AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By this Appeal, Appellant named above challenges the Environmental Clearance order dated 11th June 2014 whereby extension is granted to construction activity in respect of commercial project, situated at S.No. 169/1, Sector I and Sector II(part), Aundh, Pune undertaken by Chaitrali Builders/Sumanshilp (P) Ltd. The extension rather expansion of EC granted by MoEF on December 7th, 2007 is approved by Maharashtra State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in 70th meeting of the SEIAA held from May 20th-22nd, 2014 (Annexure A-3 of records).
Considering short compass of the dispute involved in the litigation, we deem it proper to restrict ourselves to the issues related to the grant of extension order/approval by SEIAA in the context of the construction activity which is subject matter of the present Appeal.
There is no dispute about the fact that the project proponent applied for extension of EC to undertake commercial project for purpose of construction of a mall, commercial complex and hotel in land S.No. 169/1, Sector I and Sector II (part), Aundh, Pune, undertaken by Chaitrali Builders/Sumanshillp (P) Ltd. The project proponent submitted request letter dated November 23rd, 2012 to the competent authority for re-validation of EC which was granted vide letter dated December 7th, 2007 by MoEF. The Application was considered by SEIAA in its meeting held on 20 th to 22nd May 2014 and decision was taken to approve the project for the purpose of expansion/extension as sought by the project proponent. In other words, the proposal for construction of commercial building hotel was cleared by SEIAA in the said meeting. The minutes of the said meeting pertaining to decision in question, may be reproduced as below for ready reference:
"Minutes of the 70th meeting of the SEIAA held on 20th to 22nd May 2014.
Project proponent submitted copy of the request letter dated 23-11-2012 for revalidation of EC which was granted vide letter dated 7-12-2007. As project proponent had applied within the validity period, SEIAA decided to revalidate the EC for period of 5 years. The terms and conditions stipulated in the EC letter would remain the same. "
The communication issued by Principal Secretary of Environment Department and Member Secretary of SEIAA dated June 11th 2014 (Annexure A-2) reproduces the decision verbatim as has been stated in minutes of the meeting.
We have heard learned Advocates for the parties and gone through the entire record. We have perused the minutes of the Meeting of SEIAA. We have also considered the contents of the conditions which were imposed in the earlier EC dated December 7th, 2007. It appears that certain statutory conditions were imposed which were expected to be complied with before the work could be commenced by the project proponent in 2007 itself, besides certain specific conditions to be separately complied during construction phase and operation phase of the project. The SEIAA/MPCB was required to verify whether environmental safeguards specified in EC have been implemented as required under provisions and in accordance with the nature/capacity which was proposed to be, in keeping with the nature of construction activity. The other conditions were required to be verified by authorities like PMC, MPCB etc.
We may make it clear that the challenge to EC dated December 7th, 2007 is barred by limitation and now that issue is foreclosed and hence, cannot be re-opened by the Appellant. Obviously, the construction which was carried out prior to seeking expansion/extension of the EC dated December 7th, 2007, cannot be subject matter of the present Appeal and we are not much concerned with the same. We also make it clear that the issues regarding violations of the Municipal Laws, grant of permission by the Municipal Authority, viz. PMC also are not within domain of the NGT in as much as they are to be looked into by the competent authority under the Building Rules. The only issues with which this Tribunal is concerned, are related to environment and therefore, we have to examine validity of the extension order passed by SEIAA as on June 11th 2014 and whether it is issued in-violation of principles of natural justice as averred by the Appellant, nothing more and nothing less. We do not think that scope of the present Appeal can be expanded more than the above controversy, unless and until, the issues like adequacy of the STP, noise pollution, the Air Emission due to traffic congestion, the violation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 or other enactments under the Environment (Protection) Act are found germane to the litigation as a result of construction activity undertaken by the project proponent.
At the present, we cannot make any comment on such issues for want of any material and opinion of any expert because it is for the SEIAA to examine such issues prior to granting of the clearance for expansion/extension.
Now, the impugned order explicitly shows that the Members of SEIAA did not examine whether conditions of the earlier EC dated December 7th, 2007 were duly complied with and that, all was well in respect of the project. They did not apply mind to the project activity independently after considering the project in hand visa-viz various environmental issues which are narrated above. They did not see as to what kind of environmental safeguards and pollution control arrangements would be required and whether they are being provided by the project proponent in proposed expansion/extension activity of construction. We need not give check-list of the terms witch the Members of SEIAA should have verified. Still, however, for extension of the project activity, particularly in respect of the construction of a mall, commercial complex, hotel, within a busy locality of city like Pune, it was expected that the authorities ought to be more cautious about considering relevant aspects and thereafter should have passed "Speaking Order". We are at pains to state that the impugned order is "non-speaking order". The principles of natural justice requires any authority to take decision by applying mind and by passing "speaking order". This is necessary inasmuch as if an order is "non-speaking order" then, one who reads it, howsoever learned he may be, will be unable to decipher what the authority has to communicate through such order. The learned Advocate for the Appellant has referred two authorities :
1) WP 4010(W) of 2014, Bablu Mistri Vrs. State of W.B.
2) (2013)6, S.C.C., 476, Orissa Mining Corpn.Ltd. Vrs. MoEF and Ors.
We do not find it necessary to elaborately deal with these two authorities inasmuch as the Administrative Law clearly requires passing of "speaking order" as a part of principles of natural justice and the same is found absent in the impugned order. It is on this short ground that the impugned order of SEIAA will have to be set aside without touching the said order on any other ground and keeping all the issues open. We may make it clear that the SEIAA may independently examine relevant issues and pass "speaking order" while considering the proposal for expansion/extension and the same may be re-considered by revival thereof, within a period of ten (10) weeks from the date of communication of this order to the Member Secretary of SEIAA. In the meanwhile, the impugned E.C. stands suspended and the construction/project shall be stopped and shall not be allowed to go ahead without obtaining the appropriate EC/extension order from the SEIAA. The nature of construction activity shall be verified by the City Engineer of Pune Municipal Corporation and the report be given to the Member Secretary of SEIAA to get clear picture of juxtaposition of the construction activity which shall not be changed by the project proponent in any manner and the Municipal Corporation through City Engineer shall carry out the inspection within period of one
(1) week. Thus, the EC order in question remains suspended till the same is examined by SEIAA and is reviewed or varied as the case may be.
The Appeal is accordingly disposed off. No costs.