RWH pit:

It is submitted that there are 6 Rainwater Harvesting systems in the project. The Rain Water Harvesting systems are in compliance with the designs as provided by the Groundwater Department. The Compliance Report of MOEFC (marked Annexure R-6) at Serial 14 states that the answering Respondent has complied with the design.

Further, it is submitted that the Project Proponent regularly monitors the conditions of the Rain Water Harvesting pit. The Rainwater Harvesting Pit is cleaned in the pre monsoon period and after every rain and storm. The answering Respondent is ready for inspection of the RWH pit. However, it is pertinent to point out that a storm line drain which connects to the RWH is there in every balcony. The balconies are not meant to be used for washing clothes or to discharge domestic waste. However, the residents of the Project have connected their washing machines to the balcony and the discharge from the washing machine and other domestic discharges are released into the storm line drain. This may lead to mixing of rain water with domestic effluents. While the Project Proponent regularly and repeatedly advices the residents against such practices, it may be noted that these are manifestations of existing behavioral patterns of society. Any change in such patterns requires regular counseling and time for change. While the Project Proponent continues to work with the residents, it expects that over time these changes will happen.

(vii) Project Proponent has failed to construct roads in project area with the use of suitably processed processed plastic waste:

It is submitted that while one of the terms of the EC is that suitably processed plastic waste in the construction of roads should be considered. However, the internal roads have been constructed as per the Fire Departments norms, taking into account the movement of fire tenders and the requirement of R.C.C. roads designed for a particular pressure (usually, in excess of 60 tonnes per square meter). It is submitted the Project Proponent would have violated norms of Fire Safety had it constructed roads with use of suitably processed plastic waste. Further, the language of the term is directory and not mandatory.

(viii) Spent / Used oil from DG set is the hazardous material generated at the site. Project Proponent has not obtained hazardous waste disposal authorization:

The Project Proponent is a member of Sheetla Waste Management Project (hereinafter referred as “SWMP”), which is an organization the answering Respondent has engaged for the disposal of hazardous and biomedical waste. By virtue of the membership to SWMP, the Project Management has a tie up, dated 18.11.2021 with the SWMP for safe disposal of hazardous and bio medical waste. True Copy of the duly signed form, dated 18.11.2021 for engagement of Sheetla Waste Management Project for disposal of hazardous waste is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-7.

(ix) Project Proponent has not provided designated visitors parking and instead is allowing visitors parking on common road which is generating traffic congestion near entry and exit point:

It is submitted that parking areas have been provided in the project in terms of the EC. The Compliance Report of MOEFC (Annexure R-6) records compliance of the same in Serial 32 and

It is respectfully submitted that the parking facility has been provided as per the sanction lay out plan in accordance with the norms of MOEF.

(x) Project Proponent is not utilizing solar energy for street and park lighting. No source of renewable energy has been observed at project site:

On 17.01.2022, the Project Proponent has installed solar panels generating 40 KW of solar power. The solar power generated from the panels is supplied to the main electricity grid connection of the project. It is submitted that the street and park lighting requires around 25KW of power. The Project Proponent also uses CFL based lighting in the common areas in order to reduce the consumption of power by 20%.

True Copy of the work completion and handing over certificate, dated 17.01.2022 is marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-8.

(xi) Project Proponent has not submitted report on the energy conservation:

It is submitted that the Project Proponent, as recorded in Serial

35 of the Compliance Report of MOEFC (Annexure R-6), has undertaken to provide the report on energy conservation after the completion of the project. It is submitted that the energy conservation report can only be accurate once the said Project is completely constructed. The answering Respondent undertakes to submit the Report on completion of the project.

(xii) Project Proponent has installed additional Gensets, which are not of adequate stack height:

On the date of the inspection the said Gensets were only being tested and were not fully operational. The Gen sets installed at present are fixed at an adequate height.

Photographs of the gen set are marked and annexed hereto as ANNEXURE R-9.

(xiii) Project Proponent has not provided details regarding Environment Management plan and Cost of environmental activities:

The Project Proponent in its Environmental Impact Assessment Report that was submitted to the SEAC, has provided for certain CSR activities from page 202 onwards of the document. The Project Proponent undertook to provide creche facilities for the construction workers and also undertook to facilitate Corporate Environment Responsibility. The Project Proponent further undertook to plant trees along the main road and median. The Project Proponent has undertaken to spend Rs.213 Lakh till the completion of the project in CSR and CER activities. The answering Respondent undertakes to provide Environment Management Plan and Cost of Environmental Activities as per the directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

(xiv) Project Proponent has not provided details / copy of agreement with recycler to handle / dispose hazardous waste (waste oil from DG sets) and STP sludge, plastic waste, e-waste and biomedical waste etc., generated at project site:

The alleged violation observed in this Para has been dealt with by the answering Respondent in the previous Paras. The contents of Para 7 (v) and 7 (viii) above may be read as part and parcel of the present para as the same is not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

(xv) Project Proponent has not provided copy of NOC from CGWA:

(xvi) On 04.08.2018, the answering Respondent had applied for NOCs to extract water from bore wells with the CGWA. However, the same was rejected by the CGWA on the ground that Uttar Pradesh Government has its own regulations for groundwater. Accordingly, the Project Proponent was directed to apply for NOCs from the Ground Water Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thereafter, on 03.09.2021, the answering Respondent, in terms of the EC, submitted applications with the Ground Water Department, Government Of U.P. for permission to extract water from 3 borewells. On 05.01.2022, NOC bearing No. REG013555 and REG048660 were issued by the Ground Water Department for 2 borewells. The answering Respondent expects that the NOC for the remaining borewell will be issued shortly. In this manner, the answering Respondent has adhered to the terms of the EC. Furthermore, the groundwater is not used for construction purposes and only for domestic use by the residents of the Project.

(xvii) True Copy of NOCs bearing No. REG013555 and REG048660 issued by the Ministry of Ground Water, Government of Uttar Pradesh are marked and annexed as ANNEXURE R-10 (Colly.).

(xviii) 9. Apart from the above, the answering Respondent has obtained Structural Stability Certificate, dated 05.02.2012, issued by Prof V.K. Gupta from IIT Roorkee. It is submitted that the Project Proponent could not have got the Completion Certificate without the structural stability certificate.”

From the above, it is seen that there is no dispute about violations of prior EC which is mandatory. Also, there is no dispute regarding malfunctioning of the STP earlier. Though, about the ground water issue, it is claimed that permission has been granted for extraction on 05.01.2022, the past violations remain undisputed. The permission granted is for two bore-wells while three have been functioning. Moreover, bore-wells are allowed only for drinking purposes and not for commercial/construction purposes. The PP has also filed I.A No. 102/2022 for re-call of order dated 04.02.2022 restraining it from creating third party rights.

Finding and Directions

In view of violations of serious nature found by the joint Committee noted above and only stand of PP being subsequent partial compliance which is yet to be verified by the statutory regulators, the PP is held to have violated the requirement of prior EC as well as conditions of EC. The report of the joint Committee is accepted. Compensation assessed for violating STP norms and illegal ground water extraction is approved. Recommedations for further remedial action be carried by the PP and overseen by the statutory regulators as per law. Apart from liability for being prosecuted as per the provisions of the EP Act, 1986 and to pay compensation determined by the Committee which we have approved, the PP is held liable to pay further compensation for violating requirement of prior EC and CTE on the principles laid down inter-alia in MC Mehta, (1987) 1 SCC 395, Sterlite (2013) 4 SCC 575 and Goel Ganga (2018) 18 SCC 257. Having regard to the nature and extent of violations and project cost, the compensation is determined at Rs. 40 Crores, taking the project cost at Rs.800 crore. The precise cost of the project is not on record but cost of expansion is mentioned in EC to be Rs. 250 crore. We take the total cost at Rs.800 having regard to the size of the total project (850  flats  already  constructed)  as  shown  by  the  report  of  the MoEF&CC filed on 02.05.2022, as follows:

“1. Unit has obtained CTE for existing project (Total Built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 26/07/2012.

RO, Ghaziabad, UPPCB reported that unit has obtained CTO for existing project (Total 850 flats against 980 flats, built up area 1,55,000sam) vide letter dated 17/09/2020. During inspection for CTOon 26/07/2020, a total of 850 flats were observed as constructed, which is less than as permitted in CTE. No violation was noticed during inspection.”

The entire amount of compensation be deposited with the State PCB within two months. In case, deposit is not made, it will be open to the statutory authorities to take coercive measures including, black listing of the PP, attaching and selling its property in accordance with law. The PP will not be allowed to create any further third party right till compliance of all the recommendations, verified by authorities and till payment of compensation, which burden will not be passed on those who have already purchased the flats assuming the project to be compliant. We further notice that the built up area of the project is 1550000 sq.m i.e. more than 1,50,000 sq.m, requiring the project to be appraised as category ‘B1’ project in terms of Entry 8(b) of the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006. If the project has been appraised only as ‘B’ project, the same is violation of norms and atleast ex post facto appraisal may be made taking the project as BI, if not already done on that basis. The PP may ensure compliance with all the deficiencies found in the report within three months failing which, the statutory regulators will be at liberty to levy further compensation and take further coercive measures.

It is seen from the analysis reports of samples collected from RWH and STP that there are high FCs in breach of laid down parameters. Further, sewage is entering into drain and there is no sewerage system. It is possible that such conditions exist in other residential and commercial complexes also. Thus, SPCBs need to carefully grant CTE and CTO, laying down the mode of disposal in the light of draft notification of MoEF&CC dated 25.2.2022.

Report about functional audit

We now consider the report of the Committee on functional audit of SEIAA, U.P reproduced as under:-

“Chapter 7

Functional Audit of SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh

Data and Information were received from SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh in parts vide E-mails as follows:

·         Email dated 08.12.2021 (Annexure-7)

·         E-mail dated 24.01.2022 (Annexure-10) and in continuation

·         further vide dated 03.02.2022

·         E-mail dated 11.03.2022 (Annexure-26)

The information and data have been analysed and the details and observations are as follows:

7.1 Existing Mechanism for grant of EC within SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh

7.1.1 Application format

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that the Application Format is the same as prescribed in EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).

7.1.2 Type of Format for Consolidated Statement

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that the Application Formats are as per the categories prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).

7.1.3 Procedure of processing of application

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that procedure as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) is followed for processing of application.

7.1.4 Involvement of SPCB, Local Bodies, Town and Country Planning Department

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that interaction with other enforcement agencies including SPCB, Local Bodies, Town & Country Planning Dept takes place during the appraisal of project. Many a times, it becomes necessary to coordinate with concerned department to verify the factual status of the project. Also, in many cases, litigation against the project is filed in the Hon’ble Court(s) by the social community or by the project proponent itself making the concerned departments as the pro-forma party or may be impleaded as the case may be. Ground status of the project in question is required to be answered in compliance of the Hon’ble Court(s) orders. Hence, other enforcement agencies are coordinated including SPCB, Local Bodies, Town & Country Planning Dept. etc.

7.1.5 Stepwise flowchart and time-lines for issue of Environment Clearance by SEIAA and institutional mechanism for coordination with SPCB, Municipal Bodies, Town Planning and other designated bodies involved in sanctioning building construction projects at local level.

It is stated by SEIAA that the process adopted is as per EIA Notification, 2006 (as amended thereof).

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

7.1.6 Procedure of sanction of plan by Town and Country Planning. Does the approval process for Building Construction by the Town Planning Department / Municipal Bodies also includes examining whether EC has been granted? Whether there is any requirement of CTE / CTO before sanctioning or issuing of Occupancy certificate by concerned Agencies/ Authorities?

It is stated by SEIAA that the matter is related to Housing and Urban Planning Department UP.

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

7.1.7 Necessary Clearances/ NOCs/ Licences etc. required for processing application SEIAA, UP submitted that, Clearances/ NOCs/ Licences etc. are required as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof).

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

7.1.8 Coordination /Information Exchange between SEIAA and Local Authorities – Sharing of Environment Clearance Document issued by SEIAA or CTE/CTO issued by SPCB with the Town Planning/ Municipal Bodies or any other designated body responsible for approving the building plan

It is stated by SEIAA that EC letter issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project. The copy of the same with enclosure for Information and necessary action are issued to:

·         Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, JorBagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi.

·         Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow.

·         District Magistrate (Concerned District).

·         The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, Paryavaran Bhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar,Lucknow.

7.1.9 Prescribed timelines - Max and Min.for issuing of Environmental Clearance

Timeline is as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof)

The Committee felt that the SEIAA has not been able to provide the complete information as desired.

7.1.10 Specific Methodology for Building Projects SEIAA, UP submitted that, Methodology for Building Projects is as prescribed in EIA Notification, 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof)

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

7.1.11 Mechanism for Compliance Monitoring

It is submitted by SEIAA that the mechanism for compliance monitoring has been well defined in the office order issued vide file no. J-11013/10/2009-IA.I dated 30/09/2009 wherein it has been mentioned that:

“The Monitoring Cell in IA Division is the nodal point for monitoring and compliance of the stipulated conditions imposed on the industrial units/infrastructural projects including CRZ, while granting Environmental Clearance (EC). A copy of the EC is endorsed to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC for monitoring the compliance of the stipulated conditions, besides to the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).”

For the aforesaid purpose, after the grant of EC, letter is issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project and the copy of the same together with enclosure are endorsed to the following for information and necessary action:

·         Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests& Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi

·         Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment& Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow

·         District Magistrate, (Concerned District)

·         The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, Paryavaran Bhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

And more specifically, SEIAA/SEAC, appraises the violation category cases as per the EIA Notification dated14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) read along with notification dated 14/03/2017 and 08/03/2018. The SEIAA/SEAC, stipulates the implementation of Environmental Management Plan, comprising remediation plan and naturaland community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation as a condition of environmental clearance. The conditions stipulates that:

The project proponent is asked to submit bank guarantee of Rs. (The sum levied) equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan within 15 days to the SPCB.

The Committee felt that SEIAA needs to expedite the action in this regard.

7.1.12 Imposition of Environmental Compensation

It is stated by SEIAA that, as per CPCB guidelines, compensation is imposed by State Pollution Control Board.

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

7.1.13 What is the Checklist? Standardized TOR? Is it same for all types of projects or project-wise varies?

It is submitted by SEIAA that, for different categories, Standard ToRs have been prescribed by MoEF&CC. SEAC/SEIAA follows the same. However, in some cases wherein, additional environmental information regarding the project is required which are not covered in the standard ToR’s in that case additional ToR is suggested to be carried out during the study for EIA of the project

7.2(i) Why are construction projects of the State not following provisions of EIA Notification, 2006?

It is stated by SEIAA, UP that, every project has to follow EIA Notification, 2006.

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

(ii) Do other Enforcement agencies take cognizance of requirement of prior EC or EC conditions?

It is informed that, the concerned Regional Office of the Ministry/SPCB takes cognizance of requirement of prior EC or EC conditions.

The Committee is not satisfied with the reply of SEIAA.

(iii) Why are such frequent blatant violations taking place and how can the situation be remedied?

SEIAA, UP has expressed disagreement with the above statement. They have submitted that, SEIAA/SEAC processes more than 700 cases/year and violation have been observed only in 2-3 cases/year which cannot be considered as frequent blatant violations.IT has also been stated that SEIAA is facing shortage of manpower. The situation can be improved only by providing adequate resources to SEIAA. SEIAA/SEAC are the bodies constituted by Govt. of India therefore Govt. of India should take responsibility of providing sufficient resources to discharge their responsibilities in a more efficient and transparent manner which is an incorrect statement considering that the expenses of SEIAA is to be borne by the State government / State Pollution Control Board which has sufficient resources for providing adequate manpower.

7.3 Analysis of Violation Cases received by SEIAA during Window Period

Some information has been received from SEIAA, UP in different phases (Annexure 26A, 26B& 26C). Same have been analyzed as follows:

Table 7.3.1 (a): List of Cases received during window Period i.e. from 14.03.2017 to 13.09.2017 and from 14.03.2018 to 13.04.2018.

S.

N.

Project

Title

Sector

Date

of Applicatio n for EC

Committe

e Meeting Date

Committee

Decision

Reply

Received against query raised by SEAC

Authority

Meeting Date

Authority

Decision

Reply

Received against query raised

Categor

y of

Violatio n

Whethe r Expansi on

/New

Final

status/Dat e of Grant

of EC

1

2

3

4

5

6

4

8

9

10

14

1.

Construction of Proposed Group Housing and

Staff Quarters at U

PSRTC Campus, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.

8(a)

Building Constructi on

22/03/201

8

2/5/2018

21/08/201

8

Information asked from PP

Recommende d for EC

30/07/201

8

16/05/20

8

31/08/20

18

Agreed with SEAC

Grant

…

New

EC Issued on 14/09/208

2.

Proposed Group Ho

using Project "KW

Srishti" at Khasra

8(b)

Building Constructi on

15/01

/2019

19/02

/2019

Recommende d for EC

……………

.

03/07/20

19

Grant

……..

Expansi on

EC Issued on 08/04/201

9

No.- 1125/1, 1125/2

&1125/3,Village- Noor Nagar, Pargana- Loni, Raj

Nagar Extension,District-

Ghaziabad,U.P.,M/s Dingle Buildcons

Pvt. Ltd.

3.

Proposed

Group Housing Project at Plot No.- 139, Block- H,

Scheme- 1, Fazalganj, Kanpur,

U.P.,M/s Tapasya Projects Ltd.

Building Constructi on

EC (T

OR)

Application

Received dated 12/04/201

8

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

ToR's

Granted vide letter dated 09/03/201

9 but EC Application Not Received

4.

Residential Complex "Gulmohar Residency" at Khasra No.-527/1,

519, Village- Kanawani, District- Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s SVP Builders (I) Ltd.

Building Constructi on

21/06/201

9

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non

-

submission of reply

by PP/Absent

5.

Proposed Group Ho

using Project "Platinum Premier" at

Khasra No.- 304,294, 295& 296

of Village- Pehladgarhi&Khasra No.-194 of Village- Makanpur Sector- 9, Vaishali Ext., District-

Ghaziabad, U.P.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application

Received dated 13/04/201

8

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non- submission of reply

6.

Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH-05,

Sector -10, Greater Noida,District GautamBudhaNagar U.P.,M/s Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority

8(a)

Building Constructi on

28/11/201

9

19/12/201

9

Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA

No. 1038/2018

Recommende d for EC

01/06/202

0

1/2/2020

26/02/202

0

01/07/202

0

21/09/202

0

Agreed with  SEAC Grant

Discussed the P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020

and directed that the matter

shall be referred to MoEF&CC

Directed to take further

Action as per decision taken in SEIAA

New

EC Issued on 25/11/202

0

meeting dated 26/02/2020

7.

Affordable Housing Project located at Village-

GohodiBacheda,

Sector Mu II, Greater Noida, District-

Gautam Budha Nagar, U.P.,M/s Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority

8(b)

Building Constructi on

27/11/201

9

19/12/201

9

16/01/202

0

Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA

No. 1038/2018

Recommende d for EC

01/06/202

0

1/2/2020

26/02/202

0

20/08/202

0

15/10/202

0

Agreed with SEAC

Information from PP

Information not satisfactory

Grant

13/07/202

0

30/09/202

0

New

EC Issued on 15/12/202

0

8.

Affordable Housing Project located at Plot No.-GH-03A,

Omicron, Greater Noida, Di

strict- Gautam BudhaNagar,U.P.,M/ s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

8(a)

Building Constructi on

29/11/201

9

19/12/201

9

16/01/202

0

Defer in view

of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA No. 1038/20

18Recommen d for EC

01/06/202

0

1/2/2020

26/02/202

0

01/07/202

0

21/09/202

0

Agreed with SEAC Grant Discussed the

P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020

and directed that the matter

shall be referred to MoEF&CC Directed to take further action

New

EC Issued on 25/11/202

0

as per

decision taken in SEIAA

meeting dated 26/02/2020

9.

Affordable Housing Project

located at Plot No.

-GH-02,Omicron 1A, Greater Noida, District-

GautamBudhaNagar

,U.P.,M/s Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority

8(a)

Building Constructi on

28/11/201

9

19/12/201

9

16/01/202

0

Defer in view

of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA No. 108/20 18

Recommende d for EC

01/06/202

0

1/2/2020

26/02/202

0

01/07/202

0

21/09/202

0

Agreed with SEAC

Grant Discussed the

P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020

and directed that the matter

shall be referred to MoEF&CC

Directed to take further action

as per decision taken in SEIAA

meeting dated 26/02/2020

New

EC Iss ued o n 25/ 11/20

20

10

Affordable Housing Project located at

8(a)

27/11/201

9

19/12/201

9

Defer in view

01/06/202

0

1/2/2020

26/02/202

0

Agreed with SEAC Grant

New

EC Issued on

Plot No.-L & M, Sector- 12

, Greater Noida, Di

strict- Gautam BudhaNagar, U.P., M/s Greater Noida Industrial

Development Authority

Building Constructi on

16/01/202

0

of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA

No. 1038/2018

Recommende d for EC

01/07/202

0

24/09/202

0

Discussed the

P.P. letter dated 16/06/2020

and directed that the matter shall be referred to MoEF&CC

Directed to take further action as per

decision taken in

SEIAA meeting dated 26/02/2020

25/11/202

0

111.

Environmental Clearance for the Ansal Town Project located at Village - Jatoli, Meerut Bypass, Roorkee Road,

Meerut,U.P. - 201308 (Under Violation Notification da

ted 14th  March, 2017) byM/s Ansal Housing

Building Constructi on

EC (T OR)

Application

Received dated 13/09/201

7

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/

Abse nt

& Construction Ltd.

12

Proposed Affordable Housing at Sector- 22 D,Village- Ballukhera

, YEIDA,Yamuna Expressway

Industrial Development Authority, District- Gautam Budh Nagar

, U.P.

Building Constructi on

EC (T OR)

Application

Received dated 28/07/201

7

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/

Absent

13

Expansion of Logistic Park (Warehouse) Project at Gata No.-18

8 and 198, located  at Village Sikandrabad Dehat, District- Bulandshahar, U.P.,(

Under Violation Notification dated 1

4 March2017) by M/s VRY Industrial Park LLP

8(a)

Building Constructi on

25/06/201

9

24/07/201

9

11/10/201

9

PP Absent

Recommende d for EC

29/08/201

9

16/08/201

9

20/11/201

9

01/01/202

0

Agreed with SEAC Defer

in view of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA No.1038/

2018 Grant

New

EC Issued on 24/02/202

0

14

Proposed

Group Housing Project "VinayakApartment" at

Sector- 7B, MajholaYojna- 4, Part-II,Delhi Road, District- Moradabad, U.P., M/s Maya Nagar

SahkariAwas Samiti Ltd,

8(a)

Building Constructi on

25/06/201

9

24/07/201

9

11/10/201

9

PP Absent

Recommende d for EC

29/08/201

9

16/08/201

9

20/11/201

9

01/01/202

0

Agreed with

SEAC Defer in view of order passed by Hon'ble

NGT in OA No.1038/2018

Grant

New

EC Issued on 24/02/202

0

15

Combined Residential and Non- Residential Campus for 32 Battalion PAC, at Kanp ur Road,District-

Lucknow,U.P., M/s

Provincial Armed Constabulary

Building Constructi on

EC (T OR)

Application

Received dated 19/08/201

7

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of Reply by PP/Absent

16

Proposed

Group Housing Project "Chimera" located at Khasra No.- 1134, N

Building Constructi on

EC (T OR)

Application

Received dated

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

ToR's

Granted vide letter dated 08/08/201

8 but EC

H-58, Village- Noo

r Nagar Raj Nagar

Extension, District- Ghaziabad, U.P.

,(Under Violation Notification dated 14 March2017) by

M/sShouryaShubha m Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

28/03/201

7

Application Not Received

117

Proposed

Expansion of Group Housing Project

Situated at Khasra No.- 527/4, 528,

549-554,556-559

Village- Ka]nawani,

Indirapuram, District- Ghazaibad,

U.P. prom

ted by M/s Niho Construction Ltd

Building Constructi on

04/05/202

1

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

Expansi on

Delisted due to non submission of reply

by PP/Absent

18

Proposed

Group Housing Project "Assotech Winder Court" at GH-04/A, Sector- 78,Noida, Di

strict-GautamBudh Nagar,U.P., dev

eloped by M/s Assotech Ltd.

Building Constructi on

EC (T OR)

Application

Received dated 13-

09-2017

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply

by PP/Absent

19

Revised Group Ho

using Project located at Khasra No.-

322 & 324, Village

-Noor Nagar, District- Ghaziabad, U.P., by M/sDiya Ang els Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

8(a)

Building Constructi on

01/09/201

9

19/02/201

9

Recommende d for E

C

7/3/2019

07/05/201

9

Information asked by PP Grant

04/08/20

19

New

EC Issued on 10/09/201

9

20

Commercial Complex "Galaxy Diamond Plaza"at Plot N

8(a)

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application

Received dated

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply

o.- C-1 A Sector-

04, Greater Noida,

District- GautamBudh Nagar,

U.P. AS

PER "SO804(E)"

dated 14.03.2017 by M/sAsteroid

SheltersHomes Pvt. Ltd.

10/09/201

7

by PP/ Absent

221

Environment Clearance for

Group Housing Project "Vrinda City located at

Plot No.GH- 2 Sevtor- PHI-4 Greater Noida,

Uttar Pradesh by

M/s Central and State Employees SahakariAwasSamiti

Limited under the

8(a)

Building Constructi on

21/03/202

0

04/06/202

0

19/08/202

0

Recommende d for EC

Recommende d

18/06/202

0

15/09/202

0

28/12/202

0

Refer

back to SEAC

Information asked by PP Grant

28/09/20

20

New

EC Issued on 15/01/202

1

provisionof Central Government,Gazette Notification

dated 14,March 2017-Violation case.

22

Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Group Housing Project "Orchid Heights" apartments at Village Uttardhauna

District and Tehsil Lucknow,

Uttar

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application

Received dated 13/09/201

7

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply

by PP/ Absent

23

Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Goel Heights Apartments,

Gro

up Housing under pahadi Sahkari A was Samiti Ltd. At Khasra no.- 761,762,763 (b)

Village- Anaura,

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application

Received dated 1

3/09/2017

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply

by PP/ Absent

Chinhat Faizabad Road,District- Lucknow, Uttar

Pradesh.

24

Environmental Clearance for (for Viola

tion) Group Housing Project "Green

Park" apartments

at VillageUttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application

Received dated 13/09/2017

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

New

Delisted due to non submission of reply

by PP/ Absent

25

Environmental Clearance for Expansi

on of "Swami VivekanandSubharti University"Project at

Khasra No.- Vill- Ghatt 941,947, 94950/1/2/3,951,9

52, 953/1/2, 954-

959,963, 964,

974/2,

Building Constructi on

EC (T OR)

Application

Received dated 13/09/201

7

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

……..

Expan sion

Delisted due to non submission of reply

by PP/ Absent

977, 978, 980, 98

1, 982,984, 985,

960, 961, Vill-

Mallyana-

1625,1628, 1629,

1630-1633, 1635,

163

6, 1637,1638, 1650,

1651, 1653, 1654,

165

5/2, 1656,

1657, 1606, 1634,

1652, 1653 Vill

Panchali-522, 531

-537, 540, 545, 5

48, 549,550located at village-Ghatt, MaliyanaPanchali, Meerut Bypass Road, Meerut, Uttar Pr adesh (under violation Notificationdated 14

March 2017) by M/s Subharti K.K.B charitable Trust.

26

Proposed Group Ho

using Project "San

char Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd."at Khasra No.- 236& 237, Village-

Mo

rta, District- Ghazaibad, U.P

., M/s Sanchar Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd.,

8(a)

Building Constructi on

10/09/201

8

12/12/201

8

Recommende d for EC

28/12/201

8

Grant

New

EC Issued on 23/01/201

9

27

Proposed Residential Colony "AnsalBa

sera City" at Village- Buda,District-

Kanpur By Pass Road, District- Jhansi, U.P.

8(a)

Building Constructi on

13/07/201

9

08/08/201

9

Recommende d for EC

18/09/201

9

Grant

New

EC Issued on 16/07/202

0

28

Proposed

"Cement Grinding

Unit" Project at Village- Dhauhan, Pargana- Saktesgarh,

3(b)

Industry

21/09

/2019

26/09

/2021

Recommende d for E

C

8/11/2019

03/01/202

0

Information asked by PPGrant

19/11/20

19

EC Issued on 24/02/202

0

Tehsil- Chunar, District- Mirzapur, U

.P. M/s Uddyam Cement Pvt. Ltd.

29

Proposed

Project "Gomti River Front Channelization Project from Harding to Gomti Weir, District- Lucknow, U.P.

8(b)

Building Constructi on

26/11

/2018

20/12/201

8

11/07/201

9

20/11/201

9

28/02/202

0

Recommende d for EC

Information asked by PP

Information asked by PP Recommende d for EC

04/09/201

9

27/01/202

0

8/1/2019

09/03/201

9

01/07/201

9

01/08/201

9

20/12/201

9

09/05/202

0

Information asked by PP Information asked by PP Refer back to

SEAC Agreed with SEAC Agreed with SEAC Grant

24/0/201

9

04/0/201

9

-

EC issued on 21/08/202

0

30

Proposed Group

Housing "Grand Forte Apartments" at Plot NO.- 76, Sigma- IV, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar

, U.P.,M/s

SatililaSahkari Awas Samti

8(a)

Building Constructi on

13/06/202

1

17/08/202

1

21/12/202

1

Information asked by PP Recommende d for EC

29/10/202

1

5/10/2021

31/12/202

1

Agreed with

SEAC Defer in view of SOP OM Stay byMadras HighCourt

New

Under Process

Table 7.3.1(b): Summary of Cases received during Window Period [from 14.03.2017 to 13.09.2017 and from 14.03.2018 to 13.04.2018]

SSector

Total

Applications received

EC

Granted

EC

Pending

BBuilding

Construction

29

14

15

IIndustry

01

01

00

TTotal

30

15

15

Observations:

It is submitted by SEIAA, UP that, during violation period total 30 no. of application were received. But, from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. However, out of them 15 were granted EC and 15 no. were not granted EC. Out of 30 projects there are 29 construction projects and 01 is industry project. Details status of the projects follows:

Table 7.3.2 (a): Detailed status of the Projects under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021 for which EC has been granted (In context to Applications received during Window Period)

S. No.

Project Title

Sector

Date of

Applicatio n forEC

Category

of Violatio n whether

Expansi on/New

Action of Violation

Final

status/Dat e

of Grant of EC

Total no

of Days taken for

granting of EC

BG

released

(YEs/ No)

Current

status of the

project

Under

Section1 5 of EP),

Act

Bank

Guarante Imposed

Reme

diatio n Plan

Construction of Proposed Group Housing and Staff Quarters at UPSRTC Campus, Vikas Nagar, Kanpur, U.P.

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

22/03/201

8

New

Action under section 15 of E(

P) Act initiated vide

letter dated

02/07/

2018

1,25,00,0

00/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP

to SEIAA o n 26/07/2 018

Submitte d

EC Issued

on 14/09/208

176

N/A

Under constructio n

Proposed Group Housing Project "KW Srishti" at Khasra No.- 1125/1, 1125/2

&1125/3,Village- Noor Nagar, Pargana- Loni, Raj NagarExtension, District Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s Dingle Buildcons Pvt. Ltd.

8(b)

Building

Constructio n

15/01/2019

Expansio n

Action under section 15 of E( P)

Act initiated vide

letter dated

5,02,000/

-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP

to SEIAA on 05/03/2019

10,00,000

/-(additional Information; as provided by SPCB)

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 08/04/201

9

932

No

Completed

28/03/20

19

Affordable Housing Project

located at Plot No.-GH- 05, Sector - 10, Greater Noida, District GautamBudhaNagar,U.P.

,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

28/11/2019

New

Action under section 15 of E( P)

Act initiated vide

letter dated

09/11/20

20

90,00,000

/- PP vide letter dated

16/06/20

20 have re

quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee Letter sent to MoEF&CC

on 07/07/2020

for clarification regarding exemption of

bank guarantee

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by

PPto SEIAA

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 5/11/2020

363

No

Under constructio n

on 16/09/2020

Affordable Housing Project

located at Village-

GohodiB

acheda, Sector Mu II, Greater Noida, District- GautamBudhaNagar,U.P.

,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

8(b)

Building

Constructio n

27/11/2019

New

Action

Under section 15 of E( P)Act initiated vide letter dated

09/11/20

20

1,10,48,0

00/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP

to SEIAA o n 19/10/2

020

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 15/12/202

0

384

No

Under constructio n

Affordable Housing Project

located at Plot No.-GH- 03A

, Omicron, Greater Noida,

District- GautamBudhaNagar,U.P.

,M/s Greater Noida

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

29/11/2019

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter dated

09/11/20

20

1,10,00,0

00/-

PP vide letter dated

16/06/20

20 have re

quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 15/11/202

0

362

No

Under constructio n

Letter sent to MoEF&CC

on 07/07/2020

for clarification regarding exemption of

bank guarantee

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA

on 16/09/2020

Affordable Housing Project

located at Plot No.-GH- 02,

Omicron 1A, Greater Noida

, District GautamBudhaNagar,U.P. s Greater Noida Industrial Development

Authority

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

28/11/2019

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter dated

09/11/20

20

1,10,00,000

/-

vide letter dated

16/06/20

20 have re

quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 25/11/202

0

363

No

Under constructio n

Letter sent to MoEF&CC

on 07/07/2020

for clarification regarding exemption of

bank guarantee Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP

to SEIAA on 09/09/2020

1,03,20,0

00/(addition al Information; as provided by SPCB)

Affordable Housing Project

located at Plot No.-L &M, Sector- 12, Greater Noida,

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

27/11/2019

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated

50,00,000/-

vide letter dated

16/06/20

20 have re

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 05/11/202

0

364

No

Under constructio n

District- GautamBudhaNagar,U.P.

,M/s Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

vide letter dated

09/11/20

20

quested for the exemption of bank Guarantee

Letter sent to MoEF&CC

on 07/07/2020

for clarification regarding exemption of

bank guarantee

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA

on 16/09/2020

Expansion of Logistic Park

(Warehouse) Project at Ga

ta No.-188 and 198, locate

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

26/09/2018

Expansio n

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated

22,50,000/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA

o

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 06/06/201

9

253

Yes

completed

d at Village- SikandrabadDehat, District- Bulandshahar, U.P.,(Under Violation Notification dated 14 March

2017) by M/s VRY Industrial Park LLP

vide letter dated

07/05/20

19

n 25/03/2019

5,00,000/

- (additional Information; as provided by SPCB)

Proposed Group Housing Project "VinayakApartment"

at Sector- 7 B, MajholaYojna- 4, Part-II, Delhi Road,

District- Moradabad, U.P.,

M/s Maya Nagar SahkariA

wasSamiti Ltd,

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

25/06/2019

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter dated 11/02/20

19

33,00,000/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP

to SEIAA on 05/02/2020

150000

(additional Information; as provided by SPCB)

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 04/02/202

0

244

No

Constructio n stopped

Revised Group Housing Project located at Khasra No.- 322 & 324, Village- Noor

Nagar, District- Ghaziabad

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

01/09/2019

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated

3,35,000/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by

PP to SEIAA

Submitted

EC

Issued on 01/09/201

9

241

No

Completed

, U.P., by M/s Diya Angels

Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

vide letter dated 08/07/20

19

on 08/07/2019

Environment Clearance for

Group Housing Project "Vrinda City located at Plot No GH- 2 Sevtor-

PHI-4 Gre

ater Noida, Uttar Pradeshby M/s Central and State Employees SahakariAwasSamiti Limited under the pro

vision of Central Government, Gazette Notification dated 14, March 2017-Violation case.

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

21/03/2020

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter dated 15/10/20

21

20,05,000/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA

on 18/06/2 020

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 15/01/202

1

300

No

Completed

Proposed Group Housing Project "Sanchar Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd." at Khasra No.- 236 & 237, Village- Morta, District- Ghazaibad, U.P., M/s Sanchar Arcade SahkariAwasSamiti Ltd.,

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

10/09/2018

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter

dated

24,44,000/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA

on 28/12/2018

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 23/01/201

9

135

21/09/20

19

Proposed Residential Colo

ny "AnsalBasera City" at V

illage- Buda, District-

Kan

pur By Pass Road, District-

Jhansi, U.P.

8(a)

Building

Constructio n

13/07/2019

New

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter dated 09/07/20

20

5,00,000/-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP

to SEIAA o n 03/07/2 020

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 06/07/202

0

369

Proposed "Cement Grinding Unit" Project at Village-

Dhauhan, Pargana- Saktesgarh, Tehsil- Chunar, District- Mirzapur, U.P. M/s Uddyam Cement Pvt. Ltd.

3(b)

Industry

21/09/2019

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act initiated vide letter dated 12/02/20

20

4,86,000/-

Copy of bank guaran tee submitted by PP to SEIAA

on 07/11/2019

Submitte d

EC

Issued on 07/11/201

9

Proposed Project "Gomti River Front Channelization Project from Harding to Gomti Weir, District-Lucknow, U.P.

8(b)

Building

Constructio n

26/11/2018

-

Action

Under section

15 of E(P)

Act

Letter dated 07/08/

2020 sent to MoEF&

EC

Issued on 21/08/202

0

625

initiated vide letter dated 09/08/20

20

CC for exemption of

bank guarantee being a govt. project

Table 7.3.2(b): Summary of EC Granted under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021 (In context to Applications received during Window Period)

S.

No.

Table

7.3.2(b):

Summary of EC Granted under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.201 7 to 31.07.202 1 (In context to Applicatio ns received during Window Period)

No.

of

Projects

Category

of

violatin

whether Expasion /New in Number

Action of Violation in Number

Time Taken to Grant E

C

( from date of Application for EC)

Construction status

Under

Section15 of E(P) Act

Damage

Assessment Quantified

Remedia

tion Plan

within

1 year

betwe

en 1to2 years

bet

ween 2 to 3 years

bet

ween 3 to 4 years

betwe

en 4 to 5 y ears

Completed

Under

construction

Work

Stopped

No

infomation

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

1.

Building Construction

14

Expansion: 0 2

02

-

02

-

02

-

01

-

01

-

-

02

-

-

-

Observation:

It is reported that, ECs have been issued to 15 projects and actions under Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 have been taken against all these 15 projects. Most of these ECs have been issued within a period of 01 year from the date of application. Out of the 15 aforesaid cases; damage assessments have been made in respect of 14 cases . However, this exercise of damage assessment has not been undertaken for the remaining 1 project belonging to the government sector. Same observations have been made in context of preparation of Remediation Action Plan. In some cases, it has been found that, two types of Bank Guarantees have been imposed. In such cases, one information has been provided by SEIAA itself and another information has been provided by SPCB. Clarification in these regard has not been provided. Project completion status as provided by SEIAA in respect of these 15 projects are as follows:

Completed – 04 Projects

Under construction – 06 Projects

Work stopped - 01 Project

No information - 04 projects

Table 7.3.3(a): Ground status of Projects to Whom ECs were not granted (Under violation Category w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021)

S.

N.

Project Title

Sector

Date of Application for EC

Category of Violation whether Expansion

/New

Action of Violation

Final status/Date of Grant

of EC

Total no of

days

BG

released

(Yes/No)

Current status of

the project

Under Section 15 of E(P), Act

Bank Guarantee Imposed

Remediati on

Plan

1.

Proposed Group Housing Project at Plot No.- 139, Block- H, Scheme- 1, Fazalganj, Kanpur, U.P.,M/s Tapasya

Projects Ltd.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 12/04/2018

New

--

--

--

ToR's Granted vide letter dated 09/03/2019 but EC Application Not Received

--

N/A

Completed

2.

Residential Complex "Gulmohar Residency" at Khasra No.-527/1, 519, Village- Kanawani, District- Ghaziabad, U.P.,M/s SVP

Builders (I) Ltd.

Building Constructi on

21-06-2019

New

--

5,20,000/

-

(additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)

--

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

No

Completed

3.

Proposed Group Housing Project "Platinum Premier" at Khasra No.- 304, 294, 295 & 296 of

Village- Pehladgarhi&Khasr a No.-194 of Village- Makanpur Sector- 9, Vaishali Ext., District- Ghaziabad, U.P.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13/04/2018

New

---

--

--

Delisted due to submission f reply by Absent

--

N/A

Completed

4.

Environmental Clearance for the Ansal Town Project located at Village - Jatoli, Meerut Byepass, Roorkee Road, Meerut, U.P. - 201308 (Under Violation Notification dated 14th March, 2017) by M/s Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13/09/2017

New

--

500000/-

(additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

No

Completed

5.

Proposed Affordable Housing at Sector- 22 D, Village- Ballukhera, YEIDA,Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority, District- GautamBudh Nagar, U.P.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 28/07/2017

New

--

---

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

N/A

Under construction

6.

Combined Residential and Non- Residential Campus for 32 Battalion PAC, at Kanpur Road, District- Lucknow, U.P., M/s Provincial

Armed Constabulary

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 19/08/2017

New

--

---

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

No

Completed

7.

Proposed Group Housing Project "Chimera" located at

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received

New

--

---

---

ToR's Granted vide letter dated 08/08/2018 but EC

--

No

Completed

Khasra No.- 1134, NH-58, Village- Noor Nagar Raj Nagar Extension, District- Ghaziabad, U.P. (Under Violation Notification dated 14 March 2017) by M/s Shourya Shubham Infra-structure Pvt.

dated 28/03/2017

Application Not Received

8.

Proposed Expansion of Group Housing Project situated at Khasra No.- 527/4, 528, 549-554,556-

559 Village- Kanawani, Indirapuram, District- Ghazaibad,

U.P. promoted by M/s Niho Construction Ltd.

Building Constructi on

04-05-2021

Expansion

--

---

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

N/A

Under construction

9.

Proposed Group Housing Project "Assotech Winder Court" at GH-04/A, Sector- 78, Noida, District- GautamBudh Nagar, U.P., developed by M/s Assotech Ltd

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13-09-

2017

New

--

10,00,000

/- (additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

No

78%

Constructio n done. 28% Under construction Total Tower proposed- 05,

Constructio n done-4 tower (744 flats)

Under construction

-01 tower

(208 flats) At present 330 flats Occupied

10.

Commercial Complex "Galaxy Diamond Plaza" at Plot No.- C-1 A, Sector-04, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. AS PER

"SO 804(E)" dated 14.03.2017 by M/s

Asteroid Shelters Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 10/09/2017

New

---

1000000/

-

(additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

---

No

Under construction

11.

Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Group Housing Project "Orchid Heights" apartments at Village Uttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13/09/2017

New

---

--

--

Delisted due to non- submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

NA

Completed

12.

Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Goel Heights Apartments, Group Housing under pahadi Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. At Khasra no.-

761,762,763 (b)

Village- Anaura, Chinhat Faizabad Road, District- Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13/09/2017

New

---

3000000

(additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

Yes

Completed

13.

Environmental Clearance for (for Violation) Group Housing Project "Green Park" apartments at Village Uttardhauna District and Tehsil Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13/09/2017

New

---

1000000

(additional Informatio n; as provided by SPCB)

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

Yes

Completed

14.

Environmental Clearance for Expansion of "Swami Vivekanand Subharti University" Project at Khasra No.- Vill-Ghatt 941

,947, 949, 950/1/2/3,951,

952, 953/1/2, 954-

959, 963, 964,

974/2, 977, 978,

980, 981, 982, 984,

985, 960, 961, Vill-

Mallyana- 1625,

1628, 1629, 1630-

1633, 1635, 1636,

1637, 1638, 1650,

1651, 1653, 1654,

1655/2, 1656,

1657, 1606, 1634,

1652, 1653 Vill-

Panchali- 522, 531-

537, 540, 545, 548,

549, 550 located at village- Ghatt, Maliyana Panchali, Meerut Bypass Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh (under violation Notification dated 14 March

2017) by M/s Subharti K.K.B charitable Trust.

Building Constructi on

EC (TOR)

Application Received dated 13/09/2017

Expansion

---

---

---

Delisted due to non submission of reply by PP/Absent

--

No

Not started

15.

Proposed of Group Housing "Grand Forte Apartments" at Plot NO.- 76, Sigma- IV, Greater Noida, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar, U.P.,M/s Satilila Sahkari Awas Samti

8(a)

Building Constructi on

13-06-2021

New

---

4,86,000/

-

Copy of bank guarantee submitted by PP to SEIAA on 05/01/20

22

--

Under Process

---

Table 7.3.3(b): Summary of Projects to Whom EC has not been Granted under violation Category (w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.07.2021) (In context to Applications received  during Window Period)

Project Sector (e.g.Industry, Mining, Building Construction

No.    of Projects

Category

Of       violation whether Expansion/New (Nos.)

Action against Violation

Construction status

Under  Section 15 of E(P) Act

Damage Assessment Quantified

Remediation Plan

Completed

Under construction

Not started

No information

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Building Construction

15

Expansion: 02

00

02

00

02

00

02

-

01

01

-

New:13

00

13

07

06

00

13

09

03

-

01

Total

15

15

00

15

07

08

00

15

09

04

01

01

Observations:

Observations are as follows:

·         Out of 30 project proposals, ECs have not been granted to 15 projects.

·         Out of these 15 projects to whom ECs are yet to be issued:

o 09 nos. of projects have been completed

o 04 are under construction.

o 01 project is yet to be started

o No information has been made available regarding remaining

o 01 project.

o Action Under Section 15 of E(P) Act has not been taken even for a single project

o Damage assessment has been carried out only for 07 projects and remediation action plan has not been formulated for any of the projects.

7.4 Detailed status of violation cases which were received after the window period

SEIAA, UP, submitted that only one project has been received after window period (Annexure 26 D). Details are as follows:

S. N.

Project Title

Se cto r

Dat e of App lica tio n for

EC

Da te of Gr ant of EC

Categ ory of Violat ion w hethe r

Exp

ansio n/ New

Under S ection 1 5 of E(P ), Act

Bank Gu arantee Imposed

Remediation Patlan

Final Stus

Remark

8(b

) Bui ldi ng Co nst ructi o n

Expans

Action under sect

ion 15 of E(P) Act

initiated vide letter dated 07/08/202

0

The application was submitted to

EAC on 01/03/ 2018 which was transferred to SEIAA, UP as

per notification dated 08/03/2018

1

Proposed Project "Gomti River Front Channelizati on Project from Harding to Gomti Weir, Di strictLucknow, U.P

6-

11-

201

8

21-08-

20

20

ion

Letter sent to MoEF&CC

for

exemption

Submitted

EC Issued

But, from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects, date of application for EC are beyond the window period.

7.5 Details of projects for which post-facto ECs are granted, including the ECs for expansion projects which were in violation of existing EC:

UPPCB informed that, these information are included in Annexure-14A. Same is represented in Table 7.3.2(a).

7.6 Consideration of Disciplinary / Legal Action by other Enforcement Agencies

As per information provided by SEIAA, it is submitted that before grant of EC, they have informed that action under section 15 of the E(P) Act have been taken and UPPCB has also initiated disciplinary / legal action in such cases against the project proponent.

7.7 Details of the Agency which is monitoring the remediation action plans

The reply of SEIAA, UP is reproduced here-below:

The mechanism for compliance monitoring has been well defined in the office order issued vide file no. J-11013/10/2009-IA.I dated 30/09/2009 wherein it has been mentioned that:-

“The Monitoring Cell in IA Division is the nodal point for monitoring and compliance of the stipulated conditions imposed on the industrial units/infrastructural projects including CRZ, while granting Environmental Clearance (EC). A copy of the EC is endorsed to the concerned Regional Office of the MoEF&CC for monitoring the compliance of the stipulated conditions, besides to the concerned State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).”

For the aforesaid purpose after the grant of EC letter issued to the concerned project proponent for the very project, the copy of the same is endorsed with enclosure for information and necessary action to:

Advisor, IA Division, Ministry of Environment, Forests & Climate Change, Govt. of India, Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Bagh Road, Aliganj, New Delhi.

Additional Director, Regional Office, Ministry of Environment & Forests, (Central Region), Kendriya Bhawan, 5th Floor, Sector-H, Aliganj, Lucknow.

District Magistrate, (Concerned District).

The Member Secretary, U.P. Pollution Control Board, TC-12V, ParyavaranBhawan, VibhutiKhand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

And more specifically, SEIAA/SEAC, appraises the violation category cases as per the EIA Notification dated 14/09/2006 (as amended thereof) read along with notification dated 14/03/2017 and 08/03/2018. The SEIAA/SEAC, stipulates the implementation of Environmental Management Plan, comprising remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefit derived due to violation as a condition of environmental clearance. The condition implies as given below:

“The project proponent is asked to submit bank guarantee of Rs.(the sum levied) equivalent to the amount of remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan within 15 days to the SPCB.

It is observed by the Committee that the reply of SEIAA doesn’t make it clear that the SPCB or the Regional Office have verified the progress of implementation of Remediation Action Plan or the Natural and Community Resource Augmentation Plan.

7.8 Types of Projects and Time Taken by SEIAA to Grant Environmental Clearances

The data provided by SEIAA was processed to assess types of projects coming up in the State and time taken for grant of Environmental Clearance to these projects. Data are presented in the following Tables No. 3.8.1 to 3.8.4:

Table 7.8.1: Project category-wise dealt with regard to granting of  Environmental Clearances (Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

Sl. No.

Project Sector

No. of Projects

1.

Building Construction

494

2.

Cement

21

3.

Highway

3

4.

Industry

104

5.

Mining

1483

Total

2105

Table 7.8.2: Status of Granting of Environmental Clearances

Sl. No.

Status of Processing of the Application

No. of Projects

1.

Absent

1

2.

Closed

149

3.

Delisted

241

4.

EC issued

1486

5.

EC revoked

1

6.

Exemption Letter

1

7.

Information SEAC

82

8.

TOR issued

5

9.

Under process

139

Total

2105

Table 7.8.3 (a): Time Taken by SEIAA to take decision on EC Applications (Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

Sl. No.

Nos of days taken

for making

decision

No. of EC

Appln.

Sl. No.

Nos of days

taken for making

decision

No. of EC

Appln.

1.

0-30

129

21

601-630

4

2.

31-60

278

22

631-660

2

3.

61-90

230

23

661-690

3

4.

91-120

251

24

691-720

4

5.

121-150

135

25

721-750

1

6.

151-180

86

26

751-780

1

7.

181-210

50

27

781-810

1

8.

211-240

75

28

811-840

1

9.

241-270

72

29

841-870

0

10.

271-300

45

30

871-900

1

11.

29

31

2

301-330

901-930

12.

331-360

30

32

931-960

2

13.

361-390

21

33

961-990

0

14.

391-420

9

34

991-1020

0

15.

421-450

20

35

1021-1050

2

16.

451-480

5

36

1051-1080

0

17

481-510

4

37

1081-1110

1

18.

511-540

3

38

1111-1140

0

19.

541-570

0

39

1

20

571-600

6

1141-1170

Total Nos. of Projects - 1504

Table 7.8.3(b): Time Taken by SEIAA to Grant Environmental Clearance (Period 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021)

Sl. No.

Nos of days taken to Grant EC

No. of EC

Granted

Sl. No.

Nos of days taken to Grant EC

No. of EC

Granted

1.

0-30

127

20.

571-600

6

2.

31-60

272

21.

601-630

4

3.

61-90

227

22.

631-660

2

4.

91-120

249

23.

661-690

1

5.

121-150

134

24.

691-720

4

6.

151-180

86

25.

721-750

1

7.

181-210

49

26.

751-780

0

8.

211-240

75

27.

781-810

1

9.

241-270

72

28.

811-840

1

10.

271-300

45

29.

841-870

0

11.

301-330

29

30.

871-900

1

12.

331-360

30

31.

901-930

2

13.

361-390

21

32.

931-960

2

14.

391-420

9

33.

961-990

0

15.

421-450

20

34.

991-1020

0

16.

451-480

5

35.

1021-1050

2

17.

481-510

4

36.

1051-1080

0

18.

511-540

3

37.

1081-1110

1

19.

541-570

1

38.

1111-1140

0

Total:1486

Observations are as follows:

i. For the Period of 01.01.2017 – 25.12.2021, a total of 2105 project applications were received &dealt with by SEIAA, UP for issue of EC. Out of them, EC have been issued to 1486 projects. Ground status of remaining 601 projects as on date is not intimated.

ii. During aforesaid period, mining projects predominated in the State. This was followed by building construction projects.

iii. In 745 cases, the ECs were granted within reasonable time (105 days) period.

iv. In 86 cases, the time taken to grant ECs varied from 1yr to more than 4 years. Possibility of initiation of the construction activities in such cases without obtaining EC, cannot be ruled out.

v. Delay in granting EC: Decisions have been taken by SEIAA within reasonable time for majority of the projects, but justification for the cases where inordinate delay has taken place, is not in order.

7.9 Brief Details of the NGT Matter under reference - information about the Project namely M/s Saviour Park Apartment, Mohan Nagar Ghaziabad.

In context of project under reference following observations have been made:

o PP got the approval for the site plan from Ghaziabad Development Authority on 21.06.2011.

o PP has obtained the CTE from UPPCB vide letter no. F08023/C-1/NOC/G-752/2012/6 dated 26.07.2012, before obtaining the Environmental Clearance.

o Environmental Clearance was received for project under reference vide dated 04.03.2013.

o As per record, the project was inspected by MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow on 30.05.2019 to review the status of stipulated EC conditions granted by SEIAA, U.P. on 04.03.2013. Subsequently, a letter of non-compliances was sent to PPs vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL-UP/510/2019/422 dated 13.08.2019. The certified compliance report indicating various noncompliance with detailed monitoring report was also sent to PPs with a copy to SEIAA, UP vide letter no. VII/Env/SCL-UP/510/2019/423 dated 13.08.2019. However, no response has been received by IRO, Lucknow against the above mentioned letter. Further, no compliance report has been received in the MoEF&CC, IRO, Lucknow since 2019 onwards.

o Additionally, PPs have obtained the Expansion EC from SEIAA, U.P. vide letter no. 788/Parya/SEAC/6057-5683/2019 dated 04.03.2021.

o PP had obtained the CTO vide dated 17/09/2020 from UPPCB which is valid till 31.07.2025.

Following violations have been reported by the five Member Committee in this matter.

·         Project Proponent is supplying water to Township through bore wells but has not obtained any approval from CGWA.

·         Rain Water Harvesting pits were found clogged and filled with mud and stagnant water.

·         The STP operated by M/s Savfab Buildtech Pvt. Ltd in apartment is not functioning properly. Sample obtained from STP outlet is not complying with the prescribed standards.

·         During the site visit, entire basement area of the project was found affected with seepage and large number of cracks were visible in many pillars upon which structural stability of all the towers resides.

·         However, Joint committee also observed that, various measures with respect to EC conditions have not been taken by the PP. Compliance of EC conditions was not ensured in ’letter & spirit’.

·         It was observed from the records submitted by PPs and records of project as available with UP RERA that construction of Phase II towers / flats had been started before grant of EC for Phase II.

In the matter under reference following additional information have been received from SEIAA, UP:

When was the violation noticed in the above case? Is there any gap in the appraisal process adopted by SEIAA or SPCB?

SEIAA submitted that violation has not been established as the matter is still sub-judice in Hon’ble NGT. There is no gap in the appraisal process adopted by SEIAA/SEAC.

It would be worthwhile to mention that the aforementioned project has already been categorized as a violation case by the Joint Inspection Team.

Was CTE/CTO issued in this case? Was the violation not noticed at the time of grant of CTE and CTO?

Following points are intimated by SEIAA:

Unit has obtained CTE for existing project (Total Built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 26/07/2012.

RO, Ghaziabad, UPPCB reported that unit has obtained CTO for existing project (Total 850 flats against 980 flats, built up area 1,55,000 sqm) vide letter dated 17/09/2020. During inspection for CTO on 26/07/2020, a total of 850 flats were observed as constructed, which is less than as permitted in CTE. No violation was noticed during inspection.

It is observed by the Committee that reply of SEIAA is not satisfactory. Further, UPPCB didn’t take cognizance of operation of tube-wells in the society without permission from CGWA. Many other non-compliances such as poor performance of STP have been observed by the Joint Inspection Committee, were not recorded by UPPCB during its routine inspections.

Chapter 8

Overall observations of the Committee

8.1 Overall observations of the Committee

·         It is observed that applications in respect of a total of 2105 Projects have been received during 01.01.2017 to 25.12.2021. Further details in this matter are as follows:

o Applications processed: 2105

o ECs granted: 1486

o Present Ground status of remaining 619 projects are not known.

o Possibility of their continuation or completion of such projects cannot be ruled out.

·         During aforesaid period, mining projects predominated in the State. This was followed by building construction projects.

o In some cases, the ECs are granted within reasonable time period.

o In many cases, the time taken to grant ECs varied from 1 yr to more than 4 years. Possibility of initiation of the construction activities in such cases without obtaining

EC, cannot be ruled out.

o Delay in granting EC: Decisions have been taken by SEIAA within reasonable time for majority of the projects, but justification for the cases where exorbitantly higher time have been taken is not in order. SEIAA, UP has mentioned about the Parivesh Portal and procedure in this regard.

·         It is intimated by SEIAA, UP that, during window period, a total of 30 nos. of application were received. Out of these 30 projects, there are 29 construction projects and 01 is industry project. Although, these cases are received during Window Period but from the Annexure 26A and Table 7.3.1(a), it is noted that, for most of the projects, the dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. Further, out of 30 applications, ECs have been granted to 15 projects ECs to remaining 15 nos. of projects could not be granted due to various reasons.

·         Further details in respect of those 15 projects to whom ECs have been granted, are as follows:

o Actions under section 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 have been initiated for all these 15 Projects.

o Time-lines for grant of ECs were as follows:

§  Within 01 year – 10 Projects

§  1 to 2 years – 4 Projects

§  2-3 years – 1 Project

o Completion of Damage Assessment – 14 Projects only. It could not be undertaken for remaining 01 Project as it

belonged to the category of Government Project. Same observation was found in context to Remediation Plan.

o In some cases it is found that, two types of Bank Guarantees have been imposed. In such cases, one information has been provided by SEIAA itself and another information has been provided by SPCB. Clarification in these regard have not been provided.

o Out of these 15 projects:

§  04 projects have already been completed

§  06 are under construction

§  01 project is stopped

§  No information is provided in respect of 04 projects

§  Further details in respect of those 15 nos. of projects to whom ECs are yet to be issued, are as follows:

o 09 nos. of projects have been completed

o 04 are under construction.

o 01 project is yet to be started

o No information regarding remaining 01 project.

o Action Under Section 15 of E(P) Act have not been taken for a single project

o Damage assessment has been made only for 07 projects and Remediation Action Plan is not at all formulated for any of the project.

§  Lack of coordination amongst various Agencies concerned for issuing Permissions, Clearance, Consents etc. have been noticed as mentioned in the foregoing paras. Concerned Agencies are not following the Notifications issued from time to time which is leading to violations in many cases. Further, compliance verification and monitoring could not be performed from time to time.

o The Committee feels that SEIAA could have paid greater attention as regards the following:

o Processing  of  EC  applications  including reasons having quoted for delay.

o Actions under Section 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 against violation projects

·         It is observed by the Committee that this action of monitoring of action plan undertaken recently by SEIAA through UPPCB could have been undertaken long back in these “Violation Category “ i.e. immediately after submission of such plans by the violator PPs.

·         Violation of stipulated procedure has taken place during the process of grant of Expansion EC in the matter of M/s Saviour Park Apartment. Possibility of similar violation in other cases can’t overruled.

·         It emerged from the replies furnished by SEIAA UP that there was:

o Lack of adherence to the Stepwise flowchart and time-lines for issue of Environment Clearance by SEIAA and lack of institutional mechanism for coordination with SPCB, Municipal Bodies, Town Planning and other enforcement agencies / designated bodies involved in sanctioning building construction projects at local level.

o Absence of well laid down procedure regarding examination of EC and sanction of plan by the Town Planning Department. It is not clear whether the approval process for Building Construction by the Town Planning Department / Municipal Bodies also includes examining whether EC has been granted and whether there is any requirement of CTE / CTO before sanctioning or issuing of Occupancy certificate by concerned Agencies/ Authorities?

o Lack of clarity regarding requirement of necessary Clearances/ NOCs/ Licenses etc. required for processing application for EC.

o  Lack  of  clarity  regarding  methodology  to  be following  for  building  projects  or  imposition  of Environmental Compensation for building projects.

Besides, no specific information has been received from SEIAA, UP.

o Information with respect to Application format o Procedure adopted for processing of application

o Reasons for blatant violations taking place and how can the situation be remedied?

8.2 Identification of Issues leading to Blatant Violation

After careful examination of the information received from SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh issues leading to violation have been identified as follows:

i. Wilful violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 by the Project Proponents

ii. Suppression of the information by the Project Proponents.

iii. Processing of applications received for getting EC is not upto mark. This is including scrutinization of necessary NOCs / Licenses / Clearances from other concerned departments

iv. Time-lines prescribed for processing the EC applications are not followed.

v. Lack of coordination among the various Agencies concerned for issuing Permissions, Clearance, Consents etc.

vi. Lack of surveillance in the State especially by UPPCB, T&C Planning Department and Local Bodies.

Chapter 9

Recommendations

9.1 Recommendations

9.1.1 For Project Proponent

Project Proponents may be made aware of the concerned Environmental Regulations and Environmental Norms. Periodic workshops may be organized with the related Associations, Organizations and key Institutions so as to apprise them about the extant provisions of Acts, Rules, OMs, Procedures and the Dos and the Don’ts as far as Environmental Clearances and adherence to Environmental Safeguards are concerned.

9.1.2 For SEIAA, UP

It was observed that Member Secretary of UPPCB is also the Member Secretary, SEIAA, UP. However, this does not appear to have translated into better synergy and convergence. It is, therefore, suggested that institution mechanism for sharing information between SEIAA and UPPCB may be established to ensure efficient and effective monitoring and implementation of environmental safeguards.

It is found that, during window period for most of the projects dates of application for EC are beyond the window period. SEIAA, UP may provide clarification in this regard.

It was observed that out of the 15 projects received during Window Period for which ECs were not granted, constructions of 09 nos of projects have been completed, and 04 are under construction. Action needs to be taken in these cases by SEIAA, UP and UPPCB.

Action u/s 15 of the E(P) Act, 1986 against all the projects falling under violation category may be initiated by SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh.

It is observed that applications in respect of a total of 2105 Projects have been received during 01.01.2017 to 25.12.2021. All the 2105 Applications have been processed and ECs are granted to 1486 projects. Inspection of remaining 619 projects may be conducted to assess their current status. Action against defaulter projects needs to be initiated as per the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006, as amended and E(P) Act, 1986. Further, Environmental Compensation also needs to be imposed as per orders issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Green Tribunal.

SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh needs to follow the Rules/Provisions of ‘Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 including its amendments’ in ‘letter & spirit’ for considerations of the applications received for obtaining EC. Timelines for grant of EC need to be adhered to.

SEIAA, Uttar Pradesh may work in close coordination with State Government agencies including Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Town & Country Planning Department, Municipal Corporations, Ground Water Board, City Development Authority and other organization like CPCB (Regional Directorate) and IITs. This will facilitate transparency in the matter and effective enforcement of Legal Framework.

SEIAA may consider utilising the features of PARIVESH and also independently use the available IT Tools to assess the situation on the ground based on the latitude and longitude mentioned in the application submitted on the PARIVESH portal to ensure that construction of the Project/Activities for which EC has been asked for has not started so as to avoid grant of EC in a routine manner to “Violation Category” of Projects.

Taking a cue from the analysis of the Violation cases, it may be seen that delay in deciding upon the application for grant of ToR and processing for grant of EC may lead to a situation where the Project Proponent may be emboldened to start the Project which may result in compromising with the environmental safeguards which need to be observed. It may be worthwhile to explore the possibility of devising a method whereby PARIVESH Portal, through its own IT tool seamlessly flags the cases where there are delays beyond the specified time of 45 days post the recommendations of SEAC as mentioned in the EIA Notification,2006, as amended and generates alerts not only for SEIAA but also for the Ministry so that such cases are dealt with on priority and corrective/remedial actions are undertaken by SEIAA/EAC in the best interest of protection of the environment.

SEIAA, UP may also take support of Technology viz. Parivesh for tracking of the process of issuing EC.

ECs issued by SEIAA may be given wider publicity by posting it on the relevant Portals/Websites so as to bring in transparency and keep the stakeholders informed.

9.1.3 For SPCB

·         Stake-holder consultation in the State along with the State Environment Depts., may be conducted to avoid wilful violation of the provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 by the Project Proponents.

9.1.4 For all Agencies

·         Coordination amongst concerned State level Agencies may be established. These Agencies include SEIAA, UPPCB, Town & Country Planning Department and Local Bodies so far as Construction Projects are concerned and similarly amongst the key stakeholders for other Projects/Activities. There is a need for exchange of knowledge and understanding the issues of enforcement.

·         Surveillance activities in the State especially by UPPCB, T&C Planning Department, Public Health Engineering Department and Local Bodies may be improved for effective monitoring of EC conditions without causing undue interference in the execution of Projects /Activities by the Project Proponent.

·         Monitoring and assessment of compliance of Environmental Regulations including EC conditions and Remediation Action Plans may be conducted on regular basis by the Integrated Regional Offices. Random inspection by Integrated Task Force comprising of the Officers from these departments may be conducted for surveillance in the State and execution of illegal / unauthorized projects in the State.

9.2 Additional recommendations are as follows:

·         SEIAA may co-opt Member from Town and Country Planning, Local Bodies and other concerned agencies for processing of EC applications as per need.

·         EC must be issued in transparent fashion and area wise database be uploaded for the information of all concerned.”

Finding about functional audit of SEIAA

On due consideration, we see no reason not to accept the report based on verified data by credible committee. We accept the report. We find it disappointing to note the failures found on the part of SEIAA, U.P to act as per mandate of law. If the statutory regulators fail in their duties, it is difficult to understand how the Rule of Law will be protected. Let remedial measures be taken as recommended. The MoEF&CC may oversee further steps so as to ensure compliance of the recommendations within three months.

Further Directions about audits of other SEIAAs and regulators

In light of experience of above functional audit report, there is every reason to apprehend unsatisfactory functioning other SEIAAs and other regulators in other States/UTs, to the detriment of environmental rule of law which the country can ill afford. Such functional audits in respect of SEIAAs is thus called for which may be undertaken within one year by preparing a time bound action plan by the MoEF&CC. The MoEF&CC may create a dedicated cell in the Ministry for such functional audit which should not stop with the first such audit but should be a regular feature, to be undertaken periodically. All such audit reports may be placed in public domain and remedial action overseen in the light of such reports. Similar functional audits may be undertaken in respect of functioning of other statutory regulators under the MoEF&CC, including CZMAs in a like manner. Though the report of functional audit has identified violations, it has failed to suggest specific remedial action against the incumbents manning the SEIAA, which aspect may now be looked into by the MoEF&CC. Further, SEIAA should be run by the technically qualified and experienced members rather based on only administrative experience. They must have their own surveillance backup to monitor the compliances till it reaches to CTO stage instead of depending on PCB who are unable to monitor compliances, in absence of effective mechanism. This is resulting in failure of environmental rule of law to that extent, defeating the object of laying down EC conditions. Thus, necessary steps are required to be taken by MoEF&CC.

The Application is disposed of.

A copy of this order be forwarded to the MoEF&CC, all SEIAAs and Coastal Zone Management Authorities by email for compliance.