Sudhir Agarwal, J. (Member (J))

1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as 'OA') has been filed by a registered Co-operative Housing Society of residents, i.e., Kumar City Residents Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Applicant'), under Section 15 read with 18(1) of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'NGT Act 2010') complaining that respondents 1 to 3 have cut standing trees; diverted storm water drain by constructing concrete slab work and constructed residential accommodations without grant of Environmental Clearance (hereinafter referred to as 'EC'), in a most illegal manner, causing degradation and damage to environment and violated provisions of Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act 1974') and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'EP Act 1986').

2. Applicant has impleaded Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'KUDPL'); Kumar City Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'KCCHSL'); M/s. Shubh Promoters and Developers (hereinafter referred to as 'SPD'); Pune Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'PMC'); Chairman of Tree Authority; Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as 'MPCB') through its Regional Officer, Mumbai and Pune; State Expert Appraisal Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'SEAC-III') and Executive Engineer, Khadakvasla Irrigation Department, Pune as respondents 1 to 9.

3. The facts stated in OA, in brief, are, that respondent 1 (KUDPL) developed a residential project namely, 'Kumar City' on the land bearing Survey No. 14, admeasuring 08 ha. & 70.03 R and Survey No. 13B, Hissa no. 1+2+3, admeasuring about 07 ha. & 69.35 R. Total area of land comes to 16 ha & 39.38 R, i.e., 1,63,938 sqm in village Vadgaon Sheri, Tal Haveli, district Pune. Land measuring 23,096 sqm was earmarked/reserved as 'Amenity Space' for creating and developing recreational facilities including a Club House, Swimming Pool, Health Club, Party Lawns, Library, Exclusive landscapes, Tennis Court, Indoor Games Court, Restaurants, Jogging tracks etc. for residents of the above residential project. Applicant had some dispute about Amenity Plot with respondents 1 and 2 in respect whereof a Special Civil Suit No. 556/2019 is pending in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Pune. Respondent 4, i.e., PMC issued a Commencement Certificate No. 2614/2017 dated 08.01.2018 under Sections 253 and 254 of Mumbai Provincial Municipalities Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'MPM Act 1949') for development of property for commercial purposes at Survey No. 13B (1+2+3) and 14(part), Vadgaon Sheri, Pune.

4. In March 2019, respondent 3 advertised construction of a Commercial Mall at Amenity Plot. Applicant sent letters dated 27.03.2019, 10.05.2019 and 25.07.2019 for disclosure of information regarding proposed but none of the respondents gave any information and compelled applicant to file Special Civil Suit No. 556/2019.

5. Since the plot in question is within urban area, no tree could have been cut without requisite permission of competent authority. Without caring for the objections of applicant, respondents 1 and 3 started cutting of trees, unauthorizedly. In the month of April 2019, a number of trees were cut by respondents 1 to 3 in Amenity Plot and the said illegal act is going on. Photographs of Amenity Plot showing fallen/cut trees are filed as Annexure-A10.

6. A show cause notice dated 09.05.2019 was issued by respondents 4 and 5 but nothing deterred respondents 1 to 3 from going on with their illegal act of cutting of trees in utter violation of environmental laws and norms. There is a natural water stream (nalla) flowing through Amenity Plot, bringing storm and other water from nearby areas/localities and discharge into nearby Mula-Mutha river. PP while developing Amenity Plot for constructing residential project comprising 5 buildings of P+12, constrained stream and diverted it by using box type cement concrete channelization so as to carve out additional land for construction/commercial purpose. The flow of storm water drain is further diverted along the periphery of the plot and covered with RCC slab though no such permission has been obtained from the competent authorities. This act is unauthorized and has caused damage to environment. No environmental impact/damage study has been carried out in respect of the acts of respondents 1 and 2. The act of diversion/channelization of storm drain is also likely to affect flora/fauna of the area and would degrade associated environment. It would also affect upstream areas/localities adversely. In the Amenity Plot, there was a dense green cover of mature trees and plants, water bodies like an all-season well and nalla (natural water stream) running through it and feeding nearby Mula-Mutha river. PP, however, has severely restricted, channelized, constrained and diverted natural storm water drain significantly by making box type cement concrete channel, and by altering natural course/flow of the concerned water body.

7. In 2012, Building Permission Department raised objection regarding illegal construction carried out on nalla and issued letter dated 02.01.2012 to respondent 1 but directions contained in the letter were not complied. Respondent 1 has not removed alleged construction carried out on nala. Applicant sought information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act, 2005') by submitting applications including application dated 04.07.2019 but no reply has been received. In the last 10-15 years, respondents 1 and 2 have developed various projects like Kumar Kruti, Saffronia, Cerebrum (6 Commercial Buildings of LB+UB+P+11). Recently, applicant has got information that Kumar Kruti, Saffronia and Cerebrum projects were developed by respondents 1 and 2 without obtaining prior EC under Environment Impact Assessment Notification dated 14.09.2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'EIA 2006') and many such illegal projects are in process. Despite, application for grant of EC for development of larger land is pending before respondent 8, i.e., SEAC-III, PMC (respondent 4) has granted further construction permission by sanctioning various building plans in respect of Amenity Plot, vide letter dated 08.01.2018. Thus, respondents 1 to 3 are violating environmental laws. Respondents 4 to 9 are colluding by not taking appropriate action under law.

8. Based on the above pleadings, applicant has sought following relief:

i. Direct respondents 1 to 3 to restore nala to its original status by removing all constructions carried out thereon.

ii. Direct respondents 4 and 6 to 9 to carry out Environmental Assessment Compensation based on verification of nala and further constructions on the larger land, i.e., Amenity Plot.

iii. Direct respondents 4 and 6 to 9 to initiate appropriate legal action against all erring persons including respondents 1 to 3.

iv. Respondents 4 to 5 be directed to initiate appropriate legal action against respondents 1 to 3.

v. Direct respondents to determine environmental compensation and seek recovery thereof.

vi. Cancel Building Plans sanctioned vide Commencement Certificate No. 2614/2017 dated 08.01.2018.

9. The description of construction over plot in question has been given at the bottom of OA, as under:

"SCHEDULE -A

(Description of Larger Land adm. 1,63,935 Sq. Mtrs.)

All that piece and parcel of land being the contiguous block, admeasuring, in the aggregate 16 H. 39.85 R i.e. 1,63,938 Sq.Mtrs. comprising of the land admeasuring 08 H. 70.43 R out of the land bearing Survey No. 14 and of the land admeasuring 07 H. 69.35 R out of the Land bearing Survey No. 13B, Hissa No. 1+2+3 situated at Village Vadgaon Sheri coming within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation, Registration District Pune, Sub District Taluka Haveli and the same area bounded as under:

On or towards the East : By S. No. 11 & partly by S. No. 12

On or towards the South : By remaining part of S. No. 14 & by S. No. 13A/1+2+3

On or towards the West : By S. Nos. 15 & 16 & partly by S. No. 17.

On or towards the North : By Part S. No. 12 & partly by S. No. 17

SCHEDULE -B

(Description of Amenity Plot adm. 23,096 Sq.Mtrs.)

The Land adm. 23,096 Sq.Mtrs. out of the Project Land described in Schedule A above, which is bounded as under:

On or towards the East : By remaining Land from Layout

On or towards the South : By 18 Mtr. R.P. Road

On or towards the West : By remaining Land from Layout

On or towards the North : By remaining Land from Layout"

10. Tribunal order dated 22.10.2019: OA was taken up on 22.10.2019. Observing violations allegedly caused by respondents/proponents in respect of disputed land/construction, that no EC was obtained in the process of construction, water canal passing through area was obstructed and large number of trees cut without approval of competent authority, Tribunal required a factual report by a Committee comprising State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'SEIAA'), MPCB, Officer of Tree Authority, PMC and Executive Engineer, Khadakvasla Irrigation Department, Pune.

11. Report dated 23.01.2020: Pursuant to the above order, report dated 23.01.2020 was submitted by MPCB and findings recorded by Joint Committee read as under:

"1. State Environment impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Maharashtra and Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB).

M/s. Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd., Su. No. 13/B,1+2+2 & 14 (P), Wadgaon Sheri, Kalyaninagar, Pune has developed the residential construction project in past and proposed to develop residential and commercial construction project by the name M/s. Kul Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. and Kumar Urban Development Pvt. Ltd. at above location. The total plot area of the project is 68263 Sq.M. In past PP has constructed Sophromia Building, Kumar Kriti Building, Club House, Badminton & Gymnasium. The details of construction carried out till date as per Architect Certificate submitted by PP is as below:

S. No.	Building name	Wing no. /name	CC date	Plinth CC date	OC date	FSI	Non- FSI	BUA in Sq. M.
1.	Sophronia Building	P, Q, R, S1, S & T	13.10.2003 12.05.2004 & 26.03.2007	22.09.2004	31.03.2007 (P&S1 Bld) 27.03.2008 (Q, R, S, T Bld)	18639	17239	35912
2.	Kumar Kriti Building	A1, A2, A3, A8, A9	31.03.2005, 26.07.2006 & 24.09.2008	16.11.2006 (A1 & A2 Bld) 12.02.2007	30.03.2011	33967	30599	64566
				(A3 Bld. 17.11.2007 A8 & A9 Bld.)
3.	Club House Badminton Hall & Gym	-	22.03.2002	--	03.02.2003	617	124	741
								101219

Enclosed Architect Certificate as Annexure - I

Now PP propose to construct commercial & residential project on remaining plot area for Total Built up Area (TBA) of 158645 Sq. m. PP has submitted the proposal for obtaining Environmental clearance to SEIAA under violation case notification of MOEFCC dated 14.03.2017 and accordingly Environmental Clearance is granted to the project by the Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra on 13/12/2019 (copy of the same enclosed as Annexure-II). As a violation case EC is issued with a condition that PP shall submit a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5.58 Cr to MPCB towards effective implementation of the remediation plan and natural and community resource plan. Accordingly, PP has submitted the Bank Guarantee of the stipulated amount to MPCB. Recently PP has submitted application for consent to establish to MPCB and same is in process. During visit no construction activity is observed at proposed site, except a site office. As PP has carried out construction activity without obtaining consent to establish & operate from the Board (MPCB), this office has issued directions to PP, the copy of which is enclosed as Annexure-III.

2. Khadkwasla Irrigation Division, Pune

It is alleged by the applicant that the construction project by respondent no. 1 has obstructed the water body that passes through the site. However, as it is not a "canal" used for irrigation purpose. It does not fall under the purview of the Irrigation Department. The water body is a Nalla flowing through the site and the amenity plot. Any work related to the obstruction and channelization of the Nalla comes under the heading of Development Work and same is under the purview of the Collector, state of Maharashtra. Copy of the report is enclosed as Annexure-IV.

3. City Engineer, Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), Pune.

The entire property comprises of 1,36,445.83 Sq. M of land. Out of this land the respondent had constructed bungalow Society on 51,968 Sq. M namely Kumar City Residency who appear to be applicant. 10007.28 Sq. M land is affected by Development Plan Roads Reservation, 4895.60 Sq. M land has been kept as recreational open space and 52605.159 Sq. M. construction has been done for Kumar Kruti and Safronia buildings which are of residential use. These projects are complete and occupied by the residents. Out of above 23096.80 Sq. M land has been designated as Amenity space. Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) has given the permission to develop this land for commercial use to which the residents the respondent has the objection.

Initially PMC has sanctioned plans of commercial buildings on this plot wide Commencement Certificate No. 2614/2017, thereafter sanctioned revised plans on dt. 08/01/2018 and on dt. 20/11/2019. The initial sanction was given on orders given by Urban Development Department of State of Maharashtra in appeal made by respondent against Pune Municipal Corporation of under section 47 of M.R.T.P. Act, 1966. Annexure A. Pune Municipal Corporation has also sanctioned Badminton Hall, Swimming pool, gymnasium etc. measuring 617.14 Sq. M on this Amenity Space plot. Total FSI sanctioned for the commercial development is 17297.85 sq. m. and non FSI is 13170.16 sq.m. Total built up area sanctioned on Amenity space plot is thus 30468.01 Sq. m.

Pune Municipal Corporation wide CC No. 2231/19, dt. 23/12/2019 has sanctioned revised layout on entire land in which towers 1-2-3-4 are newly proposed consuming FSI of 53140.10 Sq. M. Building permission is not yet accorded. During site inspection it was noticed that site office work of approx. 100 Sq. M area was done. It appears to be temporary structure. Also, construction of Badminton Hall, Swimming pool, Gymnasium is completed. Apart from these buildings no other buildings are found nor are any construction work observed on the plot for Amenity Space. During course of inspection existing nalla appeared to be covered with R. C. C. slab and diverted from its original alignment.

The respondent has submitted State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority clearance certificate dtd. 13/12/2019 of construction area of FSI area 1,32,788 Sq. M. and non FSI 1,27,077 Sq.M. aggregating to total 259865 Sq.M. Pune Municipal Corporation till date has approved 1,23,660.54 Sq. M, FSI excluding area of Kumar City Residency 51968 Sq. M which was sanctioned way back in 1995.

Pune Municipal Corporation after this inspection has temporary restrained P.P. from carrying out work on Amenity Space plot on grounds of nalla shifting from its original alignment and covering it with R. C. C. slab, letter attached herewith. The point to be noted here is that as per clause 11.1 of old development control rules, 1987 of PMC and clause 13 of prevailing development control rules empowers Municipal Commissioner to restrict and to realign water course in any land without changing the position of inlet and outlet of the water course.

Since no construction activity has been started on Amenity Plot except as stated above, there appears to be no violation from building construction point of view. Copy of the report is enclosed as Annexure-V.

4. Asst. Municipal commissioner/Tree Officer, Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) Pune.

As Project Proponent has carried out illegal tree cutting at the site, Tree officer, Nagar Road, Wadgaonsheri, Pune has filed criminal case No. 19/2019 against Project Proponent in Senior Division Court, Pune Municipal corporation Building. Shivaji Nagar Pune. Copy of the report is enclosed as Annexure-VI."

12. Tribunal order dated 16.06.2020: Report was considered by Tribunal on 16.06.2020. It observed that various irregularities and illegalities were committed by PP but no action was taken by Statutory Regulators namely, MPCB, PMC and Chairman of Tree Authority. Consequently, Tribunal required the authorities concerned to submit report as to what action was taken, whether environmental compensation has been computed or not and effective action has been taken for its realization. The relevant extract of the order reads as under:

"3. The perusal of report reveals that all these activities, cutting of illegal trees, conversion of residential space into commercial place, covering water channel nalla by slab and its diversion was within the knowledge of the authorities concerned who were responsible to execute the orders. In spite of the submission of the report, no action has been taken by the authorities.

4. Accordingly, we direct the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC), the Chairman of the Tree Authority and the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board as to explain why the legal action has not been taken against the persons who are violating the rules.

5. It is surprising that the authorities who were given power to control encroachment and illegal activities are reporting that since no construction activity has started on Amenity Plot, except as stated above, means they are within the knowledge that there are construction and they are not stating what are these exceptions and whether it is permissible under law or not.

6. We are of the view to direct the authorities mentioned above to report as to what action has been taken and what environmental compensation has been calculated with regard to cutting of trees without permission of competent authorities.

7. Pollution Control Board is directed to explain as to whether any EC has been calculated or notice has been issued or not.

8. It is also surprising that the residential area has been permitted to be converted into commercial area. The authorities have to file the affidavit on the next date with the jurisdiction to convert the residential area into commercial area.

9. Respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 are directed to do the needful in accordance with law and if necessary, environmental compensation must be calculated and realized. The further action taken report be submitted within six weeks."

Affidavit in reply dated 24.02.2020 filed on 25.02.2020 by applicant:

13. Applicant has filed an affidavit dated 24.02.2020 raising objections to certain findings recorded in the report dated 23.01.2020 submitted by Joint Committee and the objections stated in para 4 (A to G) are:

"A) It is the specific contention of the Applicant that Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have carried out illegal tree at the Amenity Plot. It appears that after getting knowledge about the present proceedings, the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed Private Criminal complaint against one of the Director of Respondent No. 1. The document filed at page no. 48 of the Report shows that from dated 11.03.2019 the Respondent No. 3 is in possession of the Amenity Plot. So also, the Revenue Documents (7/12 extract) filed at Page No. 49-50 of the Report shows that the Amenity Plot is allegedly owned by Respondent No. 2. However, irrespective of said position the Respondent No. 4 and 5 have not initiated any legal action against the directors/partners/members of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It clearly shows that the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are not carrying out their duty as per the provisions of Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. Therefore, intervention from this Hon'ble Tribunal is necessary.

B) It appears from the show cause notice dated 22.01.2020 filed at page no. 21 of the Report by MPCB that during verification of the site on dt. 03.01.2020, the joint Committee found that total built up area adm. 01,01,219 sq. mtrs is constructed/built up without obtaining consent to establish and operate from the MPC Board. The joint committee also found that the required STP and OWC to treat domestic effluent and organic waste respectively are not provided at site. It is in the specific finding of Respondent No. 6 that there is total failure to comply with the provisions of Water Act, 1974 and the Air Act, 1981 and same has caused/is causing grievous injury to the environment. The show cause notice dated 22.01.2020 filed at page no. 21 of the Report substantiates the cause/issue agitated by the present applicant and further shows that substantial question of environment pertaining to the Larger Land has arises. However, the said Notice dated 22.01.2020 has not been issued to the Project Proponent or Respondent No. 1 to 3, but the same appears to have been issued to the 'Building Project names' only such as M/s. Kumar Kruti, Sophronia, Kairos and Fun N Fair. As per the knowledge of present applicant, there is no such Firm/Corporate Body in existence by such names at the Larger Land and therefore the very serviceability of this show cause notice in itself is highly questionable besides who stands answerable as recipient of this show cause notice. The notice should have been served to valid entities who could be held accountable for the environmental damage caused.

C) The Report of Joint Committee further states (Pls. Refer to Page Nos. 3, 28 and 36) that the 'Nalla' flowing through the Larger Land is shifted from its original alignment and the same is covered with RCC slabs. It is further found that the Project Proponent as well as Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have carried out various construction building works such as badminton hall, swimming pool etc. upon the 'Nalla'. All these findings clearly show that purely for the purpose of commercial gain, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have materially altered the natural water body flowing through the Larger Land thus damaging the environment & topography. All these alterations made to & on the Nalla have disturbed & constrained its natural flow to the nearby Mula-Mutha River thus causing severe environmental degradation and ecological disturbance, and the same is bad from every perspective related to life around.

D) That from the Joint Committee Report, the Applicant came to know that on dt. 13.12.2019 the STATE LEVEL ENVIRONMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY (SEIAA) has granted Environment Clearance for the Projects namely KUMAR KRUTI, SOPHRONIA, KAIROS and FUN N FAIR for the total built up area of 2,59,865 Sq. Mtrs of the Larger Land including Amenity Plot. It is very surprising that the said Environment Clearance is allegedly granted during the pendency of the present Petition, when this Hon'ble Tribunal is already seized of the matter related to various environmental issues involved including the non-existence of EC itself. It is the specific case of the present Applicant that Environment Clearance was pending under a violation case, while the otherwise prohibited land preparation/leveling work including making of a 18M wide cement road through the Amenity Plot & building a 100 Sq. Mtr. site office construction on the Amenity Plot was being undertaken as revealed. It appears that the said violation case before it has been allowed by the SEIAA completely ignoring the alert given to it by the Applicant vide Letter dated 26/07/2019 (duly acknowledged by SEIAA) & also the Hon'ble Tribunal's Order dt. 22/10/2019 being in its hand already along with the copy of the original application for looking into the matter. The manner in which EC has been granted is highly disturbing & needs to be looked into afresh. A Letter dt. 31/01/2020 has been sent to SEIAA on it, A copy is. being filed for record herewith. Even the proposal itself put up before it by Project Proponent on which this EC has been granted is highly questionable as material facts have been suppressed or wrongly stated. The timely & written alert provided to the SEIAA by the Applicant was for this very purpose only. A serious wrong has been done in the process.

It is the admitted position that as huge building construction was already carried out on the Larger Land with multistory buildings namely: KUMAR KRUTI and SAPHRONIA without first obtaining EC, as per the Notification dt. 14.09.2006 and Gazette dt. 08.03.2018 the Proponent had filed proposal under the violation case taking advantage under an amnesty scheme. However, it is surprising that the said Violation case was clubbed with proposed new multistoried Residential and Commercial Projects namely KIROS and FUN N FAIR on the basis of arbitrary layouts got approved from Respondent No. 4. Though the construction of Projects namely KIROS and FUN N FAIR were not carried out, the Project Proponent has mischievously added the said proposed Projects also in the proposal of violation case. All these circumstances further show that the required verification and due scrutiny has not been carried out before granting EC on dt. 13.02.2019, and the Authority has blindly issued the E.C. for all the named projects applied for in one Looking into the matter and awaiting in fact a status report from SEIAA on the allegation which in true sense stands validated now that there was no EC when the Applicant approached this Hon'ble Tribunal.

E) The planned Commercial shopping Mall Project namely FUN N FAIR is proposed to be constructed on the Amenity Plot reserved from the Larger Land for establishing Recreational facilities & infrastructure related to a Club House for the Applicant Society members & residents. As per the prevalent DC Rules, the Amenity Plot is meant for the Public Interest only. In this case it is for a 'Committed Development' of recreational health & sports facilities, green lawns & other infrastructure etc. of a Club House for the residents/members of the Applicant's Society as part of its duly sanctioned & approved residential project named KUMAR CITY on the larger land. However, and most surprisingly, the Respondent No. 4 has granted construction permission for building a huge commercial shopping mall on this Amenity Plot meant for Committed Development on it. The Said permission bearing C.C. No. 2614/2017 Dated 08/01/2019 is also granted without carrying out any proper application of mind or any proper evaluation of the quoted & referred Order dated 27/09/2017 of Urban Dev. Ministry, Govt. of Maharashtra. Neither the context of the Appeal prior to the Order nor the Order in itself have been understood, and simply an arbitrary action has been taken which is bad in law & worst for the environment. As is evident from the quoted & referred Order, the permission was granted for carrying out Committed Development only on the Amenity Plot (and not for allowing instead a Shopping Mall construction over a recreational/club house facility for the KUMAR CITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT as was sanctioned/shown in layout of 1995). Reading the Appeal involved & the various submissions made before the Ministry of Urban Dev, Govt. of Maharashtra, the gross error done by Respondent No. 4 becomes evidently clear. As per the original sanctioned Plans, there was no any Commercial Mall sanctioned for the Amenity Plot, but the same was reserved for developing various recreational facilities on this Plot. However, without verifying the original sanctioned Plans/layouts, the Respondent No. 4 in collusion with Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 has sanctioned the alleged Plans of constructing a huge Commercial Shopping Mall on the Amenity Plot.

F) It is further shockingly revealed by the Report Submitted by Respondent No. 4 that the Project Proponent on obtaining the alleged EC on 13/12/2019 from SEIAA, immediately approached the Respondent No. 4 with a new set of proposal/s to revise the Layout of the Larger Land & that of the Amenity Plot both. Amazingly, on 23/12/2019, that is within hardly 10 days of receiving the EC copy submitted by Project Proponent to Respondent. No. 4, it approved & sanctioned a new building permission under CC No. 2231/19 Dated 23/12/2020 further revising the planned proposed construction of the Commercial Shopping Mall on the Amenity Plot. This is in complete violations of the terms of the EC of 13/12/2019 itself, which should stand null & void now in any case till a fresh proposal gets filed for the revisions as per system & rules. The area calculations stated by Respondent No. 4 while clearing the proposal are questionable & clearly contestable since facts have been masked.

G) It is further shocking that the Respondent No. 4 in its Report submitted before this Hon'ble Tribunal has deliberately chosen to conceal & hide material facts from it. While it has acknowledged the granting of revised building/construction permission CC2231/19 dated 23/12/2019 as above, it has purposefully hidden the fact, which got revealed from an RTI enquiry made now, that on the same day i.e. 23/12/2019 another so called corrected & revised building/construction permission bearing C.C. No. 2230/19 bringing about major arbitrary & unauthorized alterations in the Larger Land & Amenity Plot were sanctioned by it by approving & revalidating an old layout drawing also of 14/05/2010 with an ulterior motive apparently While doing so, the original sanctioned layout of KUMAR CITY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT as was approved & sanctioned by competent authority in 1995 was completely ignored. This matter needs further investigation & a probe which this Honorable Tribunal may kindly direct in view of the fact that CC No. 2231/19 & CC No. 2230/19 both issued on 23/12/2019 would seriously impact & disturb not only the environment & ecology of the Larger Land & Amenity Plot further but actually would dramatically affect adversely the life of hundreds & thousands of residents currently living on the Larger Land which was, purely a low height low density residential housing project of Bungalows & Row-houses to begin with named KUMAR CITY as per its sanctioned permission of 1993 & approved layout of 1995 from the Competent Authority. Subsequent & over years brought up "Multistory constructions" like SAPHRONIA & KUMAR KRUTI (almost 582 flats) in gross Violation to Environmental rules, and now proposed multi-tower 20 storey building project KIROS (almost 333 more flats) & FUN N FAIR (A huge commercial shopping mall in place of committed recreational facilities) plus three more huge IT Complexes made on the Larger Land (segregated out arbitrarily from the Larger Land in CC2230/19) have visibly destroyed the environment of the place causing deep distress & mental agony to the original buyers/occupiers of Bungalows & Row houses which were actually sanctioned and supposed to exist in this project KUMAR CITY, By granting CC No. 2231/19, attempt has been made further to regularize robbing the Applicant's Society of its vital main internal road through alteration of layout without buyers/occupants consent as mandated by MOFA. How for the greed of money, to rob land and in collusion such activities have been carried out unchecked over years is a matter of high level probe only which this Hon'ble Tribunal can consider setting up as every wrong doing has its direct & negative impact on the environment, Flora & Fauna of the place for sure but also badly affecting the natural water bodies & basic life of hundreds of residents existing on this Larger land who are being robbed of their Committed Development' of recreational, health, sports & Club house facilities on the Amenity Plot besides surrounding them with undesirable multistory towers blocking air flow & sunlight both."

IA 103/2019 filed by applicant:

14. By this application, applicant has alleged that respondents 1 to 3 are illegally cutting trees and raising the construction on amenity plot pursuant to Commencement Certificate dated 08.01.2018 issued by PMC, hence during pendency of the OA, they should be restricted from proceeding further. Since Tribunal did not find any reason to pass any interim order and now we are deciding it finally, hence no further order is required to be passed on this application and it stands disposed of accordingly.

I.A. No. 21/2020 dated 27.02.2020 filed by applicant:

15. I.A. No. 21/2020 dated 27.02.2020 has been filed by applicant, seeking amendment in OA, for change in array of the parties. It has requested for replacement of respondent 3 by a new party, i.e., M/s. Shubh Capital, who has been entrusted with development rights of land measuring 16,682.04 m2 out of Amenity Plot and the description of M/s. Shubh Capital reads as under:

"M/s. Shubh Capital,

A Partnership Firm registered and incorporated under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its office at:

Mittal House, M2/13, Nisarg CHST, Yerwada, Pune - 411006

Through it's authorized partners

Mr. Vishal Sumerchand Agarwal

Age - 30 years, Occ. Business."

16. Applicant has also requested for addition of para 13A in OA and consequential addition of ground 16 (L) as also a prayer in OA. Para 13A and ground 16(L) and prayer 19(H), sought to be inserted by amendment in OA, read as under:

"PROPOSED PARA No. 13(A)-That in Jan 2020, the Applicant came to know that on dt. 13.12.2019 i.e. during the pendency of the present petition the Environment Department, Govt. of Maharashtra granted Environment Clearance to the projects namely Kumar Kruti, Sophronia, Kairos and Fun N Fair for the total built up area admeasuring 2,59,865 Sq.mtrs. On the date of filing of present Petition, it was the specific case of the Applicant that Environment Clearance of "Amenity Plot (Described in Schedule - B of the Original Application) and many other buildings on the Larger land is pending under the violation case before Respondent No. 8. However, surprisingly during the pendency of the present mater and especially without taking into consideration various objections raised by the present Applicant, the alleged Environment Clearance is granted on dt. 13.12.2019. So also, as per the knowledge of the present Applicant the project namely Kumar Kruiti and Sophronia are in existence on the Larger Land from last more than a decade. However, there is no any project namely Kairos and Fun N Fair in existence or developed upon the Larger Land yet. It clearly shows that the Project Proponent has mischievously clubbed together the, violation cases with the proposed new projects in the same violation application/case filed which is totally illegal. In view of clubbing together the unlawfully completed projects and proposed new projects yet to come up under the violation case (as contemplated under the notification dt. 14.07.2006 & of 2017) material irregularity has been committed. The order of Environment Clearance is totally silent on the point of completed projects under violation and proposed new projects. The said circumstances clearly show that no any comprehensive study/application of mind and precautions has/have been carried out/taken before granting of Environment Clearance on 13.12.2019. Such kind of irresponsible act on the part of the concerned authorities is difficult to absorb & unwarranted. As such it is necessary in the interest of justice to cancel the Environment Clearance dt. 13.12.2019 with immediate effect.

PROPOSED GROUND NO. 16(L)-The project proponent has mischievously clubbed together proposed projects namely Kairos and Fun N Fair in the violation case, and thereby unlawfully obtained Environment Clearance dt. 13.12.2019. The said Environment Clearance is granted in violation of Notification dt. 14.09.2006 & of 2017 and Gazette dt. 08.03.2018 and therefore the same deserves to be cancelled.

PROPOSED PRAYER CLAUSE NO. 19(H)- The Environment Clearance dt. 13.12.2019 issued in respect of the Larger Land' be cancelled."

17. Hereby, applicant has sought amendment in the OA, for challenging EC granted by SEIAA Maharashtra on 13.12.2019. An EC granted by SEIAA or MoEF&CC as the case may be, can be challenged by filing an Appeal under Section 16(h) of NGT Act, 2010. Since EC has been granted during pendency of the OA, we treat this I.A. as an Appeal under the aforesaid provision, based on the facts stated in OA as well as the paragraphs and ground taken in this I.A. and it is admitted to consider validity of EC dated 13.12.2019. Since the parties have already placed on record, all the relevant material, therefore, it is not necessary to defer the matter on this appeal and can be decided on merits by this judgment.

18. By IA No. 46/2020 dated 09.07.2020, applicant has sought to place on record a copy of Development Agreement dated 04.07.2020 executed between respondents 1 and 2 and M/s. Shubh Capital and a letter dated 31.01.2020 sent by applicant to SEIAA. Applicant has also prayed for stay of further construction activities on Amenity Plot by respondents 1 to 3. Early hearing has also been requested. IA has already been disposed of vide orders dated 11.08.2020 and 11.09.2020.

Reply dated 15.10.2020 filed by respondents 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'PPs')

19. The reply states that applicant is habitual and vexatious litigant; has filed Special Civil Suit No. 556/2019; made several complaints to MPCB and PMC and other authorities; concealed information that substantial development on land admeasuring 1,63,985 Sqm. has already been undertaken; projects such as Kumar Kruti, Saffronia and Cerebrum IT Park are already constructed and separate societies have been formed to manage the said projects; no amenities are to be provided by PPs to the residents including Club House and other facilities; Layout and Building Plan was sanctioned by PMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 14.05.2010; Plan was revised under letter dated 08.01.2018 and/or 23.12.2019 but there is no material change; 'Kumar City' is developed upon a portion of the land; developer allotted various plots, row houses, bungalows to different purchasers under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats (Regulation of the Promotion, Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'MOFA Act 1963'); at the time of selling plots/row houses/bungalows, respondent 1 had disclosed layout and brochure to all concerned; all members of applicant have paid club membership; applicant has not disclosed that brochure referred by them mentions commercial building in the Amenity Plot and current building consisting of permissible shopping under bye-laws at the same location as shown in the brochure; applicant has no interest over the suit property; applicant was well aware about the Development Plan; the same cause of action has been agitated in the suit filed in Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune; respondent 1 has obtained permission for construction of multi-storey mall in Amenity Plot and the said permission has not been challenged by applicant; Commencement Certificate No. 2614/2017 received by respondent 1 has also not been challenged for violation of Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975; Tribunal has no jurisdiction since the above Act is not part of Schedule I of NGT Act 2010; no trees were cut or that respondent 4 has filed a criminal complaint against respondent 1 to 3 for cutting of trees; application is barred by limitation, as layout was sanctioned by PMC on 28.03.2007 and 28.05.2015; slab constructed on nala is reflected in all the Sanctioned Plans since 2000 and it is legal since necessary permission of Collector and PMC was already obtained; SEIAA meeting for grant of EC was held on 17.07.2019 as reflected in the communication dated 13.12.2019, applicant has not challenged any permission granted to PP; Project Kairos and Fun n fair were in existence since long in as much as (a) Revised Building Plan sanctioned by PMC vide Commencement Certificate bearing No. CC/000904 dated 22/03/2000 (for Gymnasium/cafe, Badminton Hall Building); (b) Revised Building Plan sanctioned by PMC vide Commencement Certificate bearing No. CC/4084 dated 22/03/2002 (for Gymnasium/cafe, Badminton Hall Building) and (c) Occupancy Certificate of Building on Amenity Plot BCC/1413/633 dated 03/02/2003; as per Order dated 27/09/2017 in Appeal before UD Minister under Section 47 of MRTP Act, DC rules for newly merged villages in PMC, sanctioned on 6/12/2007, were not applicable to "Committed Development" prior to sanction of DC Rules for extended limits and hence Applicants are not bound to surrender Amenity Plot; and PMC has sanctioned Building Plan as per Rules.

20. It is further stated that applications for consent to establish/operate/renewal was submitted on 19.11.2019 under section 25 and 26 of Water Act, 1974, under Section 21 of Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'Air Act 1981') and authorization/renewal of authorization under Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'HWMTM Rules, 2016'); respondent 1 has already been penalized by the authorities and, therefore, application should be rejected.

IA No. 111/2020 dated 15.10.2020 filed on behalf of respondent 1:

21. IA 111/2020 dated 15.10.2020 has been filed by respondent 1 raising certain preliminary objections relating to limitation and multiplicity of proceedings. In respect of limitation, it is stated that society was registered on 18.05.2006 and Development Plan was sanctioned on 02.03.2012; permission to construct over water stream was granted on 08.08.2003 and plan for the same was sanctioned on 23.11.2019 which has not been challenged. On the aspect of multiplicity of proceedings, it is said that an original suit has already been filed by applicant and, therefore, permitting applicant to prosecute this application would amount to abuse of the process. The objections raised in this IA shall be considered in this judgment as issues raised in the matter.

Reply dated 15.01.2021 filed by applicant:

22. Applicant has filed reply dated 15.01.2021 to the preliminary objections raised by respondent 1, stating that respondent 1 has illegally referred to the date of sanction of Development Plan. Similarly, objection with regard to multiplicity of proceedings is misconceived as the issue involved in the suit is different than the one raised in the present OA. Applicant has specifically denied that any permission was granted by respondent 4 to construct over natural water stream and with regard to EC dated 23.11.2019, it is said that it has been specifically challenged.

Affidavit dated 15.01.2021 filed by applicant and sworn by Shri Divender Kumar Dhamija, Chairman of applicant society:

23. The affidavit refers to the replies filed on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 i.e., PPs. Denying averments made therein, applicant has reiterated the averments made in OA. Referring to Special Suit No. 556/2019, it is said that the same was filed in Civil Court, Pune for protecting civil rights of applicant society and the said proceeding is not relating to issues in respect of environment. Similarly, complaints lodged with various Governments authorities/departments were also in connection with protection of civil rights of the members of applicant society and had nothing to do with the substantial questions relating to environment. Denying the allegations of concealment or misleading facts, it is said that in para 13 as well as by way of annexure A-6, applicant has specifically disclosed development carried out at the larger land. In para 3 and 4 of the reply, PPs have given information about nature of Amenity, Membership of club, annual subscription of club, members of the society, working of club, formation of society etc. but all this information has no relevance with the issues arising in respect of environment, raised in OA. Denying the averments made in para 5 of reply submitted by PPs that applicant society has no right, title and interest in Amenity Plot, it is said that it is part and parcel of land, referred to in all purchase agreements executed by PPs in favour of members of applicant society; under MOFA Act 1963, respondents 1 and 3 were/are bound to convey Amenity Plot in the name of applicant society; for claiming the said right, applicant society has already filed Special Civil Suit No. 556/2019 and, therefore, the objections raised by PPs that applicant society has no right, title and interest in the Amenity Plot, is misleading; alleged sanction of permissible shopping building upon Amenity Plot is not in respect of permissible shopping building but relates to a huge commercial mall which is not permissible; the term 'permissible shopping building' cannot be construed as a huge commercial mall in a residential society/the area developed for residential purposes; in para 19, construction permission granted vide Commencement Certificate No. 2614/2017 is challenged; applicant society is raising issues only which are concerned with environment and other facts are only to give a complete information necessary for deciding the issues relating to environment, raised by applicant; respondents 2 and 3 had cut tress illegally where against no action has been taken by respondents 4 and 5 till date; an interim injunction was passed by Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 556/2019 where against respondents 1 to 3 filed Appeal No. 92414/2020 in Bombay High Court but temporary injunction order was not stayed; in para 14 of reply, respondent proponents have referred to injunction order passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 1813/2008 but that has been referred to challenge the slab construction on the nalla by PPs; the assertion that slab was constructed on nalla with due permission of District Collector or respondent 4 is incorrect; no such permission was granted and if any such permission was granted, the same would be illegal and cause serious prejudice to environment; development plan filed as annexure A-17 shows that nalla passing through larger land is a natural water stream and any civil work thereupon is prejudicial to environment; in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 238/2010, slab work referred to in the order is just 15 ft. x 10 ft. but the slab referred in OA is more than 15 ft. x 10 ft. showing that PPs have diverted nalla as per their convenience and illegally constructed sewage civil structure upon nalla and this is fortified from the Joint Committee report; EC dated 13.12.2019 and 27.02.2020 were issued during pendency of OA, hence applicant has filed IA 21/2020, seeking amendment and to challenge the said EC; it thus, cannot be said that EC has not been challenged by applicant.

24. Regarding payment of Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5.58 Crores by PPs to MPCB, it is stated that the Bank Guarantee is just for effective remedial plan, natural and community resources plan and not a fine; PPs are illegally claiming it to be a fine stating that they have paid the same; allegations of vested interest or threat on the part of applicant society are incorrect; applicant society is a collective body of 137 members and there is no question of vested interest or threat by any individuals.

ARGUMENTS

25. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of applicant, during oral arguments, has reiterated his entire case as pleaded while learned Counsel appearing for PPs stated that the issues raised are in fact barred by limitation; applicant is already pursuing remedy in different forms and there is a multiplicity of litigation; there is no violation of environment or local laws on the part of PPs and/or developers and the entire application is only to harass developers of residential buildings constructed and developed by them.

26. PPs have also filed a written submission wherein datewise events are charted out. It is stated in the written submissions by PPs that storm water drain is not a notified nalla and it was covered around 1995 prior to the property coming within limits of PMC. It is also said that respondent 1 i.e., KUDPL received permission for erection of slab on the nalla and permission was granted by respondent 4 on 08.08.2003. The notice of PMC for demolition of concrete slab has been stayed by order dated 21.06.2011 passed District Judge in Appeal No. 238/2010 wherein the said notice dated 03.07.2008 has been challenged by respondent 1. The plea of limitation and multiplicity of litigation has been reiterated and it is also said that KUDPL has already been penalized by EC dated 13.12.2019 whereby respondent 1 i.e. KUDPL has been directed to submit a Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5.53 Crores which has been submitted. With regard to allegation of cutting trees, it is said that it is not correct and in any case, PMC has already filed a criminal case no. 19/2019 which is pending. Respondent 1 has also sought to assail the credibility of applicant by stating that it is a habitual litigant and in this regard reference is made to the orders passed by Civil Judge in Civil Suit No. 556/2019 rejecting application of rejection of plaint under order 7 rule 11 where against Revision No. 665/2019 was filed before Bombay High Court which was allowed by order dated 28.01.2021 where against SLP No. 4144/2020 was rejected. Besides, several proceedings have been initiated before joint District Registrar, PMC etc.

ISSUES:

27. The rival submissions in our view, have given rise to the following issues:

(I) Whether application is barred by limitation prescribed in Section 14(3) and/or 15(3) of NGT Act 2010

(II) Whether applicant is guilty of multiplicity of litigation and the proceedings in question are liable to be rejected on this ground alone

(III) Whether there is violation of environmental laws/norms causing damage to the environment by PPs

(IV) Whether EC dated 13.12.2020 granted by SEIAA Maharashtra is legal, within its jurisdiction and sustainable or a nullity

(V) If third and fourth questions are answered in affirmative and against PPs, what remedial action including environmental compensation, if any, need be taken/imposed upon polluters and responsible parties for violation of environmental laws applying principle of 'Polluter's Pay'

CONSIDERATION ON MERITS

28. Prefatory note:

(A) Facts have not been put in a straight manner by any of the parties and information in haphazard manner are available on record, therefore, it is necessary to have a prefatory note of relevant facts in a chronological manner, which would make consideration of issues convenient.

(B) The area of entire project is given differently at different stages. In OA, applicant has referred to the total area as 16 ha and 39.38 R (i.e., 163938 m2) comprising land in survey no. 13B/1+2+3 and survey no. 14 (part). In Schedule A of the OA, the description of larger land has been given has been given as 163935 m2 but later, in the same Schedule A, total area is mentioned as 163938 m2.

(C) In the joint Committee report submitted through MPCB, total plot area of the project is given as 68,263 m2 whereon PPs have constructed Sophronia Building, Kumar Kriti Building, Club House, Badminton Hall and gymnasium. In the report of Chief Engineer, PMC Pune, entire property area is given as 1,36,445.83 m2 where against 51,968 m2 was developed as Kumar City Residency; 52,605.159 m2 was developed as Kumar Kruti and Saffronia buildings (which come to total 1,04,573.159 m2). It leaves 31,872.671 m2 (1,36,445.83 - 51,968 + 52,605.159). Further, it is said by City Engineer PMC that 10,007.28 m2 was affected by Development Plan Roads Reservation and 4,895.60 m2 land was kept as recreational open space. Hence, balance remains about 16,969.791 m2 (1,36,445.83 - 1,04,573.159 + 10,007.28 + 4,895.60). It is also said that in the above land 23,096.80 was designated as Amenity Space. The letter further states that PMC has sanctioned revised layout for the entire land in which towers 1-2-3-4 are newly proposed buildings.

(D) In the document filed by PPs description of land initially owned by Tukaram Sopanrao Mulik, Krishnabai H. Tingre, Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe, Lilabai Kurhade and Yashoda Khandve has been given comprising survey no. 14 (part) admeasuring 5 ha and 46.7 R and remaining part in survey no. 13B/1+2+3, total whereof comes to 1,63,986 m2. This land was agricultural as per revenue record and permission for non-agricultural use i.e., residential, (specifically so mentioned), was granted by permission letter dated 26.11.1993 for a total area of 122165.05 m2 only. Before us, the facts relating to the documents of the above erstwhile owners and permission of change of use from agricultural to non-agricultural (residential) are given in detail as under:

(i) Tukaram Sopanrao Mulik: Vide agreements dated 29.04.1991; supplement to agreement dated 06.07.1992; correction deed dated 04.01.1994 and confirmation deed dated 04.01.2005, Tukaram S. Mulik owned 7=69.35 ha. of survey no. 13/B1+2+3 and 5=46.7 ha. of survey no. 14 (part).

(ii) Krishnabai Haribhau Tengre: She has a total 8093.52 m2 in survey no. 14 in the following manner:

(a) Vide agreement dated 13.02.1992 got 1000 m2 of survey no. 14 out of its portion 8093.52 m2.

(b) Vide agreement dated 27.02.1992, she got 7093.52 m2.

(iii) Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe: She also had 8093.52 m2 in survey no. 14, in the following manner:

(a) 1000 m2 in survey no. 14 vide agreement dated 13.02.1992

(b) 7093.52 m2 in survey no. 14 vide agreement dated 27.02.1992

(iv) Lilabai Kurhade: she also had 8093.52 m2 in survey no. 14, in the following manner:

(a) Vide agreement dated 13.02.1992, she had 1000 m2 in survey no. 14

(b) vide agreement dated 27.02.1992, she had 7093.52 m2 in survey no. 14

(v) Yashoda Khandve: She also had 8093.52 m2 in survey no. 14 in the following manner:

(a) Vide agreement dated 13.02.1992, she had 1000 m2 in survey no. 14.

(b) vide agreement dated 27.02.1992, she had 7093.52 m2 in survey no. 14.

(E) Thus, in survey no. 13B/1+2+3, Tukaram S. Mulik owned 7 ha 69.35 R of area while in survey no. 14(part), there were five owners wherein Tukaram had a share of 5 ha 46.7 R while remaining 4 i.e., Krishnabai H. Tingre, Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe, Lilabai Kurhade and Yashoda Khandve, each had 8093.52 m2 in survey no. 14 and total of these four comes to 32374.08 m2. Total are in facts comes to 163986 sq.m.

(F) The above owners entrusted development rights of their land to Sukumar Estate Limited by executing development agreements and power of attorney.

(G) Permission for non-agriculture use i.e., residential was sought by the above owners from Additional Collector, Pune. It was granted vide permission letter dated 26.11.1993 for an area of only 1,22,165.05 m2. The above permission was granted to Tukaram S. Mulik and others in respect of above land situated at village Vadgaon Sheri, Tal Haveli, district Pune. The survey nos. given in the said permission are 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (part) and total area mentioned is 1,22,165.5 m2. Permission was granted under Section 14 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Rules framed thereunder, i.e., Maharashtra Land Revenue (Conversion of use of Land and Non-Agriculture Assessment) Rules, 1969. Permission was subject to following conditions:

"(1) The grant of permission shall be subject to the provision of the Code and Rules made thereunder;

(2) That the grantee shall use the land together with the building and/or structure thereon only for the purpose for which the land is permitted to be used and shall not use it, or any part of the land or building thereon for any other purpose without obtaining the previous written permission to that effect from the Collector Pune, for this purpose the use of a building shall decide the use of the land;

(3) That the grantee shall not sub-divide the plot or subplots if any, approved in this order without getting the sub-division previously approved from the authority granting these permissions;

(4) That the grantee shall develop the land strictly in accordance with the sanctioned lay-out plan within a period of two years from the date of this order by (a) construction roads, drains etc. to the satisfaction of the Collector and the concerned Municipal Authority and (b) by measuring and demarcating the plots by the Survey Department and until the land is so developed no plot therein shall be disposed of by him in any manner;

(5) That if the plot is sold or otherwise disposed of by the grantee, it shall be the duty of the grantee to sell or otherwise dispose of the plot subject to the conditions mentioned in this order and Sanad and to make ....... about this in the deeds to be executed by him;

(6) That the grantee shall be bound to obtain requisite building permission from the Addl. Collector before ....construction of the proposed building or structures if any;

(7) That the grantee shall get the building plans approved by the competent authority, where the building control vests in that authority and in other cases he shall prepare the building plans strictly according to the provisions contained in schedules II appended to the Maharashtra Land Revenue (conversion of use of land and N.A.A.) Rules, 1969 and get them approved by the Collector Pune and construct the building according to the sanctioned plans;

(8) That the grantee shall commence the N.A. use of the land within the ..... of two years from the date of the order, unless the period is extended from time to time, failing which the permission shall be denied to have been cancelled.

(9) That the grantee shall communicate the date of commencement of .....use of the land and/or ...in the use of land to the Tahsildar Haveli within one month failing which he shall be liable to be deal with under Rule 6 of the M.L.R. (conversion of use of land and N.A.A.) Rules, 1969.

(10) That the grantee shall pay the N.A. assessment in respect of the land at the rate of Rs. 0-12.1 per Sq. mtrs i.e. Rs. 34,782/- + Z.P. & V.P. Cess from the date of commencement of the N.A. use of the land for the purpose for which the permission is granted. In the event of any change in the use of the land the N.A. shall be liable to be levied at the different rate irrespective of the fact that the ... period of the N.A. assessment already levied is yet to expire.

(11) That the N.A.A is fixed provisionally subject to the fixation revised Std. rates and actually difference in C.Tax will also be recoverable.

(12) That the grantee shall pay the measurement fees within one month from the date of commencement of the N.A. use of the land;

(13) That the area and N.A. assessment mentioned in this order and the Sanad shall be liable to be altered in accordance with the actual area found on .........by the Survey Department.

(14) That the grantee shall be................................be imposed as per Government orders.

(15a) That the grantee shall be bound to fulfill all conditions laid down in the ULC exemption order Dt. 23...... corrigendum order Dt. 23/2/1993.

(15) That the grantee shall not make any ..........alteration....building already constructed as per sanctioned plans without the .....permissions of land without getting the plans thereof approved by the Collector, Pune;

16. That the plot shown in the layout...................shall be ............residential purpose only.

17. That the time layout shall got demarcated on site ....of each plot shall .............out width of the .........shall not be issue...as shown in the layout. If there will be any discrepancy .........demarcation the revised layout shall be got approved from the undersigned.

18. That the roads....gutters shall be constructed before disposed off any plot.

19. That the grantee shall made his own arrangement to secure water and electricity if V.P. not already to provided the same.

20. That the roads and ............provided in the layout shall be maintained by the applicant otherwise it shall be handed over to the V.P. for maintenance and same shall be open to the public.

21. That the roads in the layout shall be allowed to be used by the adjoining holder for the purpose of .....and secure proper co-ordinations of roads.

22. That the applicant will be held responsible if any dispute arises regarding boundaries of the plot.

23. That the building plans are also approved herewith as recommended by the ADTP and the grantee shall construct the building strictly in accordance with the same.

(24) That the grantee shall be bound to execute Sanad in form as provided in Schedule IV or V appended to the Maharashtra L.R. (conversion of use of land and N.A.A.) Rules, 1969, embodying therein all the conditions of this order within a period of one month from the date of commencement of N.A. use of the land.

(a) If the ..........any of the conditions mentioned in this order and those in the Sanad, the Collector .........

(b) ............."

(H) Before us, during course of the arguments, it is not disputed that in the aforesaid two survey nos., the project comprised of total land admeasuring 1,63,986 m2 or 1,63,938 m2 as stated in the OA (we are omitting minor variations in the area) and the total FSI in dispute, is 2,59,865 m2. The development of the entire land has taken place in phases giving different names to the building/area but it is a part of a composite project since PPs sought EC for the entire project, treating it as a composite project. Looking to the stages of development, we find that the period commenced from 1994.

(I) Respondent 1, KUDPL, initially was incorporated under the name and title as 'Sukumar Estates Private Limited' and thereafter it became 'Sukumar Estates Limited' and then 'Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited' and lastly as 'Kumar Urban Development Private Limited' (hereinafter referred to as 'KUDPL').

(J) Developer M/s. Sukumar Estate Limited submitted a development plan for sanction to Town Planning Department, Pune (hereinafter referred to as 'TPD, Pune'). Vide order dated 25.11.1994, development plan was sanctioned by TPD, Pune for developing residential project at the said land. The sanctioned layout plan was revised vide order dated 19.08.1996 by TPD, Pune but permitted development continued to remain for the purpose of residential project. The above Developer, subsequently renamed/merged as KUDPL, developed residential project in the name of 'Kumar City' ('Kumar City Residency') comprising plots, row houses, bungalows/flats/units. Most plots/units etc. were sold by 2005. The information available in public domain released by KUDPL shows that Kumar City Residency was also termed as raw houses and it was completed in December 2004 comprising independent villas. The aforesaid development claims to be spreading across 30 acres of land with more than 100 units. Project was launched on 01.12.2002. The applicants are in fact housing society of the residence in the aforesaid part of development brought in by KUDPL.

(K) There was another developer Kumar Housing Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KHDL') which was renamed as Kumar Housing Corporation Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'KHCPL') which ultimately merged into KUDPL along with Sukumar Estate Limited. The above developer had provided various amenities namely swimming pool, health club, Tennis court, Badminton court, squash court etc. in the area admeasuring 23,096 m2 in the total project land.

(L) There is nothing on record to show that ownership of land in question was transferred to KUL or any other builder/developer and it appears that upto the end of December 2004, land in question comprising survey no. 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (part) remained in the ownership of five persons namely Tukaram S. Mulik, Krishnabai H. Tingre, Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe, Lilabai Kurhade and Yashoda Khandve.

(M) A deed of sale dated 04.01.2005 registered at Sub-Registrar, Haveli No. 2 at serial no. 82/2005 and confirmed by Confirmation Deed dated 21.04.2014 registered with sub-Registrar, Haveli No. 2 at serial no. 3363/2014, was executed by Tukaram S. Mulik, Krishnabai H. Tingre, Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe, Lilabai Kurhade and Yashoda Khandve, who transferred and conveyed land in survey no. 13B/1+2+3 admeasuring 7 ha 69.35 R and survey no. 14 (part) admeasuring 5 ha 46.7 R, aggregating to 13 ha 16.05 R, to M/s. Kumar City Co-operative Housing Society Limited, a tenant ownership co-operative housing society, registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 vide the registration certificate dated 03.01.2005.

(N) From record, we find a number of commencement certificates/layout sanctions issued by PMC from time to time. Though these documents are not on record and what we could summarize from record is that there were 14 numbers of layout sanctions/approved plans/commencement certificates issued by PMC, as detailed hereunder:

Sl. No.	Date of Commencement Certificate
1.	22.03.2002
2.	13.10.2003
3.	12.05.2004
4.	31.03.2005
5.	26.07.2006
6.	26.03.2007
7.	28.03.2007
8.	24.09.2008
9.	14.05.2010
10.	02.03.2012
11.	28.05.2015
12.	08.01.2018
13.	20.11.2019
14.	23.12.2019

(O) The record also shows that the above permissions/commencement certificates/layout plans/approvals dated 13.10.2003, 12.05.2004 and 26.03.2007 relate to Sophronia building; dated 31.03.2005, 26.07.2006 and 24.09.2008 relate to Kumar Kriti building; 22.03.2002 relates to club house, badminton hall and gym but in respect of other permissions/sanctions/commencement certificates, it is not clear as to whether the same covered the entire area or relate to any particular part except that the document dated 02.03.2012 is sanctioned of a development plan and the documents dated 08.01.2018 and 20.11.2019 relate to construction of Badminton hall, Swimming pool, Gymnasium etc. and commercial development on amenity plot.

(P) It is also said that the construction on natural storm water drain passing through amenity plot space was sanctioned by the Competent Authority but no such document has been placed on record.

(Q) It has also come on record that entire land and plot comprise the joint property of five owners named above i.e., Tukaram S. Mulik, Krishnabai H. Tingre, Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe, Lilabai Kurhade and Yashoda Khandve and there was no amalgamation or subdivision permitted by the Competent Authority till May 2020. Record show that amalgamation and sub-division lay out of the above land (termed by the parties as "larger land") was sanctioned by PMC i.e., respondent 4 vide No. CC/0467/2010 (Revised) dated 14.05.2010.

(R) On 26.12.2011, Tukaram S. Mulik and others filed an application under Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and Mumbai Provincial Municipalities Act, 1949 for development of property at survey no. 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (part) at village Vadgaon Sheri as commercial. Commencement Certificate was issued by PMC through Construction Development Department, PMC, Shivajinagar, Pune on 08.01.2018 subject to following conditions:

"1. The area up to the proposed distance/road ratio line proposed herein shall be part of the public road as per the suggestion of the municipality.

2. The permission or occupation of any new building or use of any of the enhanced/repaired buildings shall not be exercised by any person without the receipt of a letter from the Municipal Corporation of Pune.

3. The consent period/development permit period (if the work has not commenced) will be one year from the date of the consent letter.

4. The consent letter should renew every year. Renewal of consent letter may be renewed three times in a year, after the expiry of the term. If this it is not renewed then a new application under section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Urban Planning Act, 1966 will have to be obtained for consent. The validity of the consent letter under Section 48 of the MRTP will remain.

5. This Consent Letter shall be terminated in the event of breach of the following terms:

A. If the development of the site is not in accordance with the approved map or used in the agreed upon map, then any unauthorized construction or unauthorized use of the site will be considered a breach of condition.

B. If any of the conditions mentioned in the context of the construction proposal are violated or if the restrictions imposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation are violated, the condition will be deemed to have been violated.

D. If it is observed that the applicant's permission is obtained by misappropriating from PMC, it will be deemed to have violated the condition. Under the Municipal Corporation Section 258 of the Development Control Regulation No. 6.10, the permission of the respective shall be deemed to have been misled.

E. If the applicant and the person claiming ownership by himself or herself are violating the provisions of section 42 and 45 of the Maharashtra Territory and Town Planning Act, 1966, it is deemed to have been misused.

6. The terms and conditions of this Consent Letter shall be binding on all applicants, not only for the applicant, but also all future heirs, attorneys, holders, managers, administrators, heirs and all persons who prove ownership.

7. He must file an NA order before starting work.

8. The terms and conditions of the official map, ULC order, Maharashtra Pollution Regulatory Board, Directorate of Industrial, Commissioner of Labor Insurance will be binding. The Pune Municipality shall have the right to revoke the consent, if it is found that the municipal corporation act, Maharashtra Regional and City Constitution Act 1966 or the rules and potentials are violated.

If there is any doubt about the above letter of consent. The clarification should be taken from the municipality before starting work.

Special Conditions:

1. Installation of Solar System.

2. Restore of rainwater, double flash system, controlled system in the building planned for water conservation.

3. The elevator doors should be transparent.

4. The building maintenance/fire audit should be compulsory to be made by the competent officer every year and shall be compulsory to make available to the municipality on demand.

5. Additional fire extinguish arrangements with respect of Government's Decision No. TPS-1807/252/CR630/UD-13 shall be bound by the provisions of V.NI.NI. and Rule No. 21.6.6 in respect of Special High-Rise Buildings.

Some important tips:

1. For retaining wall of the project, the terms of the office circular number AN/outward number/MA/483 dated 5.4.1 shall be binding on the retaining wall.

2. Three liters of flash for the bathroom in the all-use building in the project (2) To install such a tank of six liters of water in all used building water taps in projects and to install low pressure water instrument per minute. (3) To install a pressure controlled wall to keep the water pressure and flow speed controlled in buildings higher than 24 meters above ground level in the projects. (4) Installation of CCTV camera in transparent door and elevator used for all use passenger translucent glass panels of all uses in projects.

3. Any construction other than the approved map in the future (for example by shed, partition or grill on all terraces).

4. Retaining wall, corner width, corner width of old existing construction, retaining distance till foundation inspection for setback verification.

5. Arrangement of Visitor Parking Road/sidewalk with a width of 1.5 m. out of the 1.5 meter social distance in the rear of the commercial use building.

6. Completion of the construction by accepting the proposal of a protective wall.

7. The building in this proposal will be used for permanent use only as indicated in the map.

8. Taking care not to damage or damage the property or property of the neighbor during construction.

9. Applicant shall be liable if any dispute arises on the road/lane/entry gate of public property.

10. Conditions for Tenant Rehabilitation Scheme: (1) If the agreement is made for the placement of the new building and there is no complaint about it, the register contractor will file the inspection beforehand. (2) The landlord shall file before the landlord a letter of notarization or no objection letter, demanding that all the tenants have any possession or possession of the premises, as per their acknowledgment. (3) If a dispute arises between the tenant and the developer, the municipality shall not be responsible for it (4) the notarize prescribed by the Pune municipality before filing the revised map.

11. If there is a meter connection of the existing municipality on the site, submit a non-objection letter from the water supply department before starting work.

12. Allotment of this road area to the Municipal Corporation before using the additional road width area.

13. Approval of the amended DP layout as required before seeking any approval or amendment proposal approval.

14. After getting permission for the construction of the map, either the developer or the owner should place the board on the site and show the following information. A. Names and addresses and telephone numbers of owners, developers, architects and contractors.

15. Submit Stability Certificate/Report/Completion under the regular guidance and supervision of the Structural Engineer, before starting work and submitting the inspection certificate as well as any occupancy letter to the licensed structural designer.

16. Facilitate containers for wet and dry waste in the buildings.

17. To file a satbara extract and separate city map within one year from the date of commencement certificate or before seeking occupancy letter (whichever is earlier).

18. All the conditions in the approved consolidation/sub division/layout of building from the development plan department will be binding.

19. Municipal Corporation of Pune will not be responsible for all the conditions in the ULC order which will be binding on the respective owner/developer.

Conditions:

1. Filing Structural Engineer Certificate for Occupation Letter

2. Indemnity bond must be filed on stamp paper Rs. 220/-

3. Prior to demand of occupancy letter, payment of tax dues and collection of water tax of Pune Municipal Corporation, should be paid.

4. For the convenience of the workers, at least one lavatory and urinal should be temporarily built on the premises. There is no need to construct if already exists.

5. The applicant shall be solely responsible for any dispute arising out of the ownership claim and any other claim.

6. The construction which is shown in the map will be broken down by the proper way and then start new work.

7. Although the Department of Construction Development Department has given permission for septic tanks, they should not start construction of septic tanks or drainage without filing a map with the Executive Engineer (Water Conservation Department) and submit drainage works, maps and certificates to demand occupancy letter.

8. Submit a valid map of the drainage connection from Hon'ble Executive Engineer (Drainage) before application for occupancy letter.

9. The application will not be considered until the occupation letter has been cleared by picking up the wastage material of the building which has been thrown on the road and inside. Guidance will be given by the Construction Development Department on where to place the Radaroda.

10. When starting a new construction, if there are plants in the respective premises they should not be cut down without the prior permission of the Tree Authority Committee. Otherwise it should be noted that legal action will be taken.

11. Before requesting occupation letter of the land on which the new building is constructed, each owner should take proper arrangements and precautions to ensure that the trees are planted in front of the building inside and outside the boundary wall and planted according to the provisions. Without it, no letter of occupancy will be obtained.

12. Consent letter is given on the accompanying map on the back/pasted conditions.

13. This consent letter is issued on the condition that the road width proportions will be taken up by the land measuring office and the construction development department on the site and then start construction (if required).

14. As far as work is concerned, setback, marginal open space should be checked by the Construction Control Office. The construction on the foundation should not be started until a foundation inspection certificate is obtained.

15. The work should be done as per accompanying new/updated map.

16. Developing Certificates/Consent Letters given earlier should be deemed void.

17. The relevant revised development plan has been approved by the Government of Maharashtra on the date of 05.01.1987, 06.12.2007, 18.09.2008, 02.03.2012, 04.04.2012. The municipality will not ask for any compensation in the event that any damaged, and the municipality will not be responsible for paying it.

18. Other Important Terms.......

19. As mentioned in the order dated 12.12.2012 by the Hon'ble Environment Department, the Hon'ble Central Government shall be receive no objection letter from the Environment Department for the proposal for construction area of more than 2000 square meters. No objection letter from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board will be required to be filed at the time of construction permission.

20. Use of the elevator license shall be binding only upon receipt by the concerned officer as required.

21. Before initiating the use of the construction site, all the fire extinguisher machinery required by the fire department should be executed on the premises. The system should be maintained regularly.

22. Arrangement should be made for the production of waste manure in the plot premises prior to the demand for occupancy letter in the slum areas."

(S) On 16.11.2010, MoEF issued an Office Memorandum permitting issue of EC prospectively in case where Projects/activities in the Schedule of EIA 2006 have commenced in violation of the provisions of EIA 2006. On 19.03.2012, application was submitted by KUDPL for grant of prior EC for proposed residential and commercial project "Kumar Kruti, Sophronia, Kairos and Fun N Fair" at survey no. 13B/1+2+2 and 14 (part) at village Vadgaon Sheri, Kalyaninagar, Pune along with M/s. Kul Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. The proposed construction was on a total plot area of 68,263 m2 with built up area 2,59,865 m2 and FSI area 1,32,788 m2.

(T) OM dated 16.11.2010 was superseded by OM dated 12.12.2012 which provided revised procedure for grant of EC in violation case. OM dated 27.06.2013 was issued to amend OM dated 12.12.2012.

(U) The said application was considered by State Environment Assessment Committee i.e., SEAC in its 66th meeting dated 13-16th February, 2013. Committee suggested proponents to consider adjoining plots of the owner for EC since adjoining plots, built up area increases more than 1,50,000 m2 and, therefore, Environment Impact Assessment was to be prepared. Reply submitted by M/s. KUDPL and M/s. Kul Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. was considered in the 2nd meeting of SEAC-III, dated 12th to 14th December, 2014, but it was not satisfied and required the above proponents to submit complete chronological information of development on entire plot. Proponents did not submit any information as required. Proposal was considered by SEAC-III in 12th meeting dated 8th to 12th July, 2014 and then in 15th meeting dated 12-14th August, 2014 when it treated the matter as a violation case since construction was already done at the site prior to obtaining EC.

(V) In April 2014, Proponents submitted EIA report which was considered by SEAC-III in 31st meeting. It found that no ToR was given to SEAC-III committee, instead proponents used standard ToR published on MoEF&CC website.

(W) However, SEAC-III decided to appraise EIA report in the next meeting which was considered in 32nd meeting dated 24th to 28th August, 2015. SEAC-III observed that PP has submitted details of total plot area 1,63,986 m2 and BUA 1,99,407 m2 for proposed project namely Kairos, Fun N Fair with existing club house, swimming pool & badminton hall but the total layout consists of 5 was issued, in the EIA report and applied for the entire plot for EC to be made for issuance of ToR; in 39th meeting dated 28th to 30th December 2013 SEAC-III considered but deferred the matter by asking PP to include developments for which prosecution challan was issued in the EIA report and application for entire plot of EC to be made for issue of ToR. Proponents submitted revised proposals for EC having total plot area 1,63,986 m2, built up area 2,79,495 m2 and FSI area 1,32,788 m2 which included construction of 9 no. of residential buildings, having maximum height of 69.85 meter, shops, theatre, banquet, club house and offices.

(X) OMs dated 12.12.2012 and 27.06.2013 were challenged in OA 37/2015, S.P. Muthuraman vs. Union of India and another and vide judgement dated 07.07.2015, this Tribunal declared both these OMs ultra vires of EP Act 1986 and EIA 2006 and quash the same.

(Y) In the 43rd meeting dated 23rd to 27th February, 2016 SEAC-III considered project for approval of ToR. In the 51st meeting dated 28th to 30th July, 2016, SEAC-III considered project for EIA. However, matter did not proceed further on the above application dated 19.03.2012 submitted by PPs.

(Z) Thereafter, on 14.03.2017, MOEF issued a notification for grant of EC in violation cases. It was a onetime measure permitting applications by violators only in 6 months from the date of notification. Here EC was to be granted by MOEF.

(AA) On 31.08.2017, proponent applied to MoEF&CC for EC as a violation case as per notification dated 14.03.2017.

(BB) Another notification was issued on 08.03.2018 making some amendments in the notification dated 14.03.2017 but period of 6 months for filing applications remained untouched.

(CC) Misconstruing notification dated 08.03.2018, PPs submitted a fresh application to SEAC-III as a violation case. In 65th meeting dated 28th to 31st May, 2018, SEAC-III recommended to grant ToR subject to specific conditions as under:

"Specific Conditions by SEAC:

1) PP to conduct ground water modelling.

2) PP to submit details of treatment/disposal of solid waste as per prevailing norms.

3) PP to submit Environmental status report clearly mentioning the mitigation measures undertaken already.

4) PP to submit ecological damage assessment in terms of embodied energy and global sectors with LCA approach and with applicable coefficient ultimately reporting in terms of cost.

5) PP to submit detailed report on CSR activities in consultation with project affected people.

6) PP to resubmit traffic impact study.

7) PP to resubmit STP drawing.

8) PP to submit an indemnity bond for project land.

9) PP to submit the Plan showing alignment of storm water drain, the depth along with chambers and final disposal point & section through the internal road, showing place left for planting of trees. Sewage water drain internal road and space left between, building & internal Road.

10) PP to submit Side specific EMP giving proper details and required the step taken for corrective action and who will of Look after the same.

11) PP to submit Socio-economic infrastructure within vicinity land specially existing primary school, market hospital etc.

12) PP to submit NOCs for Water supply, Disposal of solid waste, sewage connection to Municipal sewer pipeline and revised CFO NOC.

13) PP to submit energy saving calculations.

14) PP to submit undertaking that the Environment Engineers will be appointed.

15) PP to submit Fire Tender Movement Plan showing clear road width of 6 meters: PP to Submit cross section of roads at four places including UGT, OWC and DG set location showing clear road width 6 meter, 1.5 meter distance left from building line & spaces left for plantation, parking service lines, foot paths, etc.

16) PP to submit revised parking plan at lower ground and parking statement.

17) PP to prepare an Ecological report.

18) PP to submit Project description, its importance and the benefits.

19) PP to submit Project site details (location, top sheet of the Study area of 10 km, coordinates, google map, layout map, land use, geological features and geo-hydrological status of the study area, drainage).

20) PP to submit Land use as per the approved Master Plan of the area, Permission/approvals required from the land owning agencies, Development Authorities, Local Body, Water Supply & Sewerage Board, etc.

21) PP to submit Land acquisition status, R & R details.

22) PP to submit Baseline environmental study for ambient air (PM10, PM2.5, S02, NOx & CO), water (both surface and ground), noise and soil as per MoEF&CC/CPCB guidelines at minimum 5 to 10 locations in the study area.

23) PP to submit Details on flora and fauna and socio-economic aspects in the study area.

24) PP to submit Likely impact of the project on the environmental parameters (ambient air, surface and ground water, land, flora and fauna and socio-economic, etc.)

25) PP to submit Source of water for different identified purposes with the permissions required from the concerned authorities, both for surface water and the ground water (by CGWA) as the case may be, Rain water harvesting, etc.

26) PP to submit Waste water management (treatment, reuse and disposal) for the project.

27) PP to submit Management of solid waste and the construction & demolition waste for the project vis-à-vis the Solid Waste Management Rules and the Construction & Demolition Rules.

28) PP to submit Energy efficient measures (LED lights, solar power, etc) during construction as well as during operational phase of the project.

29) PP to submit Assessment of ecological damage with respect to air, water, land and other environmental attributes. The collection and analysis of data shall be done by an environmental laboratory duly notified under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, or an environmental laboratory accredited by NABL, or a laboratory of a Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) institution working in the field of environment.

30) PP to Submit an EMP comprising remediation plan and natural and community resource augmentation plan corresponding to the ecological damage assessed and economic benefits derived due to violation.

31) PP to submit the remediation plan and the natural and community resource augmentation plan to be prepared as an independent chapter in the EIA report by the accredited consultants.

32) PP to conduct ground water modelling.

33) PP to submit details of treatment/disposal of solid waste as per prevailing norms.

34) PP to submit Environmental status report clearly mentioning the mitigation measures undertaken already.

35) PP to submit ecological damage assessment in terms of embodied energy and global sectors with LCA approach and with applicable coefficient ultimately reporting in terms of cost.

36) PP to submit details of CER activities in consultation with the people around the project area as per MoEF&CC circular dated 1/05/2018 if applicable."

(DD) SEAC-III also required PPs to prepare and submit EIA report as per EIA 2006 and amendments made thereunder from time to time. The copy of the said recommendation is on record as annexure A-3.

(EE) On 13.12.2019, SEIAA granted EC to construction project Kumar Kruti, Sophronia, Kairos and Fun N Fair in respect of built-up area 2,59,865 m2 (FSI area 1,32,788 m2 and non-FSI area 1,27,077 m2). It is mentioned at item 18b of EC order dated 13.12.2019 that approved FSI area is 98657 m2 and approved non-FSI area is 47873 m2 as per DCR. EC order dated 13.12.2019 contains specific conditions and general conditions which are as under:

I	The committee noted that Cost of remediation plan and natural & community resource Augmentation plan as per revised approach paper is estimated as Rs. 5.06Cr.  The Committee also noted that the amount of CER as per MoEF & CC circular dated 1/05/2018 is Rs. 2.25 Cr. which is less than the remediation/augmentation plan. Therefore committee decided to obtain Bank Guarantee of Rs 5.06 Cr for the project completion period.
II	PP to submit CFO NOC.
III	PP to submit a bank guarantee of Rs. 5.58 Cr to Maharashtra Pollution Control Board towards effective implementation of the remediation plan and Natural and Community Resource Plan.
IV	PP shall comply with Standard EC conditions mentioned in the Office Memorandum issued by MoEF & CC vide No 22- 34/2018-IA:III dt.04.01.2019
V	This EC is granted for FSI:132788m2, Non-FSI: 127077m2 and Total BUA:259865 m2

General Conditions:

I	E-waste shall be disposed through Authorized vendors as per E- waste (Management and Handling) Rules, 2016.
II	The Occupancy Certificate shall be issued by the Local Planning Authority to the project only after ensuring sustained availability of drinking water, connectivity of sewer line to the project site and proper disposal of treated water as per environmental norms.
III	This environmental clearance is issued subject  to  obtaining  NOC from Forestry & Wild life angle including  clearance  from  the standing committee of the National Board for Wild life  as  if applicable & this  environment  clearance  does  not  necessarily implies that Forestry & Wild life clearance granted to the project which will be considered separately on merit.
IV	PP has to abide by the conditions stipulated by SEAC & SEIAA.
V	The height construction built up area of proposed construction shall be in accordance with the existing FSI/FAR norms of the urban local body & it should ensure the same along with survey number before approving layout plan & before according commencement  certificate  to  proposed  work.    Plan  approving authority should also ensure the zoning permissibility for the proposed  project  as  per  the  approved  development plan  of  the
	area.
VI	If applicable consent for Establishment shall be obtained from Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under Air and Water Act and a copy shall be submitted to the Environment department before start of any construction work at the site.
VII	All required sanitary and hygienic measures should be in place before starting construction activities and to be maintained throughout the construction phase.
VIII	Adequate  drinking  water  and  sanitary  facilities  should   be provided for construction workers at the site. Provision should be made for mobile toilets. The sage disposal of waste water and solid wastes generated during the construction phase should be ensured.
IX	The solid  waste  generated  should  be  properly  collected  and segregated. Dry/inert solid waste should be disposed off to the approved sites for land filling after recovering recyclable material.
X	Disposal of muck during construction phase should not create any adverse effect on the neighboring communities and be disposed taking the necessary precautions for general safety and health aspects of people, only in approved sites with the approval of competent authority.
XI	Arrangement shall  be  made  that  waste  water  and  storm water do not get mixed.
XII	All the topsoil excavated during construction activities should       be     stores      for      use      in      horticulture/landscape development within the project site.
XIII	Additional soil for levelling of the proposed site shall be generated within the sites (to the extent possible) so that natural drainage system of the area is protected and improved.
XIV	Green Belt Development shall be carried out considering CPCB guidelines inducing selection of plant species and in consultation with the local DFO/Agriculture Dept.
XV	Soil and ground water samples will be tested to ascertain  that there is no thereat to gerund water quality by leaching of heavy metals and other toxic contaminants.
XVI	Construction spoils, including bituminous material and other hazardous materials must not be allowed to contaminate water courses and the dumpsites for such material must be secured so that they should not leach into the ground water.
XVII	Any hazardous  waste  generated  during  construction  should  be disposed off as per applicable rules and norms with necessary approvals of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
XVIII	The diesel generator sets to be used during construction phase should be low sulphur diesel type and should conform to Environment (Protection) Rules prescribed for air and noise emission standards.
XIX	The diesel required for operating DG sets shall be stored in underground tanks and if required, clearance from concern authority shall be taken.
XX	Vehicles hired for bringing construction material to  the  site  should be in good condition and should have a pollution check certificate and should conform to applicable air and noise emission standards and should be operated only during non-peal hours.
XXI	Ambient noise levels should conform to residential standards both during day and night. Incremental pollution loads on the ambient air and noise quality should be closely monitored during construction phase. Adequate measures should be made to reduce ambient air and noise level during construction phase, so as to conform to the stipulated standards by CPCB/MPCB.
XXII	Fly ash should be used as building material in the construction as
	per the provisions of Fly Ash Notification of September 1999 and amended as on 27th August, 2003. (The above condition is applicable only if the project site is located within the 100 Km of Thermal Power Stations).
XXIII	Ready mixed concrete must be used in building construction.
XXIV	Storm water control and its re-use as per CGWB and  BIS standards for various applications.
XXV	Water demand during construction should be reduced by use of pre-mixed   concrete,   curing   agents     and other best practices referred.
XXVI	The ground  water  level  and  its  quality  should  be  monitored regularly in consultation with Ground Water Authority.
XXVII	The installation of the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) should be certified by an independent expert and a report in this regard should be submitted to the MPCB and Environment department before the project is commissioned for operation. Discharge of this unused treated affluent, if any should be discharge in the sewer line. Treated effluent emanating from STP shall be recycled/reused to the maximum extent possible. Discharge of this unused treated effluent, if any should be discharge in the sewer line. Treatment of 100% gray water by decentralized treatment should be done. Necessary measures should be made to mitigate the odour problem from STP.
XXVIII	Permission to draw ground water and construction of basement if any shall be obtained from the competent Authority prior to construction/operation of the project.
XXIX	Separation of gray and black water should be done by the use of dual plumbing line for separation of gray and black water.
XXX	Fixtures for showers, toilets flushing and drinking  should  be  of law flow either by use of aerators or pressure reducing devices or sensor based control.
XXXI	Use of glass may be reduced up to 40% to reduce the electricity consumption and load on air conditioning. If necessary, use high quality double glass with special reflective coating in windows.
XXXII	Roof    should     meet    prescriptive   requirement   as     per    Energy Conservation    Building    Code     by     using     appropriate   thermal insulation material to fulfil requirement.
XXXIII	Energy conservation measures like installation of  CFLs, TFLs for the lighting the areas outside the building should be integral part of the project design and should be in palace before project commissioning. Use CFLs and TFLs should be properly collected and disposed off/sent for recycling as per the prevailing guidelines/rules of the regulatory authority to avoid mercury contamination. Use of solar panels may be done to the extent possible like installing solar street lights, common solar water heater system. Project proponent should install, after checking feasibility, solar plus hybrid non-conventional energy source as source of energy.
XXXIV	Diesel power generating sets proposed as source of backup power for elevators and common area illumination during operation phase should be of enclosed type and conform  to  rules  made under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The height of stack of DG sets should be equal to the height needed for the combined capacity of all proposed DG sets. Use low sulphur diesel. The location of the DG sets may be decided with in consultation with Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
XXXV	Noise should be controlled to ensure that it does not exceed the prescribed standards. During night-time the noise levels measured at the boundary of the building shall be restricted to the permissible levels to comply with the prevalent regulations.
XXXVI	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 utilised.
XXXVII	Opaque wall should meet prescriptive requirement as per energy Conservation Building  Code,  which  is  proposed  to  be  mandatory for all air-conditioned spaces while it is aspiration for non air conditioned spaces by use of appropriate thermal insulation material to fulfil requirement.
XXXVIII	The building should have adequate distance between them to allow movement of fresh air and passage of natural light, air and ventilation.
XXXIX	Regular    supervision    of    the    above   and   other    measures for monitoring should be in place all through the construction phase, so as to avoid disturbance to the surroundings.
XL	Under the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 legal action shall be initiated against the project proponent.  If  it  was found that construction of the project has been started without obtaining environmental clearance.
XLI	Six monthly monitoring reports should be submitted to  the Regional office MoEF, Bhopal with copy to this department and MOCB.
XLII	Project proponent shall ensure completion of STP, MSW disposal facility, green belt development prior to occupation of the buildings. As agreed during the SEIAA meeting, PP to explore possibility of utilizing excess treated water in the adjacent area for gardening before discharging it into sewer line. No physical occupation  or  allotment  will  be  given unless all above said environmental infrastructure is installed and made functional including water requirement in Para 2. Prior certification from appropriate authority shall be obtained.
XLIII	Wet garbage should be treated by Organic Waste Converter and treated waste (Manure) should be utilised in the existing premises for gardening and no wet garbage will be disposed outside the premises. Local authority should ensure this.
XLIV	Local body should ensure that no occupation certification is issued prior to operation of STP/MSW site etc. with due permission of MPCB.
XLV	A complete  set  of  all  the  documents  submitted  to  Department should be forwarded to the Local authority and MPCB.
XLVI	In case of any change(s) in the scope of the project, the project would require a fresh appraisal by this Department.
XLVII	A separate environment management cell with qualified staff shall be set up for implementation of the stipulated environmental safeguards.
XLVIII	Separate funds shall be allocated for implementation of environmental protection measures/EMP along with item-wise breaks-up. These cost shall be included as part of the project cost. The funds earmarked for the environment protection measures shall not be diverted for other purposes and year-wise expenditure should reported to the MPCB & this department.
XLIX	The project management shall  advertise  at  least  in  two local newspapers  widely  circulated  in  the  region  around the project, one of which  shall  be  in  the  Marathi  language of the local concerned within seven days of  issue  of  this letter, informing that the project has been accorded environmental clearance and copies of clearance letter are available with the  Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and may also be seen at Website at http://ec.maharashtra.gov.in.
L	Project management should submit half yearly compliance reports in respect of the stipulated prior environment clearance terms and conditions in hard & soft copies to the MPCB & this department, on 1st June & 1st December of each calendar year.
LI	A copy of the clearance letter shall be sent by proponent to the concerned Municipal Corporation and the local NGO, if any, from whom suggestions. Representations, if any, were received while processing the proposal. The clearance letter shall also be put on the website of the Company by the proponent.
LII	The proponent shall upload the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions, including results of monitored data on their website and shall update the same periodically. It shall simultaneously be sent to the Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB. The  criteria pollutant levels namely; SPM, So2, NOx (ambient levels as well as stack emission) or critical sector parameters, indicated for the project shall be monitored and displaced at a convenient location near the main gate of the company in the public domain.
LIII	The project proponent shall also submit six monthly reports on the status of compliance of the stipulated EC conditions inducing results of monitored data (both in hard copies as well as by e-mail) to the respective Regional Office of MoEF,  the respective Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB.
LIV	The environmental statement for each financial year ending 31st March in Form-V as in mandated to be submitted by the project proponent to the concerned State Pollution Control Board as prescribed under the Environment (Protection) Rules, (1986) as amended subsequently, shall also be put on the website of  the company along with the status of compliance of EC conditions and shall also be sent to the respective Regional Offices of MoEF by e- mail.
LV	This EC is issued subject to the condition that the implementation of EMP, remediation plan and Natural and Community Resource Plan will be completed during the period for which the Bank Guarantee is given, otherwise the BG should be suitably extended up to implementation of EMP.

(FF) EC order dated 13.12.2019 shows that SEIAA has considered the project as a proposed project under 8(a), B2 category.

(GG) Annexure 1 to the joint Committee report submitted by MPCB includes a certificate issued by M/s. Kul Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. stating that the said proponent as well as M/s. Kul Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. and KUDPL are licensed architect and certify built up area statement for construction work completed on various dates for buildings named thereunder:

Sr	Name             of Building	Stage         of work	Buildings	FSI (m2)	Non-FSI (m2)	Commencement Certificate date
1	Sophronia	Completed	P,Q,R,S,S1,T	18639.00	17273.00	CC/0525/04 Dt. 12.05.2004
2	Kumar Kruti	Completed	A1, A2	33967.00	30599.00	CC/5011/04 Dt. 31.03.2005
			A3			CC/1476/06 Dt. 26.07.2006
			A8, A9			CC/5011/04 Dt. 31.03.2005 & CC/4821/06 Dt. 30.03.2007
3	Existing  club house + swimming pool +Badminton Hall + Gym (Part of Fun- N-Fair)	Completed		617.00	124.00	CC/4084          Dt. 22.03.2002
4	Total construction built-up area	Completed		53223.00	47996.00
		Total		101219.00 sq.m.

(HH) Based on the observations of joint Committee made on 03.01.2020, MPCB issued show cause notice dated 22.01.2020 to M/s. Kumar Kruti, Sophronia, Kairos and Fun N Fair under Section 33A of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Water Act 1974' and 31A of Air Act 1981, mentioning violations as under:

"AND WHEREAS, the Joint Committee (SEIAA-GoM, MPCB, Irrigation Dept. & Pune Municipal Corporation) visited to your construction project on 03/01/2020 and accordingly Sub Regional Officer Pune-I has submitted proposal and reported following non-compliances/violations.

6. You have constructed total TBUA 101219 Sq.M. without obtaining consent to establish & operate from the Board.

7. You have not yet provided STP & OWC to treat domestic effluent & Organic waste respectively."

(II) Vide letter dated 09.01.2020, PMC has given information to MPCB as under:

"The applicant has not furnished any papers nor has contacted Pune Municipal Corporation as directed in the interim order passed by Honorable Principal Bench (NGT). Copy of application was procured from sub regional office of MPCB Pune on 06/01/2020.

The entire property comprises of 1,36,445.83 sq.mt. of land. Out of this land the respondent had constructed bunglow Society on 51,968 sq.m. namely Kumar City Residency who appear to be applicant. 10007.28 sq.m. land is affected by Development Plan Roads Reservation. 4895.60 sq.m. land is been left as recreational open space. 52605.159 sq.m. construction has been done for Kumar Kruti and Saffronia buildings which are of residential Use. These projects completed on site and occupied by the residents. Out of above land 23096.80 sq.m. land has been designated as Amenity Space. On this Amenity Space Pune Municipal Corporation as per the provisions of DCPR has sanctioned commercial use building which is the subject matter of this application.

Pune Municipal Corporation has sanctioned plans vide Commencement Certificate No. 2614/2017 thereafter sanctioned revised plans on dt. 08/01/2018 and on dt. 20/11/2019. The original sanction was given on orders given by Urban Development Department of State of Maharashtra in appeal made by respondent against Pune Municipal Corporation under section 47 of M.R.T.P. Act. 1966...Annexure-A Pune Municipal Corporation has also sanctioned Badminton hall, Swimming pool, Gymnasium etc. comprising of 617.14 sq.m. on Amenity Space Plot. Total f.s.i. sanctioned is 17297.85 sq.m. and non f.s.i. area is 13170.16 sq.m. total sanctioned area on Amenity Space is 30468.01 sq.m. area.

Pune Municipal Corporation vide CC No. 2231/19, dt. 23/12/2019 has sanctioned revised layout on entire land in which towers 1-2-3-4 are newly proposed buildings consuming f.s.i. of 53140.10 sq.m. Building permission is not yet accorded. During site inspection it was noticed that site office work of approx. 100 sq.m. area was done. It appears to be temporary structure. Also construction of Badminton hall, Swimming pool, Gymnasium is completed apart from this no other work has been started as per sanctioned plan on the Amenity Space. During course of inspection existing nala appeared to be covered with r.c.c. slab and diverted from its original alignment.

The respondent has submitted State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority clearance certificate dtd. 13/12/2019 of construction area of fsi area 1,32,788s q.m. and non fsi 1,27,077 sq.m. total aggregating 259865 sq.m. Pune Municipal Corporation till date has approved 1,23,660.54 fsi excluding area of Kumar City Residency 51968 sq.m. which was sanctioned way back in 1995.

Pune Municipal Corporation after inspection has temporary restrained P.P. from carrying out work of Amenity Space plot on grounds of nala shifting from it's original alignment and covering with RCC slab, letter attached herewith. The point here to be noted is that as per clause 11.1 of old development control rules of Pune Municipal Corporation of 1987 and prevailing development control rules clause 13 empowers Municipal Commissioner to restrict and to realign water course in any land without changing the position of inlet and outlet of the water course."

29. Now we proceed to consider issues formulated above. The first question is raised by PPs is that OA is barred by limitation.

ISSUE I - Relating to Limitation:

30. In para 14 of reply dated 15.10.2020 filed on behalf of PPs, it is pointed out that PMC sanctioned layout of respondent 1 on 28.03.2007 and 18.05.2015. Further, construction of slab over the storm drain passing through land in dispute, from North to South, was reflected in all sanctioned plans since the year 2000. The said work was executed with necessary permission of Collector and PMC. This issue was also raised by M/s. Kumar Housing Corporation Limited in Special Civil Suit No. 1813/2008 filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, challenging notice dated 03.07.2008 issued by PMC with regard to the slab on nalla. An application for temporary injunction was filed which was rejected by Trial Court by order dated 04.08.2020 where against M/s. Kumar Housing Corporation Limited filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 238/2020 in the Court of Principal District Judge, Pune (annexure A4 to the reply of PPs) which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.06.2011. Order of Trial Court was set aside and temporary injunction was granted, restraining defendants i.e., PMC and its officials from demolishing slab put over nalla till disposal of Suit. Thus, the construction made long back over nalla cannot be agitated in the present OA, filed and registered on 23.08.2019. It is also pointed out that applicant has required Tribunal to direct respondent 4 (PMC), respondents 6 and 7 (MPCB) and respondent 8 (SEAC-III) to verify whether respondent 1 has complied all terms of reference in respect of larger land, finalized in SEIAA meeting no. 65 dated 31.08.2015 and has also prayed for cancellation of Building Plan Commencement Certificate dated 08.01.2018 issued by PMC.

31. The argument is that with respect of violations, respondent 1 has already paid fine and this is reflected in the EC dated 13.12.2019 and, therefore, past violations cannot be challenged.

32. During the course of arguments, it is pointed out that as per Joint Committee Report, various constructions were already completed long back, hence, same cannot be assailed as in violation of environmental laws since challenge is barred by limitation under the provisions of NGT Act 2010.

33. IA 111/2020 has also been filed by respondent 1-KUDPL raising specifically plea of limitation under Sections 14 and 15 of NGT Act, 2010. It is said that applicant society was registered on 18.05.2006, Development Plan was sanctioned on 02.03.2012 and Amenity Plot was in existence prior to approval of Development Plan. Therefore, applicant was well aware prior to 05.04.2019 which is date stated by applicant in OA, that he came to know about violations by respondents- proponents, and applicant's claim is incorrect since facts were already in their knowledge. Application has been filed after almost 7 years of the accrual of cause of action. Under Section 14(3), there is period of limitation of 6 months from the date, the cause of action arose for the first time which is extendable by a further period of 60 days only. The present application, therefore, is ex-facie barred by limitation. Reliance is placed on Tribunal's judgement in OA 33/2016, Jai Javan Jai Kisan & Others vs. Vidarbha Cricket Association & Others; OA 179/2016, Graminee Environment Foundation vs. Balaji Infrastructure Ltd. & Others dated 18.05.2017 and OA 95/2014, Mr. Suresh Waman Dhavale & Others vs. MoEF & Others.

34. Reference is also made to Section 15(3) of NGT Act 2010 and it is said that no relief by grant of compensation or restoration of property or environment shall be entertained; no application for grant of relief also shall be entertained unless the same has been made within the period of 5 years on the date on which cause for such compensation or relief first arose, discovery rule is not applicable; permission was granted to construct over water stream by PMC on 08.08.2003 and plan for the same was sanctioned on 23.11.2019 which has not been challenged. It is thus, prayed that the application is barred by limitation.

35. The preliminary objection has been contested by applicant vide reply dated 15.01.2021 and broadly, it is said that since EC was granted during pendency of OA, the same has been challenged by means of I.A. and the contention that the OA is barred by limitation, is incorrect. It is said that the violations of environmental laws came to the knowledge of applicant only in March 2019 and, therefore, application is well within time and not barred by limitation.

36. For considering the above rival submissions, it would be appropriate to have a glance over Sections 14 and 15 of NGT Act, 2010 which read as under:

"14 Tribunal to settle disputes.-

(1) The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment), is involved and such question arises out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I.

(2) The Tribunal shall hear the disputes arising from the questions referred to in sub-section (1) and settle such disputes and pass order thereon.

(3) No application for adjudication of dispute under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of six months from the date on which the cause of action for such dispute first arose:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days."
"15. Relief, compensation and restitution.-

(1) The Tribunal may, by an order, provide,-

(a) relief and compensation to the victims of pollution and other environmental damage arising under the enactments specified in the Schedule I (including accident occurring while handling any hazardous substance);

(b) for restitution of property damaged;

(c) for restitution of the environment for such area or areas, as the Tribunal may think fit.

(2) The relief and compensation and restitution of property and environment referred to in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) shall be in addition to the relief paid or payable under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).

(3) No application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of five years from the date on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose:

Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the application within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days.
(4) The Tribunal may, having regard to the damage to public health, property and environment, divide the compensation or relief payable under separate heads specified in Schedule II so as to provide compensation or relief to the claimants and for restitution of the damaged property or environment, as it may think fit.

(5) Every claimant of the compensation or relief under this Act shall intimate to the Tribunal about the application filed to, or, as the case may be, compensation or relief received from, any other court or authority."

37. Limitation prescribed in Section 14(3) is in respect of the matters come within the purview of Section 14(1). It is said that an application for adjudication of dispute under Section 14(1) shall not be entertained by Tribunal unless it is made within a period of 6 months from the date on which, the cause of action for such dispute first arose. This period of limitation is different in the context of the subject qua limitation prescribed in Section 15(3), which provides the period of 5 years from the date on which cause for compensation or relief under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) arose. Under Section 14(3) and 15(3) both, Tribunal has been conferred power to allow filing of applications beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the above provisions but not beyond 60 days.

38. We may also refer to Section 16 which confers appellate power upon Tribunal against certain orders or decisions or directions under specified statutes therein wherein also limitation of 30 days from the date on which order or decision or direction or determination is communicated to applicant is prescribed which is extendable by maximum 60 days under proviso to Section 16. This includes an appeal against an order granting EC.

39. Jurisdiction of Tribunal under Section 14 is over civil cases where a substantial question relating to environment, including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment, is involved, if such question arises out of the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I of NGT Act 2010. Limitation under section 14(3) is with reference to cause of action. The term 'cause of action' has been examined and explained in a catena of binding authorities of Apex Court. Commonly understood, 'cause of action' reflects the reasons for grievance which has been unsettled in so much so that a plaint is filed in a Court of law for their redressal. Since in a Court of law, the redressal of grievance is justified only in accordance with law, the cause of action must also raise legally supportable claim otherwise the action would fail.

40. In Cooke v Gill, (1873) 8 CP 107, it is said, "cause of action means every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court." In India, repeatedly, it has been observed that 'cause of action' as understood in legal parlance is a bundle of essential facts which it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove before he can succeed. Nature of Suit or even form of action is one thing and cause of action is another. Nature of Suit may be ascertained or determined by looking at the kind of relief asked for in the Suit but 'cause of action' is made up of a number of facts which are necessary to be pleaded and which if established would enable plaintiff to obtain from the Court, remedy against defendant. Cause of action encompasses both, legal provisions of what legal wrong plaintiff claims to have suffered and remedy which is the relief, a Court is asked to grant.

41. In Read vs. Brown, 1889 (22) Q.B.D. 128, Lord Esher M.R. observed that cause of action would mean, "every fact which it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove, if traversed, in order to support his right to the judgment of the court." It does not comprise every piece of evidence which is necessary to prove each fact but every fact which is necessary to be proved. In Niranjan Agarwalla v. Union of India,  : AIR 1960 Cal 391, Calcutta High Court observed that cause of action in its widest sense means the necessary conditions for the maintenance of the Suit and in its restricted sense means the circumstances forming the infringement of right or the immediate occasion for the action.

42. In Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra   (2007) 7 SCC 640, Supreme Court observed that in legal parlance, 'cause of action' is an expression comprising a situation or state of facts that entitles a party to maintain an action in a Court or a Tribunal. In other words, one can say it is group of operative facts giving rise to one or more basis for suing or a factual situation that entitles one person to obtain remedy in court from another person. An apprehension cannot be a basis for a suit or exemption.

43. In Raj Kumar Jain & Others vs. Smt. Jagwati Devi and Others  AIR 1980 All 225, Allahabad High Court said that the date mentioned in the plaint as the date of accrual of cause of action is not conclusive. It is to be gathered from the whole claim.

44. Thus, it can be said that bundle of facts which when taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff the right to relief against defendants, constitute cause of action. It must contain facts or acts done by the defendants to prove cause of action. While considering the cause of action, Court must read the pleadings as a whole to ascertain its true input. It would not be appropriate to cull out a sentence or a passage here and there and to read it out of context in isolation. It is the substance and not the form that has to be considered by the Court.

45. However, the expression 'cause of action' normally has been construed in the context of civil jurisprudence particularly, the code of civil procedure. We find that in the context of NGT Act 2010, it needs to be examined a little bit differently so as to give effective implementation to the objective of NGT Act 2010. The enactment of NGT Act 2010 is not in the context of an ordinary adjudication of civil dispute but certain matters having constitutional provisions relating to environment where generally individual rights are not in question unless somebody has suffered any personal loss, are adjudicated. The degradation of environment is a cause of concern to the entire community which has to be examined by this Tribunal. It has to ensure protection of environment and wherever any damage has caused, to take steps for its remediation and impose compensation upon the person who has caused such damage applying the principle of 'Polluter's Pays'. The other principles applicable are also not recognized in civil jurisprudence but in the context of environmental laws, they are well applicable in the light of law laid down by Supreme Court in various authorities, and these are precautionary principle and sustainable development.

46. The objective, purpose and jurisdiction of Tribunal in the matter of environment has been considered by Supreme Court recently when an issue, whether Tribunal has power to take suo-moto cognizance of a matter where there is damage or degradation to environment, was raised.

47. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 12122-12123 of 2018 connected with other appeals, decided vide judgment dated 07.10.2021, a three judges' bench of Supreme Court examined the question "whether NGT has power to exercise suo-moto jurisdiction". It was argued that NGT did not have power to initiate suo-moto proceedings. The grounds raised in support of the above contention, as formulated by Supreme Court, founded on the arguments, were (i) NGT is a creature of the statute and just like other statutory Tribunals, NGT is also bound within statutory confines, (ii) NGT Act is applicable to "disputes" as necessarily referring to a lis between two parties and (iii) lack of general power of judicial review shows legislative intent to curb suo-moto powers.

48. Dealing with above arguments and the grounds, Supreme Court examined the matter from various angles i.e. the backdrop of constitution of National Green Tribunal, preamble & statement of objects and reasons of NGT Act 2010, purposive interpretation, features of NGT Act 2010, non-adjudicatory roles of NGT, uniqueness of NGT vis-à-vis other Tribunals, need of NGT to exercise suo-moto powers, sui generis role of NGT, authority with self-activating capability, precautionary principle, environmental justice and environmental equity and environmental jurisprudence in India. We may summarize observations made by Supreme Court under the above-mentioned heads as under:

i) NGT was conceived as a complimentary specialized forum to deal with all environmental multidisciplinary issues, both as original and also as an appellate authority, which complex issues were hitherto dealt with by the High Courts and Supreme Court.

ii) NGT was intended to be the competent forum for dealing with environmental issues instead of those being canvassed under the writ jurisdiction of the Courts.

iii) Creation of NGT would allow Supreme Court and High Courts to avoid intervening under their inherent jurisdiction when an alternative efficacious remedy would become available before the specialized forum.

iv) The power of judicial review was omitted to ensure avoidance of High Courts' interference with Tribunal's orders by way of a mid-way scrutiny by High Courts, before matters would travel to Supreme Court where NGT's orders can be challenged.

v) The mandate and jurisdiction of NGT is conceived to be of the widest amplitude and it is in the nature of a sui generis forum.

vi) Unlike Civil Courts which cannot travel beyond the relief sought by the parties, NGT is conferred with power of moulding any relief. The provisions show that NGT is vested with the widest power to appropriate relief as may be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case, even though such relief may not be specifically prayed for by the parties.

vii) Myriad roles are to be discharged by NGT, as was encapsulated in the Law Commission Report, the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons.

viii) Parliament intended to confer wide jurisdiction on NGT so that it can deal with the multitude of issues relating to the environment which were being dealt with by High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or by Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.

ix) The activities of NGT are not only geared towards the protection of environment but also to ensure that the developments do not cause serious and irreparable damage to ecology and the environment.

x) Concept of lis, would obviously be beyond the usual understanding in civil cases where there is a party (whether private or government) disturbing the environment and the other one (could be an individual, a body or the government itself), who has concern for the protection of environment.

xi) NGT is not just an adjudicatory body but has to perform wider functions in the nature of prevention, remedy and amelioration.

xii) In Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan vs. Union of India   (2012) 8 SCC 326, Court mandated transfer of all cases concerning the statutes mentioned in Schedule I of NGT Act to the specialized forum as otherwise there can be conflicts with the High Courts. Notably, some of those cases were originally registered suo-moto by the Courts.

xiii) As long as the sphere of action is not breached, NGT's powers must be understood to be of the widest amplitude.

xiv) In Mantri Techzone (P) Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation,  : (2019) 18 SCC 494, Court recognized that NGT is set up under the constitutional mandate in Entry 13 of List I in Schedule VII to enforce Article 21 with respect to the environment and in the context, Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement of environmental rights.

xv) In Rajeev Suri vs. DDA, Court said that in its own domain, as crystalized by the statute, the role of NGT is clearly discernible.

xvi) Referring to Andhra Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (Retd.) and Others   (1999) 2 SCC 718, Court said that role of NGT was not simply adjudicatory in the nature of a lis but to perform equally vital roles which are preventative, ameliorative or remedial in nature. The functional capacity of the NGT was intended to leverage wide powers to do full justice in its environmental mandate.

xvii) Statutory Tribunals were categorized to fall under four subheads; Administrative Tribunals under Article 323A; Tribunals under Article 323B; Specialized sector Tribunals and most prominently; Tribunals to safeguard rights under Article 21. As already noted, the duties of NGT brings it within the ambit of the fourth category, creating a compelling proposition for wielding much broader powers as delineated by the statute.

xviii) Referring to State of Meghalaya vs. All Dimasa Students Union  (2019)8 SCC 177, Court said that reflecting on the expanded role of NGT unlike other Tribunals, this Court so appositely observed that the forum has a duty to do justice while exercising "wide range of jurisdiction" and the "wide range of powers", given to it by the statute.

xix) NGT has been recognized as one of the most progressive Tribunals in the world.

xx) NGT being one of its own kind of forum, commends us to consider the concept of a sui generis role, for the institution.

xxi) Referring to DG NHAI vs. Aam Aadmi Lokmanch, Court repelled the argument for a restricted jurisdiction for NGT, and observed in paragraph 76 that powers conferred on NGT are both reflexive and preventive and the role of NGT was recognized in paragraph 77 as "an expert regulatory body", which can issue general directions also albeit within the statutory framework.

xxii) NGT was conceived as a specialized forum not only as a like substitute for a civil court but more importantly to take over all the environment related cases from High Courts and Supreme Court.

xxiii) Given the multifarious role envisaged for NGT and the purposive interpretation which ought to be given to the statutory provisions, it would be fitting to regard NGT as having the mechanism to set in motion all necessary functions within its domain and this, as would follow from the discussion below, should necessarily clothe it with the authority to take suo-motu cognizance of matters, for effective discharge of its mandate.

xxiv) Section 14(1) of NGT Act deals with jurisdiction, and the jurisdictional provision conspicuously omits to specify that an application is necessary to trigger NGT into action. In situations where the three prerequisites of Section 14(1) i.e., Civil cases; involvement of substantial question of environment; and implementation of the enactments in Schedule I are satisfied, the jurisdiction and power of NGT gets activated. On these material aspects, NGT is not required to be triggered into action by an aggrieved or interested party alone. It would therefore be logical to conclude that the exercise of power by NGT is not circumscribed by receipt of application.

xxv) Section 14(1) exists as a standalone feature, not constricted by the operational mechanism of the subsequent sub-sections. The sub-section (2) of Section 14 functions as a corollary and comes into play when a dispute arises from the questions referred to in Section 14(1). Likewise sub-Section (3) thereafter, refers to the period of limitation concerning applications, when they are addressed to the NGT. Where adjudication is involved, the adjudicatory function under Section 14(2) comes into play.

xxvi) When it is a case warranting NGT's intervention, or may be a situation calling for decisions to meet certain exigencies, the functions under Section 14(1) can be undertaken and those may not involve any formal application or an adjudicatory process. However, the later provisions may not work in similar fashion. Therefore, care must be taken to ensure unrestricted discharge of the responsibilities under Section 14(1) and that wide arena of NGT's functioning.

xxvii) The other pertinent provisions relating to, inter-alia, jurisdiction, interim orders, payment of compensation and review, do not require any application or appeal, for NGT to pass necessary orders. These crucial powers are expected to be exercised by NGT, would logically suggest that the action/orders of NGT need not always involve any application or appeal. To hold otherwise would not only reduce its effectiveness but would also defeat the legal mandate given to the forum.

xxviii) To be effective in its domain, we need to ascribe to NGT a public responsibility to initiate action when required, to protect the substantive right of a clean environment and the procedural law should not be obstructive in its application.

xxix) It is not only a matter of rhetoric that the Tribunal is to remain ever vigilant, but an important legal onus is cast upon it to act with promptitude to deal with environmental exigencies. The responsibility is not just to resolve legal ambiguities but to arrive at a reasoned and fair result for environmental problems which are adversarial as well as non-adversarial.

xxx) It would thus be appropriate to state that much of the principles, institutions and mechanisms in this sphere have been created, on account of this Court's initiative.

xxxi) Supreme Court adopted the role of an "amicus environment" by threading together human rights and environmental concerns, resultingly developing a sui generis environmental discourse.

xxxii) NGT is the institutionalization of the developments made by Supreme Court in the field of environment law. These progressive steps have allowed it to inherit a very broad conception of environmental concerns. Its functions, therefore, must not be viewed in a cribbed manner, which detracts from the progress already made in the Indian environmental jurisprudence.

xxxiii) NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks on its door. The forum itself has correctly identified the need for collective stratagem for addressing environmental concerns.

xxxiv) NGT must act, if the exigencies so demand, without indefinitely waiting for the metaphorical Godot to knock on its portal.

49. To attract Section 14 however, the cause of action should essentially have nexus when the matters relating to environment and raise a substantial question of environment relating to implementation of the statues specified in Schedule I of NGT Act, 2010. The cause of action might arise during chain of events in establishment of a project but would not be construed as a cause of action under Section 14 unless it has a direct nexus to environment or gives right to a substantial environmental dispute. Further, cause of action has to be completed.

50. This Tribunal while considering Section 14 in O.A. No. 222/2014, The Forward Foundation & Others vs. State of Karnataka & Others, vide judgment dated 07.05.2015, in para 24, observed,

"24...... For a dispute to culminate into a cause of action, actionable under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, it has to be a 'composite cause of action' meaning that, it must combine all the ingredients spelled out under Section 14(1) and (2) of the NGT Act, 2010. It must satisfy all the legal requirements i.e. there must be a dispute. There should be a substantial question relating to environment or enforcement of any legal right relating to environment and such question should arise out of the implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule I. Action before the Tribunal must be taken within the prescribed period of limitation triggering from the date when all such ingredients are satisfied along with other legal requirements. Accrual of 'cause of action' as afore-stated would have to be considered as to when it first arose."

51. This Tribunal in Forward Foundation (supra) further considered the term 'continuing cause of action', 'recurring cause of action' or 'successive cause of action' and in para 25 to 32, said:

"25. In contradistinction to 'cause of action first arose', there could be 'continuing cause of action', 'recurring cause of action' or 'successive cause of action'. These diverse connotations with reference to cause of action are not synonymous. They certainly have a distinct and different meaning in law, 'Cause of action first arose' would refer to a definite point of time when requisite ingredients constituting that 'cause of action' were complete, providing applicant right to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court or the Tribunal. The 'Right to Sue' or 'right to take action' would be subsequent to an accrual of such right. The concept of continuing wrong which would be the foundation of continuous cause of action has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bal Krishna Savalram Pujari & Ors. v. Sh. Dayaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Ors.,  : AIR 1959 SC 798.

26. In the case of State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Anr.,   (1972) 2 SCC 890, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the provisions of Section 66 and 79 of the Mines Act, 1952. These provisions prescribed for a penalty to be imposed upon guilty, but provided that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under Act unless a complaint thereof has been made within six months from the date on which the offence is alleged to have been committed or within six months from the date on which the alleged commission of the offence came to the knowledge of the Inspector, whichever is later. The Explanation to the provision specifically provided that if the offence in question is a continuing offence, the period of limitation shall be computed with reference to every point of time during which the said offence continues. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"5. A continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from the one which is committed once and for all. It is one of those offences which arises out of a failure to obey or comply with a rule or its requirement and which involves a penalty, the liability for which continues until the rule or its requirement is obeyed or complied with. On every occasion that such disobedience or non-compliance occurs and recurs, there is the offence committed. The distinction between the two kinds of offences is between an act or omission which constitutes an offence once and for all and an act or omission which continues and therefore, constitutes a fresh offence every time or occasion on which it continues. In the case of a continuing offence, there is thus the ingredient of continuance of the offence which is absent in the case of an offence which takes place when an act or omission is committed once and for all."
27. Whenever a wrong or offence is committed and ingredients are satisfied and repeated, it evidently would be a case of 'continuing wrong or offence'. For instance, using the factory without registration and licence was an offence committed every time the premises were used as a factory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maya Rani Punj v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi,   (1986) 1 SCC 445, was considering, if not filing return within prescribed time and without reasonable cause, was a continuing wrong or not, the Court held that continued default is obviously on the footing that non-compliance with the obligation of making a return is an infraction as long as the default continued. The penalty is imposable as long as the default continues and as long as the assesse does not comply with the requirements of law he continues to be guilty of the infraction and exposes himself to the penalty provided by law. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mahavir Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Hb Leasing And Finances Co. Ltd.,   199 (2013) DLT 227, while explaining Section 22 of the Limitation Act took the view that in the case of a continuing breach, or of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues. Therefore, continuing the breach, act or wrong would culminate into the 'continuing cause of action' once all the ingredients are satisfied. Continuing cause of action thus, becomes relevant for even the determination of period of limitation with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case. The very essence of continuous cause of action is continuing source of injury which renders the doer of the act responsible and liable for consequence in law.

Thus, the expressions 'cause of action first arose', 'continuing cause of action' and 'recurring cause of action' are well accepted cannons of civil jurisprudence but they have to be understood and applied with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case. It is not possible to lay down with absolute certainty or exactitude, their definitions or limitations. They would have to be construed with reference to the facts and circumstances of a given case. These are generic concepts of civil law which are to be applied with acceptable variations in law. In light of the above discussed position of law, we may revert to the facts of the case in hand.

28. The settled position of law is that in law of limitation, it is only the injury alone that is relevant and not the consequences of the injury. If the wrongful act causes the injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue. In other words distinction must be made between continuance of legal injury and the continuance of its injurious effects. Where a wrongful act produces a state of affairs, every moment continuance of which is a new tort, a fresh cause of action for continuance lies. Wherever a suit is based on multiple cause of action, period of limitation will began to run from the date when the right to sue first accrues and successive violation of the right may not give rise to a fresh cause of action. [Ref: Khatri Hotels Private Limited and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr.,   (2011) 9 SCC 126, Bal Krishna Savalram Pujari & Ors. v. Sh. Dayaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan & Ors,   AIR 1959 SC 798, G.C. Sharma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi,   (1979) ILR 2 Delhi 771, Kuchibotha Kanakamma and Anr. v Tadepalli Ptanga Rao and Ors.,   AIR 1957 AP 419].

29. A cause of action which is complete in all respects gives the applicant a right to sue. An applicant has a right to bring an action upon a single cause of action while claiming different reliefs. Rule 14 of the National Green Tribunal (Practise and Procedure) Rules, 2011, shows the clear intent of the framers of the Rules that multiple reliefs can be claimed in an application provided they are consequential to one another and are based upon a single cause of action. Different causes of action, thus, may result in institution of different applications and therefore, there is exclusion of the concept of the 'joinder of causes of action' under the Rules of 2011. The multiple cause of action again would be of two kinds. One, which arise simultaneously and other, which arise at a different or successive point of time. In first kind, cause of action accrues at the time of completion of the wrong or injury. In latter, it may give rise to cause of action or if the statutes so provide when the 'cause of action first arose' even if the wrong was repeated. Where the injury or wrong is complete at different times and may be of similar and different nature, then every subsequent wrong depending upon the facts of the case may gives rise to a fresh cause of action.

To this general rule, there could be exceptions. In particular such exceptions could be carved out by the legislature itself. In a statute, where framers of law use the phraseology like 'cause of action first arose' in contradistinction to 'cause of action' simplicitor. Accrual of right to sue means accrual of cause of action for suit. The expressions 'when right to sue first arose' or 'cause of action first arose' connotes date when right to sue first accrued, although cause of action may have arisen even on subsequent occasions. Such expressions are noticed in Articles 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. We may illustrate this by giving an example with regard to the laws that we are dealing here. When an order granting or refusing Environmental Clearance is passed, right to bring an action accrues in favour of an aggrieved person. An aggrieved person may not challenge the order granting Environmental Clearance, however, if on subsequent event there is a breach or non-implementation of the terms and conditions of the Environmental Clearance order, it would give right to bring a fresh action and would be a complete and composite recurring cause of action providing a fresh period of limitation. It is also for the reason that the cause of action accruing from the breach of the conditions of the consent order is no way dependent upon the initial grant or refusal of the consent. Such an event would be a complete cause of action in itself giving rise to fresh right to sue. Thus, where the legislature specifically requires the action to be brought within the prescribed period of limitation computed from the date when the cause of action 'first arose', it would by necessary implication exclude the extension of limitation or fresh limitation being counted from every continuing wrong, so far, it relates to the same wrong or breach and necessarily not a recurring cause of action.

30. Now, we would deal with the concept of recurring cause of action. The word 'recurring' means, something happening again and again and not that which occurs only once. Such reoccurrence could be frequent or periodical. The recurring wrong could have new elements in addition to or in substitution of the first wrong or when 'cause of action first arose'. It could even have the same features but its reoccurrence is complete and composite. The recurring cause of action would not stand excluded by the expression 'cause of action first arose'. In some situation, it could even be a complete, distinct cause of action hardly having nexus to the first breach or wrong, thus, not inviting the implicit consequences of the expression 'cause of action first arose'. The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between continuing and recurring cause of action with some finesse in the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others,   (1995) 5 SCC 628, the Court held that:

"The appellant's grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that it the appellant's claim is found correct on merits. He would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant's claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc. would also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1.8.1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action.

The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant's claim as 'one time action' meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a Government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in accordance with rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind. (See Thota China Subba Rao and Ors. v. Mattapalli, Raju and Ors.   AIR (1950) F C1."

31. The Continuing cause of action would refer to the same act or transaction or series of such acts or transactions. The recurring cause of action would have an element of fresh cause which by itself would provide the applicant the right to sue. It may have even be de hors the first cause of action or the first wrong by which the right to sue accrues. Commission of breach or infringement may give recurring and fresh cause of action with each of such infringement like infringement of a trademark. Every rejection of a right in law could be termed as a recurring cause of action. [Ref: Ex. Sep. Roop Singh v. Union of India and Ors.,   2006 (91) DRJ 324, M/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited v. M/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another,   (1997) 1 SCC 99].

32. The principle that emerges from the above discussion is that the 'cause of action' satisfying the ingredients for an action which might arise subsequently to an earlier event give result in accrual of fresh right to sue and hence reckoning of fresh period of limitation. A recurring or continuous cause of action may give rise to a fresh cause of action resulting in fresh accrual of right to sue. In such cases, a subsequent wrong or injury would be independent of the first wrong or injury and a subsequent, composite and complete cause of action would not be hit by the expression 'cause of action first arose' as it is independent accrual of right to sue. In other words, a recurring cause of action is a distinct and completed occurrence made of a fact or blend of composite facts giving rise to a fresh legal injury, fresh right to sue and triggering a fresh lease of limitation. It would not materially alter the character of the preposition that it has a reference to an event which had occurred earlier and was a complete cause of action in itself. In that sense, recurring cause of action which is complete in itself and satisfies the requisite ingredients would trigger a fresh period of limitation. To such composite and complete cause of action that has arisen subsequently, the phraseology of the 'cause of action first arose' would not effect in computing the period of limitation. The concept of cause of action first arose must essentially relate to the same event or series of events which have a direct linkage and arise from the same event. To put it simply, it would be act or series of acts which arise from the same event, may be at different stages. This expression would not de bar a composite and complete cause of action that has arisen subsequently. To illustratively demonstrate, we may refer to the challenge to the grant of Environmental Clearance. When an appellant challenges the grant of Environmental Clearance, it cannot challenge its legality at one stage and its impacts at a subsequent stage. But, if the order granting Environmental Clearance is amended at a subsequent stage, then the appellant can challenge the subsequent amendments at a later stage, it being a complete and composite cause of action that has subsequently arisen and would not be hit by the concept of cause of action first arose."

52. The issue of limitation, which directly relates with the jurisdiction of Tribunal, is also to be examined in the light of different spheres of legal consequences covered by three basic provisions i.e., Sections 14, 15 and 16. As we have already said, Section 14 confers power to decide all civil cases where substantial question relating to environment is involved having arising out of implementation of Scheduled enactments. Section 15 gives power to Tribunal to grant relief, compensation and restitution. The power of relief and compensation under Section 15(a) is confined to the matters where the victim of pollution and environmental damage can be brought within the purview of enactments specified in Schedule I but Section 15(1)(b) and (1)(c) do not have any such restriction relating to enactments specified in Schedule 1. If there is a damage to environment, Tribunal has power to direct restitution of environment under Section 15(1)(c) and similar power for restitution of property damage is given under Section 15(1)(b).

53. In Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. vs. Forward Foundation and Ors.  (2019) 18 SCC 494, Supreme Court in para 42 of the judgment, said, "it is noteworthy that Section 15(1)(b) and (c) have not been made relatable to Section I enactments of the."

54. Having said so, Supreme Court further observed in Mantri Tech (supra) that Section 15(1)(c) is an entire island of power and jurisdiction read with Section 20 of NGT Act, 2010. Principles of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluters pay propounded by Supreme Court by way of several judicial pronouncements have been embedded as a bedrock of environmental jurisprudence under NGT Act 2010. Wherever environment and ecology are being compromised and jeo-paradised, Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of environment. Court also said, "The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be given a broader reading... The existence of the Tribunal without its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c) read with Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless, and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns."

55. Supreme Court, in Mantri Tech (supra), further said that Tribunal has a legal obligation to provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest of environment. In para 45 of the judgment, Court said:

"45. Section 15 of theprovides power & jurisdiction, independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3) juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. Sections 14 and 15 of the) independently. The limitation provided in Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and 15 as self contained jurisdictions."

56. In the backdrop of the above discussion when we go through the averments made in the application, we find that applicant has stated that respondent 1 sold/allotted various units plots, row houses in Kumar City Project to independent purchasers and applicant Housing Society was formed in 2006 and comprised of all the unit purchasers of Kumar City Project. Therefore, constructions and development undergone upto 2006 are already mentioned in OA but that has not been challenged in the present OA.

57. The grievance, basically follow building plan sanctioned on 08.01.2018 by PMC, copy whereof is annexure A8 to OA. It refers to an application dated 26.12.2011 submitted by Tukaram S. Mulik and others and referred to Sections 44, 45, 48 and 61 of Maharashtra Municipal Constitution Act, 1949 and Section 253 and 254 of Mumbai Provincial Municipalities Act, 1949. PMC granted Certificate of Commencement on certain terms and conditions mentioned in the said letter. The letter shows that type of construction proposed is commercial. The cause of action has commenced on and after 08.01.2018. The order of PMC cannot be challenged before Tribunal since no appeal is provided in NGT Act 2010 against such order but if an act of a local body and a PP is likely to damage or has damaged environment, Tribunal can intervene to check both and can pass any appropriate order for preservation and remediation of environment. Provincial legislations cannot prevail upon environmental laws enacted with reference to entry 13, list 1, Schedule VII of the Constitution.

58. The next complaint is regarding cutting of trees without prior permission of the competent authority in the month of April 2019. In support thereof, annexure A11 is filed stating that there was unauthorized cutting of 26 trees of Babul and one neem. PMC has also filed a criminal case in respect of illegal cutting of trees. These allegations are supported by photographs and joint Committee report. PPs, in reply have simply denied though report of Committee is based on inspection where PPs through representatives were present.

59. The third complaint is about illegal channelization and placing concrete slab on natural storm water drain. In this regard, reference is made to proposed construction plan on Survey no. 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (part) vide proposal dated 27.12.2011 for revision/additional construction plan. PMC vide notice dated 02.01.2012 required proponent to comply certain objections as under:

"1. Comply with the terms referred in Commencement Certificate No. 4084 dt. 22/03/2002.

2. It is necessary to verify as to how much Construction is carried out and in what manner the changes are required and therefore you are required to remain personally present on site.

3. File Tax Clearance Certificate till 23/03/2012

4. The Signatures of Land Owners/PAH and Licensed Architect are required on the proposed Plan.

5. Personal Clarification about the changes to be done in the Plans.

6. From the perusal of the proposal/plans we are unable to find out as to what purpose Proposal for Revision/Additional Construction Plans is filed.

7. The Plans are not colored as per the Rules.

8. Clarification about the Court Case filed by the Society.

9. Clarification about the Construction Carried out on Nala."

60. The above notice issued by PMC shows that construction on nala came to its notice in 2010 and clarification was sought from PPs. No order is shown to have been passed by PMC pursuant to this notice. As per applicant, PMC approved revised building plan and issued commencement certificate in 2018. Thus, a completed cause of action for the first time arose on 08.01.2018. We find ourselves persuaded to take a view in favour of applicant.

61. Further, referring to above application and letter, it is stated by the applicant that respondents 1, 2 and 4 have (i) damaged natural storm water drain and should be directed to restitute and restore the same by removing built up slabs and dis-allowing use of additional space created for commercial unit; (ii) In para 13, it is said that in the last 10 to 15 years, respondents 1 and 2 have developed various big projects like Kumar Kruti, Saffronia, Cerebrum (6 Commercial Buildings of LB+UB+P+11) in the larger land the said projects were developed without taking prior EC; (iii) matter is pending before SEAC-III Maharashtra; Respondent-proponent has also applied for EC in respect of some other proposed multi-storied residential buildings which is also pending before SEAC-III Maharashtra for sanction and in this regard, reference is made to agenda for 65th meeting on SEAC-III dated 31.05.2018; and ignoring the fact that prior EC was necessary, respondent 4 i.e., PMC granted permission for further construction vide letter dated 08.01.2018 which is in violation of EIA 2006, since no prior EC was granted.

62. It is also evident from record that by the time OA was filed, no EC was granted to PPs and the same was granted only during pendency of the matter before Tribunal i.e., on 13.12.2019. Considering entire matter in the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the OA in question as such cannot be said to be barred by limitation.

63. We may also observe that besides what has been complained by applicant, facts which have come before us pursuant to joint Committee Report as also other pleadings show that there are a large number of violations in respect of environmental laws and norms, damaging the environment and that being so, we are well within our jurisdiction to look into those aspects also, subject of course, to the limitation that direction, order or relief as the case may be, would not cover the period prior to the period of limitation, provided in Section 14 and 15 of NGT Act, 2010.

64. We, therefore, answer ISSUE I in negative, against PPs and in favour of applicant.

ISSUE II - Relating to multiplicity of litigation:

65. This objection refers to regular suit filed by PP with regard to change of use of amenity plot and PPs filed suit challenging notice of PMC with regard to construction over nalla (storm water drain) which is pending and an interim order against demolition is operating having been passed by the Court of District Judge on 24.02.2011 where by demolition of slab over nalla by PMC, pursuant to notice dated 03.07.2008, has been stayed till disposal of the suit. It is also complained by PP that several complaints/representations were made to different authorities like PMC and like PCBs etc. Suffice to say that none of these proceedings bar jurisdiction of this Tribunal when a complaint of degradation/damage to environment or violation of environmental laws adversely affecting environment is brought before it. In fact, this is the statutory obligation of Tribunal to consider and adjudicate such complaint whenever brought before it. This is also evident from the law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha (supra). So far as the suit of PPs is concerned, it is not disputed that applicant is not party to the said proceedings since notice issued by PMC with regard to demolition of slab laid on nalla was challenged in the said suit. The issue relating to environment is not raised in the said proceedings. If any alteration or change including concrete coverage of natural storm water drain affect environment, it is an issue requiring adjudication by Tribunal. In fact, in such a matter, jurisdiction of civil court is barred by Section 29 of NGT Act 2010 which reads as under:

"29. (1) With effect from the date of establishment of the Tribunal under this Act, no civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any appeal in respect of any matter, which the Tribunal is empowered to determine under its appellate jurisdiction.

(2) No civil court shall have jurisdiction to settle dispute or entertain any question relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, and no injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by or before the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of such dispute or any such claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged shall be granted by the civil court."

66. Further, order of PMC or any other local authority which does not fall within the ambit of Section 16 of NGT Act 2010, there against Tribunal would not hear any appeal but if any action of a proponent or local body or anybody else affects environment, Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass requisite orders for restitution etc. and also can command the appropriate authority to take remedial action or action for compliance of the order of Tribunal. No order of injunction etc. of civil court will come in the way. In fact, the matters within the jurisdiction of Tribunal if adjudicated, and any order or direction or award is given by it, it is executable as per the procedure under Section 25 of NGT Act 2010 and any non-compliance or failure to comply with Tribunal's order is an offence punishable under Section 26 of NGT Act 2010. Hence, plea of multiplicity of litigation is absolutely misconceived, shallow and has no substance which is accordingly rejected. Issue II is answered against PPs.

Issue III - Relating to the violation of environmental laws/norms equally:

67. This aspect needs to be examined in the light of statutory enactments regulating environment. The relevant statutory laws relating to environment applicable to construction projects are Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981 and EP Act 1986. If any person is discharging effluent in water or air which is likely to cause pollution or may affect environment and/or causing or likely to cause pollution to air during execution of project/construction activities, the provisions under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981 provides that before doing so, consent has to be obtained from respective State PCBs. In this regard, we may deal with the requisite provisions later whenever require. Coming to EP Act 1986, the relevant provisions, we find, are under Environment Impact Assessment Proceedings covered by EIA 1994 and EIA 2006. For the present case, EIA notifications dated 27.01.1994 and EIA 2006 are relevant, hence, we find it appropriate to have a bird eye view of the same.

EP Act, 1986:

68. Section 3(1) of EP Act, 1986 read with Section 2(v), confer power upon Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting and improving quality of environment and preventing, controlling and abating environmental pollution. Sub-section (2) of Section (3) refers to certain specific subject matters in addition to general power conferred by sub-section 1.

69. Central Government has issued various orders and directions in exercise of powers under section 3. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 356, it has been held that such directions are binding on all persons concerned.

70. EP Rules, 1986 have been framed in exercise of power under Sections 6 and 25 of EP Act, 1986. Rule 4 thereof, states that any direction issued under Section 5 shall be in writing. Rule 5 contemplates certain factors to be taken into consideration by Central Government while exercising power for prohibition/restriction on the location of industries and/or carrying on processes and operations in different areas and these factors are detailed in clause (i) to (x) of Section 5(1). Procedure for issuing such directions imposing prohibition, restriction etc. is given in sub-section (2) of Section 5.

EIA 1994:

71. Exercising powers under Section 3(1)(2)(v) of EP Act, 1986, read with Rule 5(3)(d) of EP Rules 1986, MoEF issued notification dated 27.01.1994 on Environmental Impact Assessment of Development Projects (hereinafter referred to as 'EIA 1994'). It provided that expansion and modernization of any activity (if pollution load is to exceed the existing one) or a new project, listed in Schedule I of the said notification, shall not be undertaken in any part of India unless it has been accorded EC by Central Government in accordance with the procedure specified in the said Notification.

72. Process for making provisions, imposing restrictions and prohibition on expansion and modernization of any activity or a new project unless EC has been accorded, was initiated by the Government of India by publishing notification dated 28.01.1993 under Section 5(3)(a) of EP Rules 1986, inviting objections from the public within 60 days from the date of publication of the said notification in respect to the matters detailed therein. After considering objections received, final notification was issued on 27.01.1994.

73. Initially, in the Schedule I to EIA 1994, there were 30 projects/activities, which were required to obtain EC under EIA 1994.

74. In W.P. (C) No. 725/1994 with IA No. 20, 21, 1207, 1183, 1216 and 1251 in WP (C) No. 4677/1995, Supreme Court considered a news item published in Hindustan Times titled "And Quit Flows the Maily Yamuna" Vs. Central Pollution Control Board and Others and vide order dated 12.12.2003, Supreme Court observed that building constructions cause damage to environment and, therefore, such construction projects may be considered to be brought under EIA regime so that all such projects must take all the mitigating steps so as to safe environment of the area in which such a project was being constructed by the proponent. Consequently, MoEF issued notification dated 07.07.2004, making amendment in EIA 1994 and 'new construction projects' were placed in item no. 32 in the Schedule. The amendment notification says that new construction projects which were undertaken without obtaining clearance required under EIA 1994 and where construction work has not come up to the plinth level, shall require clearance under EIA 1994 w.e.f. 07.07.2004.

75. In order to complete the evolution of EIA 1994, we may mention here that it was amended by several notifications i.e., dated 04.05.1994, 10.04.1997, 27.01.2000, 13.12.2000, 01.08.2001, 21.11.2001, 13.06.2002, 28.02.2003, 07.05.2003, 04.08.2003, 22.09.2003 and 07.07.2004.

76. Para 2 of EIA 1994 talks of requirements and procedure for seeking EC of projects and reads as under:

"2) Requirements and procedure for seeking environmental clearance of projects:

I.(a) Any person who desires to undertake any new project in any part of India or the expansion or modernization of any existing industry or project listed in the Schedule-I shall submit an application to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi.

The application shall be made in the proforma specified in Schedule-II of this notification and shall be accompanied by a project report which shall, inter alia, include an Environmental Impact Assessment Report, Environment Management Plan and details of public hearing as specified in Schedule-IV prepared in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests from time to time. However, Public Hearing is not required in respect of

(i) small scale industrial undertakings located in (a) notified/designated industrial areas/industrial estates or (b) areas earmarked for industries under the jurisdiction of industrial development authorities;

(ii) widening and strengthening of highways;

(iii) mining projects (major minerals) with lease area up to 25 hectares,

(iv) units located in Export Processing Zones, Special Economic Zones

(v) modernisation of existing irrigation projects.

(vi) offshore exploration activities, beyond 10 kilometres from the nearest habituated village boundary, gaothans and ecologically sensitive areas such as, mangroves (with a minimum area of 1000 sq.m), corals, coral reefs, national parks, sanctuaries, reserve forests and breeding and spawning grounds of fish and other marine life;.

Provided further, that for pipeline projects, Environmental Impact Assessment report will not be required:

Provided further, that for pipeline and highway projects, public hearing shall be conducted in each district through which the pipeline or highway passes through:

(b) Cases rejected due to submission of insufficient or inadequate data and Plans may be reviewed as and when submitted with complete data and Plans. Submission of incomplete data or plans for the second time would itself be a sufficient reason for the Impact assessment Agency to reject the case summarily.

II. In case of the following site specific projects:

(a) mining;

(b) pit-head thermal power stations;

(c) hydro-power, major irrigation projects and/or their combination including flood control;

(d) ports and harbours (excluding minor ports);

(e) prospecting and exploration of major minerals in areas above 500 hectares;

(f) greenfield airports, petrochemical complexes and refineries.

The project authorities will intimate the location of the project site to the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests while initiating any investigation and surveys. The Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests will convey a decision regarding suitability or otherwise of the proposed site within a maximum period of thirty days. The said site clearance shall be granted for a sanctioned capacity and shall be valid for a period of five years for commencing the construction, operation or mining

III. (a) The reports submitted with the application shall be evaluated and assessed by the Impact Assessment Agency, and if deemed necessary it may consult a committee of Experts, having a composition as specified in Schedule-III of this Notification. The Impact Assessment Agency (IAA) would be the Union Ministry of Environment and Forests. The Committee of Experts mentioned above shall be constituted by the Impact Assessment Agency or such other body under the Central Government authorised by the Impact Assessment Agency in this regard.

(b) The said Committee of Experts shall have full right of entry and inspection of the site or, as the case may be, factory premises at any time prior to, during or after the commencement of the operations relating to the project.

(c) The Impact Assessment Agency shall prepare a set of recommendations based on technical assessment of documents and data, furnished by the project authorities supplemented by data collected during visits to sites or factories, if undertaken and details of the public hearing.

The assessment shall be completed within a period of ninety days from receipt of the requisite documents and data from the project authorities and completion of public hearing and decision conveyed within thirty days thereafter.

The clearance granted shall be valid for a period of five years for commencement of the construction or operation of the project.

No construction work, preliminary or otherwise, relating to the setting up of the project may be undertaken till the environmental and site clearance is obtained.

IV. In order to enable the Impact Assessment Agency to monitor effectively the implementation of the recommendations and conditions subject to which the environmental clearance has been given, the project authorities concerned shall submit a half yearly report to the Impact Assessment Agency. Subject to the public interest, the Impact Assessment Agency shall make compliance reports publicly available.

V. If no comments from the Impact Assessment Agency are received within the time limit, the project would be deemed to have been approved as proposed by project authorities."

77. In Schedule I, which contains list of projects requiring EC from Central Government, Item 32 relates to 'new construction projects'. Para 3 provides the cases in which EIA 1994 provisions would not apply and reads as under:

"3. Nothing contained in this Notification shall apply to:

(a) any item falling under entry Nos. 3 *18*20* 31*and 32* of the Schedule-I to be located or proposed to be located in the areas covered by the Notifications S.O. No. 102 (E) dated 1st February, 1989, S.O. 114 (E) dated 20th February, 1991; *S.O. No. 416 (E) :   dated 20th June, 1991* and S.O. No. 319 (E) :  dated 7th May, 1992.

(b) any item falling under entry Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19,* 21*, 25 and 27 of Schedule-I if the investment is less than Rs. 100 crores for new projects and less than Rs. 50 crores for expansion/modernization projects;

(c) any item reserved for Small Scale Industrial Sector with investment less than Rs. 1 crore.

(d) defence related road construction projects in border areas.

(e) any item falling under entry No. 8 of Schedule I, if that product is covered by the notification G.S.R. 1037(E) :  dated 5th December 1989.

(f) Modernisation projects in irrigation sector if additional command area is less than 10,000 hectares or project cost is less than Rs. 100 crores.:

(g) any construction project falling under entry 31 of Schedule-I including new townships, industrial townships, settlement colonies, commercial complexes, hotel complexes, hospitals and office complexes for 1000 (one thousand) persons or below or with an investment of Rs. 50,00,00,000/- (Rupees fifty crores) or below.

(h) any industrial estate falling under entry 32 of Schedule-I including industrial estates accommodating industrial units in an area of 50 hectares or below but excluding the industrial estates irrespective of area if their pollution potential is high.

Explanation.-

(i) New construction projects which were undertaken without obtaining the clearance required under this notification and where construction work has not come up to the plinth level shall require clearance under this notification with effect from the 7th day of July, 2004.

(ii) In the case of new Industrial Estates which were undertaken without obtaining the clearance required under this notification, and where the construction work has not commenced or the expenditure does not exceed 25% of the total sanctioned cost, shall require clearance under this notification with effect from the 7th day of July, 2004.

(iii) Any project proponent intending to implement the proposed project under sub-paras (g) and (h) in a phased manner or in modules, shall be required to submit the details of the entire project covering all phases or modules for appraisal under this notification."

78. Para 4 says that if any information is found false etc., the decision or recommendation if any, would be rejected and if approval granted, would be revoked.

EIA 2006 Notification dated 14.09.2006

79. MoEF felt that EIA 1994 needs a complete overhauling. Consequently, in exercise of powers under Rule 5(3) of EP Rules, 1986, a draft notification was published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated 15.09.2005, inviting objections and suggestions from all persons likely to be affected thereby, within a period of 60 days from the date on which copies of gazette containing draft notifications were made available to the public. The said draft notification contains provisions for imposing certain restrictions and prohibition on new projects or activities or on the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities based on their potential environmental impacts as indicated in the schedule to the draft notification, being undertaken in any part of India, unless prior EC has been accorded.

80. Copies of draft notification were made available to the public on 15.09.2005. After considering objections and suggestions received in response to the above draft notification, by the Government of India, notification dated 14.09.2006 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3(1) and (2) (v) of EP Act, 1986 read with rule 5(3)(d) of EP Rules, 1986, in supersession of EIA 1994, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such supersession.

81. Preamble of notification dated 14.09.2006 says that Central Government hereby directs that on and from the date of publication of the notification, the required construction of any projects or activities or the expansion or modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to the notification dated 14.09.2006 entailing capacity addition with change in process and or technology, shall be undertaken in any part of India only after obtaining prior EC from Central Government or as the case may be, by State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority, duly constituted by Central Government under section 3(3) of EP Act, 1986, in accordance with the procedure specified in the notification dated 14.09.2006. There were some typing mistakes in EIA 2006, as initially published, hence a corrigendum was issued vide notification dated 13.11.2006 and we have read EIA 2006, here at, as corrected by the said corrigendum.

82. Para 2 of EIA 2006 imposes condition of requirement of prior EC and reads as under:

"2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, before any construction work, or preparation of land by the project management except for securing the land, is started on the project or activity:

(i) All new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification;

(ii) Expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification with addition of capacity beyond the limits specified for the concerned sector, that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule, after expansion or modernization;

(iii) Any change in product-mix in an existing manufacturing unit included in Schedule beyond the specified range."

83. Para 3 talks of constitution of State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA).

84. Para 4 of EIA 2006 categorizes projects and activities and reads as under:

"4. Categorization of projects and activities:

(i) All projects and activities are broadly categorized in to two categories - Category A and Category B, based on the spatial extent of potential impacts and potential impacts on human health and natural and manmade resources.

(ii) All projects or activities included as Category 'A' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities and change in product mix, shall require prior environmental clearance from the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) on the recommendations of an Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) to be constituted by the Central Government for the purposes of this notification;

(iii) All projects or activities included as Category 'B' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities as specified in sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2, or change in product mix as specified in sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2, but excluding those which fulfill the General Conditions (GC) stipulated in the Schedule, will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of a State or Union territory level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be constituted for in this notification. In the absence of a duly constituted SEIAA or SEAC, a Category 'B' project shall be treated as a Category 'A' project;"

85. Paras 5, 6 and 7 concerned with the procedure of grant of prior EC and read as under:

"5. Screening, Scoping and Appraisal Committees:

The same Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) at the Central Government and SEACs (hereinafter referred to as the (EAC) and (SEAC) at the State or the Union territory level shall screen, scope and appraise projects or activities in Category 'A' and Category 'B' respectively. EAC and SEAC's shall meet at least once every month.

(a) The composition of the EAC shall be as given in Appendix VI. The SEAC at the State or the Union territory level shall be constituted by the Central Government in consultation with the concerned State Government or the Union territory Administration with identical composition;

(b) The Central Government may, with the prior concurrence of the concerned State Governments or the Union territory Administrations, constitutes one SEAC for more than one State or Union territory for reasons of administrative convenience and cost;

(c) The EAC and SEAC shall be reconstituted after every three years;

(d) The authorised members of the EAC and SEAC, concerned, may inspect any site(s) connected with the project or activity in respect of which the prior environmental clearance is sought, for the purposes of screening or scoping or appraisal, with prior notice of at least seven days to the applicant, who shall provide necessary facilities for the inspection;

(e) The EAC and SEACs shall function on the principle of collective responsibility. The Chairperson shall endeavour to reach a consensus in each case, and if consensus cannot be reached, the view of the majority shall prevail.

6. Application for Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):

An application seeking prior environmental clearance in all cases shall be made in the prescribed Form 1 annexed herewith and Supplementary Form 1A, if applicable, as given in Appendix II, after the identification of prospective site(s) for the project and/or activities to which the application relates, before commencing any construction activity, or preparation of land, at the site by the applicant. The applicant shall furnish, along with the application, a copy of the pre-feasibility project report except that, in case of construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule) in addition to Form 1 and the Supplementary Form 1A, a copy of the conceptual plan shall be provided, instead of the pre-feasibility report.

7. Stages in the Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) Process for New Projects:

7(i) The environmental clearance process for new projects will comprise of a maximum of four stages, all of which may not apply to particular cases as set forth below in this notification. These four stages in sequential order are:

• Stage (1) Screening (Only for Category 'B' projects and activities)

• Stage (2) Scoping

• Stage (3) Public Consultation

• Stage (4) Appraisal

I. Stage (1) - Screening:

In case of Category 'B' projects or activities, this stage will entail the scrutiny of an application seeking prior environmental clearance made in Form 1 by the concerned State level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) for determining whether or not the project or activity requires further environmental studies for preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for its appraisal prior to the grant of environmental clearance depending up on the nature and location specificity of the project. The projects requiring an Environmental Impact Assessment report shall be termed Category 'B1' and remaining projects shall be termed Category 'B2' and will not require an Environment Impact Assessment report. For categorization of projects into B1 or B2 except item 8 (b), the Ministry of Environment and Forests shall issue appropriate guidelines from time to time.

II. Stage (2) - Scoping:

(i) "Scoping": refers to the process by which the Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category 'A' projects or activities, and State level Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category 'B1' projects or activities, including applications for expansion and/or modernization and/or change in product mix of existing projects or activities, determine detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (TOR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report in respect of the project or activity for which prior environmental clearance is sought. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall determine the Terms of Reference on the basis of the information furnished in the prescribed application Form 1/Form 1A including Terms of Reference proposed by the applicant, a site visit by a sub-group of Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned only if considered necessary by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, Terms of Reference suggested by the applicant if furnished and other information that may be available with the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. All projects and activities listed as Category 'B' in Item 8 of the Schedule (Construction/Township/Commercial Complexes/Housing) shall not require Scoping and will be appraised on the basis of Form 1/Form 1A and the conceptual plan.

(ii) The Terms of Reference (TOR) shall be conveyed to the applicant by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee as concerned within sixty days of the receipt of Form 1. In the case of Category, A Hydroelectric projects Item 1(c) (i) of the Schedule the Terms of Reference shall be conveyed along with the clearance for preconstruction activities. If the Terms of Reference are not finalized and conveyed to the applicant within sixty days of the receipt of Form 1, the Terms of Reference suggested by the applicant shall be deemed as the final Terms of Reference approved for the EIA studies. The approved Terms of Reference shall be displayed on the website of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the concerned State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority.

(iii) Applications for prior environmental clearance may be rejected by the regulatory authority concerned on the recommendation of the EAC or SEAC concerned at this stage itself. In case of such rejection, the decision together with reasons for the same shall be communicated to the applicant in writing within sixty days of the receipt of the application.

III. Stage (3) - Public Consultation:

(i) "Public Consultation" refers to the process by which the concerns of local affected persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impacts of the project or activity are ascertained with a view to taking into account all the material concerns in the project or activity design as appropriate. All Category 'A' and Category B1 projects or activities shall undertake Public Consultation, except the following:

(a) modernization of irrigation projects (item 1(c) (ii) of the Schedule)

(b) all projects or activities located within industrial estates or parks (item 7(c) of the Schedule) approved by the concerned authorities, and which are not disallowed in such approvals.

(c) expansion of Roads and Highways (item 7 (f) of the Schedule) which do not involve any further acquisition of land.

(d) all Building/Construction projects/Area Development projects and Townships (item 8).

e) all Category 'B2' projects and activities.

f) all projects or activities concerning national defence and security or involving other strategic considerations as determined by the Central Government.

(ii) The Public Consultation shall ordinarily have two components comprising of:

(a) a public hearing at the site or in its close proximity-district wise, to be carried out in the manner prescribed in Appendix IV, for ascertaining concerns of local affected persons;

(b) obtain responses in writing from other concerned persons having a plausible stake in the environmental aspects of the project or activity.

(iii) the public hearing at, or in close proximity to, the site(s) in all cases shall be conducted by the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or the Union territory Pollution Control Committee (UTPCC) concerned in the specified manner and forward the proceedings to the regulatory authority concerned within 45 (forty five) of a request to the effect from the applicant.

(iv) in case the State Pollution Control Board or the Union territory Pollution Control Committee concerned does not undertake and complete the public hearing within the specified period, and/or does not convey the proceedings of the public hearing within the prescribed period directly to the regulatory authority concerned as above, the regulatory authority shall engage another public agency or authority which is not subordinate to the regulatory authority, to complete the process within a further period of forty five days,.

(v) If the public agency or authority nominated under the sub paragraph (iii) above reports to the regulatory authority concerned that owing to the local situation, it is not possible to conduct the public hearing in a manner which will enable the views of the concerned local persons to be freely expressed, it shall report the facts in detail to the concerned regulatory authority, which may, after due consideration of the report and other reliable information that it may have, decide that the public consultation in the case need not include the public hearing.

(vi) For obtaining responses in writing from other concerned persons having a plausible stake in the environmental aspects of the project or activity, the concerned regulatory authority and the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) or the Union territory Pollution Control Committee (UTPCC) shall invite responses from such concerned persons by placing on their website the Summary EIA report prepared in the format given in Appendix IIIA by the applicant along with a copy of the application in the prescribed form, within seven days of the receipt of a written request for arranging the public hearing. Confidential information including non-disclosable or legally privileged information involving Intellectual Property Right, source specified in the application shall not be placed on the web site. The regulatory authority concerned may also use other appropriate media for ensuring wide publicity about the project or activity. The regulatory authority shall, however, make available on a written request from any concerned person the Draft EIA report for inspection at a notified place during normal office hours till the date of the public hearing. All the responses received as part of this public consultation process shall be forwarded to the applicant through the quickest available means.

(vii) After completion of the public consultation, the applicant shall address all the material environmental concerns expressed during this process, and make appropriate changes in the draft EIA and EMP. The final EIA report, so prepared, shall be submitted by the applicant to the concerned regulatory authority for appraisal. The applicant may alternatively submit a supplementary report to draft EIA and EMP addressing all the concerns expressed during the public consultation.

IV. Stage (4) - Appraisal:

(i) Appraisal means the detailed scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee of the application and other documents like the Final EIA report, outcome of the public consultations including public hearing proceedings, submitted by the applicant to the regulatory authority concerned for grant of environmental clearance. This appraisal shall be made by Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned in a transparent manner in a proceeding to which the applicant shall be invited for furnishing necessary clarifications in person or through an authorized representative. On conclusion of this proceeding, the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall make categorical recommendations to the regulatory authority concerned either for grant of prior environmental clearance on stipulated terms and conditions, or rejection of the application for prior environmental clearance, together with reasons for the same.

(ii) The appraisal of all projects or activities which are not required to undergo public consultation, or submit an Environment Impact Assessment report, shall be carried out on the basis of the prescribed application Form 1 and Form 1A as applicable, any other relevant validated information available and the site visit wherever the same is considered as necessary by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned.

(iii) The appraisal of an application shall be completed by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned within sixty days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment report and other documents or the receipt of Form 1 and Form 1 A, where public consultation is not necessary and the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee shall be placed before the competent authority for a final decision within the next fifteen days. The prescribed procedure for appraisal is given in Appendix V;

7(ii). Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) process for Expansion or Modernization or Change of product mix in existing projects:

All applications seeking prior environmental clearance for expansion with increase in the production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior environmental clearance has been granted under this notification or with increase in either lease area or production capacity in the case of mining projects or for the modernization of an existing unit with increase in the total production capacity beyond the threshold limit prescribed in the Schedule to this notification through change in process and or technology or involving a change in the product -mix shall be made in Form I and they shall be considered by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee within sixty days, who will decide on the due diligence necessary including preparation of EIA and public consultations and the application shall be appraised accordingly for grant of environmental clearance."

86. Para 8 talks of the final stage of grant or rejection of prior EC and reads as under:

"8. Grant or Rejection of Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):

(i) The regulatory authority shall consider the recommendations of the EAC or SEAC concerned and convey its decision to the applicant within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned or in other words within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the final Environment Impact Assessment Report, and where Environment Impact Assessment is not required, within one hundred and five days of the receipt of the complete application with requisite documents, except as provided below.

(ii) The regulatory authority shall normally accept the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. In cases where it disagrees with the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, the regulatory authority shall request reconsideration by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned within forty five days of the receipt of the recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned while stating the reasons for the disagreement. An intimation of this decision shall be simultaneously conveyed to the applicant. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, in turn, shall consider the observations of the regulatory authority and furnish its views on the same within a further period of sixty days. The decision of the regulatory authority after considering the views of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be final and conveyed to the applicant by the regulatory authority concerned within the next thirty days.

(iii) In the event that the decision of the regulatory authority is not communicated to the applicant within the period specified in sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) above, as applicable, the applicant may proceed as if the environment clearance sought for has been granted or denied by the regulatory authority in terms of the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned.

(iv) On expiry of the period specified for decision by the regulatory authority under paragraph (i) and (ii) above, as applicable, the decision of the regulatory authority, and the final recommendations of the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall be public documents.

(v) Clearances from other regulatory bodies or authorities shall not be required prior to receipt of applications for prior environmental clearance of projects or activities, or screening, or scoping, or appraisal, or decision by the regulatory authority concerned, unless any of these is sequentially dependent on such clearance either due to a requirement of law, or for necessary technical reasons.

(vi) Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice."

87. Para 9 deals with the validity of EC, i.e., the tenure etc. and reads as under:

"9. Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC):

The "Validity of Environmental Clearance" is meant the period from which a prior environmental clearance is granted by the regulatory authority, or may be presumed by the applicant to have been granted under sub paragraph (iv) of paragraph 7 above, to the start of production operations by the project or activity, or completion of all construction operations in case of construction projects (item 8 of the Schedule), to which the application for prior environmental clearance refers. The prior environmental clearance granted for a project or activity shall be valid for a period of ten years in the case of River Valley projects (item 1(c) of the Schedule), project life as estimated by Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee subject to a maximum of thirty years for mining projects and five years in the case of all other projects and activities. However, in the case of Area Development projects and Townships [item 8(b)], the validity period shall be limited only to such activities as may be the responsibility of the applicant as a developer. This period of validity may be extended by the regulatory authority concerned by a maximum period of five years provided an application is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant within the validity period, together with an updated Form 1, and Supplementary Form 1A, for Construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule). In this regard the regulatory authority may also consult the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee as the case may be."

88. Para 10 talks of monitoring of post EC stages and says:

"10. Post Environmental Clearance Monitoring:

(i) It shall be mandatory for the project management to submit half-yearly compliance reports in respect of the stipulated prior environmental clearance terms and conditions in hard and soft copies to the regulatory authority concerned, on 1st June and 1st December of each calendar year.

(ii) All such compliance reports submitted by the project management shall be public documents. Copies of the same shall be given to any person on application to the concerned regulatory authority. The latest such compliance report shall also be displayed on the web site of the concerned regulatory authority."

89. A prior EC granted to a project or activity is transferable, subject to certain conditions. This aspect is dealt with in para 11 as under:

"11. Transferability of Environmental Clearance (EC):

A prior environmental clearance granted for a specific project or activity to an applicant may be transferred during its validity to another legal person entitled to undertake the project or activity on application by the transferor, or by the transferee with a written "no objection" by the transferor, to, and by the regulatory authority concerned, on the same terms and conditions under which the prior environmental clearance was initially granted, and for the same validity period. No reference to the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned is necessary in such cases."

90. Para 12 is a transitional provision dealing with the pending cases under EIA 1994 and said:

"12. Operation of EIA Notification, 1994, till disposal of pending cases:

From the date of final publication of this notification the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) notification number S.O.60 (E) :   dated 27th January, 1994 is hereby superseded, except in supersession of the things done or omitted to be done before such supersession to the extent that in case of all or some types of applications made for prior environmental clearance and pending on the date of final publication of this notification, the Central Government may relax any one or all provisions of this notification except the list of the projects or activities requiring prior environmental clearance in Schedule, or continue operation of some or all provisions of the said notification, for a period not exceeding one year from the date of issue of this notification."

91. EIA 2006 further contains a Schedule and six Appendixes. Appendix I is a format of Form-1 and Appendix II is a format of Form-1A which are referred in para 6 of EIA 2006. These are the formats of application to be submitted by a proponent for grant of prior EC. Appendix III contains a chart giving generic structure of environmental impact assessment document with reference to para 7 and Appendix III A provides contents of summary environmental impact assessment and it is also in reference to para 7 of EIA 2006. Appendix III has 12 items comprising EIA structure and the contents thereof are also separately detailed as under:

"GENERIC STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT

S. NO.	EIA STRUCTURE	CONTENTS
1	Introduction	Purpose of the report Identification of project & project proponent Brief description of nature, size, location of the project and its importance to the country, region Scope of the study –  details  of regulatory scoping carried out (As per Terms of Reference)
2	Project Description	Condensed description of those aspects of the project (based on project feasibility study), likely to cause environmental effects.  Details  should
		be provided to give clear picture of the following: Type of project Need for the project Location (maps showing general location, specific location, project boundary & project site layout) Size or magnitude of operation (incl. Associated activities required by or for the project Proposed schedule for approval and implementation Technology and process description Project description. Including drawings showing project layout, components of project etc. Schematic representations of the feasibility drawings which give information important for EIA purpose Description of mitigation measures incorporated into the project to meet environmental                                   standards, environmental operating conditions, or other EIA requirements (as required by the scope) Assessment          of      New       &       untested technology for the risk of technological failure
3	Description          of         the Environment	Study area, period, components & methodology Establishment of baseline for valued environmental         components,           as identified in the scope Base maps of all environmental components
4	Anticipated Environmental Impacts & Mitigation Measures	Details of Investigated Environmental impacts due to project location, possible accidents, project design, project             construction,             regular operations, final decommissioning or rehabilitation of a completed project Measures for minimizing and/or offsetting adverse impacts identified Irreversible                and               Irretrievable commitments              of            environmental components Assessment of significance of impacts (Criteria for determining significance, Assigning significance)
		Mitigation measures
5	Analysis      of     Alternatives (Technology & Site)	In case, the scoping exercise results in need for alternatives: Description of each alternative Summary of adverse impacts of each alternative Mitigation measures proposed for each alternative and Selection of alternative
6	Environmental Monitoring Program	Technical aspects of monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation measures (incl. Measurement methodologies, frequency, location, data analysis, reporting schedules, emergency procedures,      detailed      budget      & procurement  schedules)
7	Additional Studies	Public Consultation Risk assessment Social Impact Assessment. R&R Action Plans
8	Project Benefits	Improvements            in         the          physical infrastructure Improvements              in           the            social infrastructure Employment potential –skilled; semi- skilled and unskilled Other tangible benefits
9	Environmental         Cost Benefit Analysis	If recommended at the Scoping stage
10	EMP	Description of the administrative aspects of ensuring that mitigative measures are implemented and their effectiveness monitored, after approval of the EIA
11	Summary & Conclusion (This will constitute the summary of the EIA Report)	Overall justification for implementation of the project Explanation of how, adverse effects have been mitigated
12	Disclosure                          of Consultants engaged	The      names       of       the      Consultants engaged with their brief resume and nature of Consultancy rendered

92. Summary of environmental impact assessment should contain details given in Appendix III A of EIA report, on seven aspects, as under:

"1. Project Description

2. Description of the Environment

3. Anticipated Environmental impacts and mitigation measures

4. Environmental Monitoring Programme

5. Additional Studies

6. Project Benefits

7. Environment Management Plan"

93. Appendix IV, also with reference of para 7, provides procedure for conduct of public hearing.

94. Appendix V, again with reference to para 7, provides procedure for appraisal of Environment Impact Assessment Report and other documents and talks of following steps:

"PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED FOR APPRAISAL

1. The applicant shall apply to the concerned regulatory authority through a simple communication enclosing the following documents where public consultations are mandatory:

• Final Environment Impact Assessment Report [20(twenty) hard copies and 1 (one) soft copy)]

• A copy of the video tape or CD of the public hearing proceedings

• A copy of final layout plan (20 copies)

• A copy of the project feasibility report (1 copy)

2. The Final EIA Report and the other relevant documents submitted by the applicant shall be scrutinized in office within 30 days from the date of its receipt by the concerned Regulatory Authority strictly with reference to the TOR and the inadequacies noted shall be communicated electronically or otherwise in a single set to the Members of the EAC/SEAC enclosing a copy each of the Final EIA Report including the public hearing proceedings and other public responses received along with a copy of Form -1 or Form 1A and scheduled date of the EAC/SEAC meeting for considering the proposal.

3. Where a public consultation is not mandatory, and therefore a formal EIA study is not required, the appraisal shall be made on the basis of the prescribed application Form 1 and a pre-feasibility report in the case of all projects and activities other than Item 8 of the Schedule. In the case of Item 8 of the Schedule, considering its unique project cycle, the EAC or SEAC concerned shall appraise all Category B projects or activities on the basis of Form 1, Form 1A and the conceptual plan and stipulate the conditions for environmental clearance. As and when the applicant submits the approved scheme/building plans complying with the stipulated environmental clearance conditions with all other necessary statutory approvals, the EAC/SEAC shall recommend the grant of environmental clearance to the competent authority."

4. Every application shall be placed before the EAC/SEAC and its appraisal completed within 60 days of its receipt with requisite documents/details in the prescribed manner.

5. The applicant shall be informed at least 15 (fifteen) days prior to the scheduled date of the EAC/SEAC meeting for considering the project proposal.

6. The minutes of the EAC/SEAC meeting shall be finalised within 5 working days of the meeting and displayed on the website of the concerned regulatory authority. In case the project or activity is recommended for grant of EC, then the minutes shall clearly list out the specific environmental safeguards and conditions. In case the recommendations are for rejection, the reasons for the same shall also be explicitly stated. "

95. Appendix VI with reference to paragraph 5 of EIA 2006 gives composition of sector/project specific Expert Appraisal Committee for category A projects and the State/UT Level Expert Appraisal Committees for category B projects to be constituted by Central Government. Schedule gives the list of projects or activities which would require prior EC and covers the following projects/activities:

"1. Mining, extraction of natural resources and power generation (for a specified production capacity)

1(a) Mining of minerals

1(b) Offshore and onshore oil and gas exploration, development

& production

1(c) River Valley projects

1(d) Thermal Power Plants

1(e) Nuclear power projects and processing of nuclear fuel

2. Primary processing

2(a) Coal washeries

2(b) Mineral beneficiation

3. Materials Production

3(a) Metallurgical industries (ferrous & non-ferrous)

3(b) Cement plants

4. Materials Processing

4(a) Petroleum refining industry

4(b) Coke oven plants

4(c) Asbestos milling and asbestos based products

4(d) Chlor-alkali industry

4(e) Soda ash industry

4(f) Leather/skin/hide processing industry

5. Manufacturing/Fabrication

5(a) Chemical fertilizers

5(b) Pesticides industry and pesticide specific intermediates (excluding formulations)

5(c) Petro-chemical complexes (industries based on processing of petroleum fractions & natural gas and/or reforming to aromatics)

5(d) Manmade fibres manufacturing

5(e) Petrochemical based processing (processes other than cracking & reformation and not covered under the complexes)

5(f) Synthetic organic chemicals industry (dyes & dye intermediates; bulk drugs and intermediates excluding drug formulations; synthetic rubbers; basic organic chemicals, other synthetic organic chemicals and chemical in termediates)

5(g) Distilleries

5(h) Integrated paint industry

5(i) Pulp & paper industry excluding manufacturing of paper from waste paper and manufacture of paper from ready pulp without bleaching

5(j) Sugar industry

5(k) Induction/arc furnaces/cupola furnaces 5TPH or more

6. Service Sectors

6(a) Oil & gas transportation pipeline (crude and refinery/petrochemical products), passing through national parks/sanctuaries/coral reefs/ecologically sensitive areas including LNG Terminal.

6(b) Isolated storage & handling of hazardous chemicals (As per threshold planning quantity indicated in column 3 of schedule 2 & 3 of MSIHC Rules 1989 amended 2000)

7. Physical Infrastructure including Environmental Services

7(a) Air ports

7(b) All ship breaking yards including ship breaking units

7(c) Industrial estate/parks/complexes/areas, export processing Zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), Biotech Parks, Leather Complexes.

7(d) Common hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs)

7(e) Forts, Harbours

7(f) Highways

7(g) Aerial ropeways

7(h) Common Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs)

7(i) Common Municipal Solid Waste Management Facility (CMSWMF)"

96. For the purpose of present case, we are concerned with item 8 which deals with building construction projects/area development projects and townships and it has two categories which we reproduce as under:

97. At the end of the schedule there is a note containing certain conditions as General Condition (GC) and Specific Condition (SC) but column (5) shows that these conditions have not been made applicable to the projects/activities covered under items 8(a) and 8(b). However, to make study of EIA Notification, 2006, complete, we may reproduce these conditions as under:

"Note:

General Condition (GC):

Any project or activity specified in Category 'B' will be treated as Category A, if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected Areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, (ii) Critically Polluted areas as identified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time, (iii) Notified Eco-sensitive areas, (iv) inter-State boundaries and international boundaries:

Specific Condition (SC):

If any Industrial Estate/Complex/Export processing Zones/Special Economic Zones/Biotech Parks/Leather Complex with homogeneous type of industries such as Items 4(d), 4(f), 5(e), 5(f), or those Industrial estates with pre-defined set of activities (not necessarily homogeneous, obtains prior environmental clearance, individual industries including proposed industrial housing within such estates/complexes will not be required to take prior environmental clearance, so long as the Terms and Conditions for the industrial estate/complex are complied with (Such estates/complexes must have a clearly identified management with the legal responsibility of ensuring adherence to the Terms and Conditions of prior environmental clearance, who may be held responsible for violation of the same throughout the life of the complex/estate)."

98. EIA 2006 as initially notified, qualified projects/activities covered under item 8(a) and 8(b) as category 'B' projects. The projects/activities under item 8b were clearly categorized as B1. The application for prior EC, if submitted for a project/activity under item 8 of Schedule of EIA 2006, para 6 of EIA 2006 requires that in addition to form 1 and supplementary form 1A, the proponent shall also submit a copy of conceptual plan instead of pre-feasibility report. Para 7(I) Stage (1) -Screening says that in category B projects/activities, environment Impact Assessment Report shall be prepared only for the projects/activities come under category B1 and category B2 projects will not require EIA report. Para 7(II) Stage (2) - Scoping (i) further says that scoping shall not be required for the projects/activities listed in category B in item 8 of the schedule of EIA 2006. In such cases, appraisal shall be on the basis of form 1/form 1A and conceptual plan. Para 7(III) Stage (3) - Public Consultation (i) also provides that public consultation shall not be required in respect to projects/activities under item 8 of the Schedule. Thus, in respect of the projects/activities under item 8 of the Schedule I to EIA 2006, a modified/simpler procedure was prescribed for consideration of application for grant of prior EC.

99. EIA 2006 has been amended for umpteen times and upto July 2021, there are more than 55 amendments in total but all are not relating to items 8(a) and 8(b) or to the various conditions stated in paras 1 to 12. Hence, we are referring hereinafter only such amendments whereby changes were made in para 1 to 12 or addition of paragraphs in EIA 2006 and/or in the Schedule, item 8 or any such amendment which is relevant for the project/activities under item 8, as under:

A. Notification dated 01.12.2009 published in Gazette of India extraordinary of the same date.

a) In para 3 of EIA 2006 sub-para (7) was substituted as under:

"(7) All decisions of the SEIAA shall be taken in a meeting and shall ordinarily be unanimous:

Provided that, in case a decision is taken by majority, the details of views, for and against it, shall be clearly recorded in the minutes and a copy thereof sent to MoEF."

b) In para 4, sub-para (iii) certain words and letters were changed and the amended provision reads as under:

"4(iii) All projects or activities included as Category 'B' in the Schedule, including expansion and modernization of existing projects or activities as specified in sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 2, or change in product mix as specified in sub paragraph (iii) of paragraph 2, but excluding those which fulfill the General Conditions (GC) stipulated in the Schedule, will require prior environmental clearance from the State/Union territory Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The SEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of a State or Union territory level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) as to be constituted for in this notification. In the absence of a duly constituted SEIAA and SEAC, a Category 'B' project shall be considered at the Central Level as a Category 'B' project."
c) In para 7(i) (III) relating to Stage (3) after sub-clause (c), the following was inserted:

"(cc) maintenance dredging provided the dredged material shall be disposed within port limits."
d) In para 7(i) (III) relating to Stage (3) sub-clause (d) was substituted as under:

"(d) All Building or Construction projects or Area Development projects (which do not contain any category 'A' projects and activities) and Townships (item 8(a) and 8(b) in the Schedule to the notification)."
e) In para 10 clause (i) was renumbered as (ii) and before such renumbered (ii), a sub-para (i)(a) and (b) was inserted as under:

"(i) (a) In respect of Category 'A' projects, it shall be mandatory for the project proponent to make public the environmental clearance granted for their project along with the environmental conditions and safeguards at their cost by prominently advertising it at least in two local newspapers of the district or State where the project is located and in addition, this shall also be displayed in the project proponent's website permanently. (b) In respect of Category 'B' projects, irrespective of its clearance by MoEF/SEIAA, the project proponent shall prominently advertise in the newspapers indicating that the project has been accorded environment clearance and the details of MoEF website where it is displayed. (c) The Ministry of Environment and Forests and the State/Union Territory Level Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities (SEIAAs), as the case may be, shall also place the environmental clearance in the public domain on Government portal. (d) The copies of the environmental clearance shall be submitted by the project proponents to the Heads of local bodies, Panchayats and Municipal Bodies in addition to the relevant offices of the Government who in turn has to display the same for 30 days from the date of receipt.";

(b) existing sub-para (ii) shall be renumbered as sub-para (iii)."

f) In the Schedule, General Condition was substituted as under:

"General Condition (GC):

Any project or activity specified in Category 'B' will be treated as Category A, if located in whole or in part within 10 km from the boundary of: (i) Protected areas notified under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; (ii) Critically polluted areas as identified by the Central Pollution Control Board from time to time; (iii) Eco-sensitive areas as notified under section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, such as, Mahabaleshwar Panchgani, Matheran, Pachmarhi, Dahanu, Doon Valley, and (iv) inter-State boundaries and international boundaries:

Provided that the requirement regarding distance of 10 km of the inter-State boundaries can be reduced or completely done away with by an agreement between the respective States or U.T.s sharing the common boundary in case the activity does not fall within 10 kilometres of the areas mentioned at item (i), (ii) and (iii) above."

g) Amendment was also made in Appendix I whereby in Form-1 item (I) relating to Basic Information, was substituted by a new format and in Appendix IV the procedure for conduct of public hearing was completely substituted.

h) In Appendix V, para 3 was substituted as under:

"3. Where a public consultation is not mandatory, the appraisal shall be made on the basis of the prescribed application Form 1 and EIA report, in the case of all projects and activities other than Item 8 of the Schedule. In the case of Item 8 of the Schedule, considering its unique project cycle, the EAC or SEAC concerned shall appraise all Category B projects or activities on the basis of Form 1, Form 1A and the conceptual plan and make recommendations on the project regarding grant of environmental clearance or otherwise and also stipulate the conditions for environmental clearance."
B. Notification dated 04.04.2011 published in Gazette of India extraordinary dated 06.04.2011:

a) Para 6 was amended by substituting certain words and amended para 6 reads as under:

"6. Application for Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):

An application seeking prior environmental clearance in all cases shall be made by the project proponent in the prescribed Form 1 annexed herewith and Supplementary Form 1A, if applicable, as given in Appendix II, after the identification of prospective site(s) for the project and/or activities to which the application relates, before commencing any construction activity, or preparation of land, at the site by the applicant. The applicant shall furnish, along with the application, a copy of the pre-feasibility project report except that, in case of construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule) in addition to Form 1 and the Supplementary Form 1A, a copy of the conceptual plan shall be provided, instead of the pre-feasibility report."

b) In para 7, sub-para II, Stage (2), clause (i) was amended by substituting certain words as under:

(i) "Scoping": refers to the process by which the Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category 'A' projects or activities, and State level Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category 'B1' projects or activities, including applications for expansion and/or modernization and/or change in product mix of existing projects or activities, determine detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (TOR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report in respect of the project or activity for which prior environmental clearance is sought. The Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall determine the Terms of Reference on the basis of the information furnished in the prescribed application Form 1/Form 1A including Terns of Reference proposed by the applicant, a site visit by a sub- group of Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned only if considered necessary by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, Terms of Reference suggested by the applicant if furnished and other information that may be available with the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned. All projects and activities listed as Category 'B' in item 8(a) of the schedule (building and construction projects) shall not require Scoping and will be appraised on the basis of Form 1/Form 1A and the conceptual plan."
c) In the schedule, item 8(a) column (5) the existing entry was substituted by the following:

"The built up area for the purpose of this Notification is defined as "the built up or covered area on all the floors put together including basement(s) and other service areas, which are proposed in the building/construction projects."
d) In Appendix V, para 3 was also substituted as under:

"3. Where a public consultation is not mandatory, the appraisal shall be made on the basis of prescribed application Form-1 and EIA report, in the case of all projects and activities other than item 8 of the schedule. In the case of item 8 of the schedule, considering its unique project cycle, the EAC or SEAC concerned shall appraise projects or activities on the basis of Form-1, Form-1A, conceptual plan and the EIA report [required only for projects listed under 8(b)] and make recommendations on the project regarding grant of environmental clearance or otherwise and also stipulate the conditions for environmental clearance."
C. Notification dated 19.07.2013 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) It inserted para 11 A as under:

"11A. Preparation and Presentation of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report and Environmental Management Plan (EMP).-

The Environmental consultant organization which are accredited for a particular sector or area and the category of project for that sector or area with the Quality Council of India (QCI) or National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET) or any other agency as may be notified by the Ministry of Environment and Forests from time to time shall be allowed to prepare the Environmental Impact Assessment report and Environmental Management Plan of a project in that sector and category and to appear before the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC)."

D. Notification dated 22.08.2013 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) In para 7 sub-paragraph II, item (i) of EIA 2006 was substituted as under:

"(i) "Scoping" refers to the process by which the Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category 'A' projects activities, and State level Expert Appraisal Committee in the case of Category 'B1' projects or activities, including applications for expansion or modernization or change in product mix of existing projects or activities, determine detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (TOR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report in respect of the project or activity for which prior environmental clearance is sought and the Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned shall determine the terms of reference on the basis of the information furnished in the prescribed application Form 1 or Form 1A including terms of reference proposed by the applicant, a site visit by a sub-group of Expert Appraisal Committee or State level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned only if considered necessary by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned, terms of Reference suggested by the applicant if furnished and other information that may be available with the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned:

Provided that the following shall not require Scoping-

(i) all projects and activities listed as Category 'B' in item 8 of the Schedule (Construction or Township or Commercial Complexes or Housing);

(ii) all Highway expansion projects covered under entry (ii) of column (3) and column (4) under sub-item (f) of item 7 of the Schedule:

Provided further that-

A. the projects and activities referred to in clause (i) shall be apprised on the basis of Form I or Form IA and the conceptual plan;

B. The projects referred to in clause (ii) shall prepare EIA and EMP report on the basis of model TOR specified by Ministry of Environment and Forests;"

E. Notification dated 26.02.2014 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Here in paragraph 7(II) item (i) which was already substituted vide the notification dated 22.08.2013, was again substituted as under:

"(i) all projects or activities listed under Category, 'B' against item 8(a) of the Schedule;"
F. Notification dated 25.06.2014 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) General conditions under the note after the Schedule in EIA 2006 was substituted as under:

"Any project or activity specified in category 'B' will be appraised at the Central level as Category 'A', if located in whole or in part within 5 km. from the boundary of:

(i) Protected areas notified under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972); (ii) Critically polluted areas as identified by the Central Pollution Control Board constituted under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (6 of 1974) from time to time; (iii) Eco-sensitive areas as notified under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and (iv) inter-State boundaries and international boundaries; provided that for River Valley Projects specified in item 1(c), Thermal Power Plants specified in item 1(d), Industrial estates/parks/complexes/areas, export processing zones (EPZs), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), biotech parks, leather complexes specified in item 7(c) and common hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) specified in item 7(d), the appraisal shall be made at Central level even if located within 10 km.

Provided further that the requirement regarding distance of 5 km or 10 km, as the case may be, of the inter-State boundaries can be reduced or completely done away with by an agreement between the respective States or the Union Territories sharing the common boundary in case the activity does not fall within 5 km or 10 km, as the case may be of the areas mentioned at item (i), (ii) and (iii) above."

G. Notification dated 22.12.2014 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Item 8 in the Schedule as existing in entirety was substituted as under:

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
“8		Building       or      Construction       projects      or      Area Development projects and Townships
8(a)	Building and Construction projects		>20,000     sq. mtrs               and <1,50,000   sq. mtrs of built up area	The term “built up area” for the purpose of this notification  the built up or covered area on all floors put together, including its basement  and   other   service areas, which are proposed in the building or construction projects. Note 1.- The projects or activities shall not include industrial shed, school, college, hostel for educational  institution,  but such buildings               shall               ensure sustainable                   environmental
				management, solid and liquid waste management, rain water harvesting and may use recycled materials such as fly ash bricks. Note 2.- “General Conditions” shall not apply.
8	Townships and Area Development Projects		Covering an area >50 ha and or built up area >1,50,000 sq. mrts	A project of Township and Area Development Projects covered under this item shall require an Environment Assessment  report and  be  appraised  as   Category ‘B1’ Project. Note.- “General Conditions” shall not apply.

b) Substantial amendment came to be made in EIA 2006 in the Schedule item 8 by the above notification whereby the term "built up area" was explained as built up or covered area on all floors put up together, including its basement and other service areas, which are proposed in the buildings or construction projects. However, it was clarified by note one that projects/activities shall not include industrial shed, school, college, hostel for educational institution but such buildings shall ensure sustainable environmental management, solid and liquid waste management, rain water harvesting and may use recycled material such as fly ash bricks. Inapplicability of general conditions was maintained in respect of item 8 of the Schedule of EIA 2006.

H. Notification dated 03.02.2015 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Amendment was made in para 7(i) as under:

"(a) in sub-paragraph II relating to Stage (2)-Scoping, in clause (i), in the first proviso, for item (ii) the following items shall be substituted, namely:

"(ii) all Highway projects in border States covered under entry (i) of column (3) and entry (i) of column (4) against item 7 (f) of the Schedule;

(iii) All Highway expansion projects covered under entry (ii) of column (3) and entry (ii) of column (4) against item 7 (f) of the Schedule;

(b) in sub-paragraph III relating to Stage (3)-Public Consultation, in clause (i), after sub-clause (f), the following sub-clause shall be inserted, namely:

"(g) all linear projects such as Highways, pipelines, etc., in border States."

I. Notification dated 23.03.2015 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Hereby existing paragraph 11 was renumbered as sub-paragraph (1) and sub-paragraph (2) was inserted which reads as under:

"(2) Where an allocation of coal block is cancelled in any legal proceeding; or by the Government in accordance with law, the environmental clearance granted in respect of such coal block may be transferred, subject to the same validity period as was initially granted, to any legal person to whom such block is subsequently allocated, and in such case, obtaining of "no objection" from either the holder of environment clearance or from the regulatory authority concerned shall not be necessary and no reference shall be made to the Expert Appraisal Committee or the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned."
J. Notification dated 10.04.2015 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) In paragraph 7 sub-paragraph (i), in sub-heading II clauses (i) and (ii) as existing were substituted and the existing clause (iii) was renumbered as clause (ii). The substituted clause (i) reads as under:

"(i) "Scoping" refers to the process to determine detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (TOR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Report in respect of the project or activity for which prior environmental clearance is sought. Standard TOR developed by the Ministry in consultation with the sector specific Expert Appraisal Committees shall be the deemed approved TOR for the projects or activities. The standard Terms of Reference are displayed on the website of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change"
K. Notification dated 29.04.2015 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 30.04.2015:

a) Hereby existing paragraph 9 was renumbered as sub-paragraph (i) with certain amendments of the words therein and the amended sub-paragraph (i) reads as under:

"(i) Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC):

The "Validity of Environmental Clearance" is meant the period from which a prior environmental clearance is granted by the regulatory authority, or may be presumed by the applicant to have been granted under sub paragraph (iv) of paragraph 7 above, to the start of production operations by the project or activity, or completion of all construction operations in case of construction projects (item 8 of the Schedule), to which the application for prior environmental clearance refers. The prior environmental clearance granted for a project or activity shall be valid for a period of ten years in the case of River Valley projects (item 1(c) of the Schedule), project life as estimated by Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee subject to a maximum of thirty years for mining projects and seven years in the case of all other projects and activities.

(Emphasis added)

b) Further, sub-paragraph (ii) was inserted as under:

"(ii) In the case of Area Development projects and Townships [item 8 (b), the validity period shall be limited only to such activities as may be the responsibility of the applicant as a developer:

Provided that this period of validity may be extended by the regulatory authority concerned by a maximum period of seven years if an application is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant within the validity period, together with an updated Form I, and Supplementary Form IA, for Construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule):

Provided further that the regulatory authority may also consult the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, as the case may be, for grant of such extension.

(iii) Where the application for extension under sub-paragraph (ii) has been filed-

(a) within one month after the validity period of EC, such cases shall be referred to concerned Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or State Level Expert Appraisal committee (SEAC) and based on their recommendations, the delay shall be condoned at the level of the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change or Member Secretary, SEIAA, as the case may be;

(b) more than one month after the validity period of EC but less than three months after such validity period, then, based on the recommendations of the EAC or the SEAC, the delay shall be condoned with the approval of the Minister in charge of Environment Forest and Climate Change or Chairman, as the case may be:"

L. Notification dated 31.08.2015 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 18.09.2015:

a) Herein in para 9(ii), in the first proviso, the words "period of 7 years" was substituted by the words "period of three years" and the amended proviso reads as under:

"Provided that this period of validity may be extended by the regulatory authority concerned by a maximum period of three years if an application is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant within the validity period, together with an updated Form I, and Supplementary Form IA, for Construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule):"

(Emphasis added)

M. Notification dated 14.09.2015 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 18.09.2015:

a) In para 7 sub-paragraph (III) relating to Stage (3)-Public Consultation, in clause (i), after sub-clause (g), sub-clause (h) was inserted as under:

"(h) all standalone palletization plants, which were in existence and in operation on or before the 27th day of May, 2014 and have valid consent to establish and consent to operate from the concerned State Pollution Control Board or the Union Territory Pollution Control Committee."
N. Notification dated 15.01.2016 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) This notification was issued to make amendments in the light of Supreme Court judgment in Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors.,   (2012) 4 SCC 629, wherein it was held that in the matter of mining, prior EC would be mandatory for mining of mineral minerals irrespective of the area of mining lease.

b) In paragraph 2, certain words were inserted and the amended paragraph of EIA 2006 reads as under:

"2. Requirements of prior Environmental Clearance (EC):- The following projects or activities shall require prior environmental clearance from the concerned regulatory authority, which shall hereinafter referred to be as the Central Government in the Ministry of Environment and Forests for matters falling under Category 'A' in the Schedule and at State level the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B' in the said Schedule, and at District level, the District Environment Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) for matters falling under Category 'B2' for mining of minor minerals in the said Schedule"

(Emphasis added)

c) In paragraph 3 of EIA 2006, para 3A was inserted and para 5 and 6 were substituted as under:

"3A. District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority:

(1) A District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority hereinafter referred to as the DEIAA shall be constituted by the Central Government under sub-section (3) of section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 comprising of four members including a Chairperson and a Member-Secretary.

(2) The District Magistrate or District Collector shall be the Chairperson of the DEIAA.

(3) The Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Sub-Divisional Officer of the district head quarter of the concerned district of the State shall be the Member-Secretary of the DEIAA.

(4) The other two members of the DEIAA shall be the senior most Divisional Forest Officer and one expert. The expert shall be nominated by the Divisional Commissioner of the Division or Chief Conservator of Forest, as the case may be. The term and qualifications of the expert fulfilling the eligibility criteria are given in Appendix VII to this notification.

(5) The members of the DEIAA who are serving officers of the concerned State Government or the Union territory Administration shall be ex-officio members except the expert member.

(6) The District Level Expert Appraisal Committee hereinafter referred to as the DEAC shall comprise of eleven members, including a Chairman and a Member-Secretary.

(7) The senior most Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department in the district of respective State Governments or Union territory Administration shall be the Chairperson of the DEAC.

(8) The Assistant Director or Deputy Director of the Department of Mines and Geology or District Mines Officer or Geologist of the district shall be the Member-Secretary of the DEAC in that order.

(9) A representative of the State Pollution Control Board or Committee, senior most Sub-Divisional Officer (Forest) in the district, representative of Remote Sensing Department or Geology Department or State Ground Water Department, one occupational health expert or Medical Officer to be nominated by the District Magistrate or District Collector, Engineer from Zila Parishad, and three expert members to be nominated by the Divisional Commissioner or Chief Conservator of Forest, as the case may be, shall be the other members of the DEAC. The term and qualifications of the experts fulfilling the eligibility criteria are given in Appendix VII to this notification.

(10) The members of the DEAC who are serving officers of the concerned State Government or the Union territory Administration shall be ex-officio members except the expert members.

(11) The District Magistrate or District Collector shall notify an agency to act as Secretariat for the DEIAA and the DEAC and shall provide all financial and logistic support for their statutory functions.

(12) The DEIAA and DEAC shall exercise the powers and follow the procedure as specified in the said notification, as amended from time to time.

(13) The DEAC shall function on the principle of collective responsibility and the Chairman shall endeavor to reach a consensus in each case and if consensus cannot be reached, the view of the majority shall prevail.";

d) In paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (iii), the following sub-paragraph shall be inserted, namely:

"(iv) The 'B2' Category projects pertaining to mining of minor mineral of lease area less than or equal to five hectare shall require prior environmental clearance from DEIAA. The DEIAA shall base its decision on the recommendations of DEAC, as constituted for this notification.";

e) For paragraph 5, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:

"5. Screening, Scoping and Appraisal Committees:

The same Expert Appraisal Committees (EACs) at the Central Government, SEACs at the State or Union territory level and DEAC at the district level shall screen, scope and appraise projects or activity in category 'A', 'B1 and B2' and 'B2' projects for mining of minor minerals of lease area less than and equal to five hectare respectively. EAC, SEACs and DEACs shall meet at least once every month.

(a) The composition of the EAC shall be as given in Appendix VI. The SEAC at the State or the Union territory level shall be constituted by the Central Government in consultation with the concerned State Government or the Union territory Administration with identical composition. DEAC at the district level shall be constituted by the Central Government as per the composition given in paragraph 3 A.

(b) The Central Government may with the prior concurrence of the concerned State Governments or the Union territory Administration constitute one SEAC for more than one State or Union territory for reasons of administrative convenience and cost.

(c) The EAC and SEAC shall be reconstituted after every three years.

(d) The authorised members of the EAC, SEACs and DEACs concerned, may inspect any site connected with the project or activity in respect of which the prior environmental clearance is sought for the purpose of screening or scoping or appraisal with prior notice of at least seven days to the project proponent who shall provide necessary facilities for the inspection.

(e) The EAC, SEACs and DEACs shall function on the principle of collective responsibility. The Chairperson shall endeavor to reach a consensus in each case and if consensus cannot be reached the view of the majority shall prevail.";

(e) for paragraph 6, the following paragraph shall be substituted, namely:

"6. Application for Prior Environmental Clearance (EC):-

An application seeking prior environmental clearance in all cases shall be made by the project proponent in the prescribed Form 1 annexed herewith and Supplementary Form 1A, if applicable, as given in Appendix II after the identification of prospective site (s) for the project and/or activities to which the application relates; and in Form 1M for mining of minor minerals up to five hectare under Category 'B2' projects, as given in Appendix VIII, before commencing any construction activity, or preparation of land, or mining at the site by the project proponent. The project proponent shall furnish along with the application, a copy of the pre-feasibility project report, in addition to Form 1, Form 1A, and Form 1M; and in case of construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule), a copy of the conceptual plan shall be provided instead of pre-feasibility report.";

f) In paragraph 7 under the heading "I. Stage (1)-Screening", the existing paragraph was renumbered as "(A)" and, thereafter, following paragraph (B) was inserted:

"(B) The cases as specified in Appendix IX shall be exempted from prior environmental clearance.";
g) In para 7(ii), the following sub-paragraph (iii) was inserted:

"7 (iii) Preparation of District Survey Report for Sand Mining or River Bed Mining and Mining of other Minor Minerals:

(a) The prescribed procedure for preparation of District Survey Report for sand mining or river bed mining and mining of other minor minerals is given in Appendix X.

(b) The prescribed procedure for environmental clearance for mining of minor minerals including cluster situation is given in Appendix XI.";"

h) In paragraph 8, 9 and 11, after the words EAC or SEAC or Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee, the words DEAC or District Level Expert Appraisal Committee were inserted so as to bring the same in conformity with this amended notification.

i) In paragraph 10, after sub-paragraph (iii), following sub-paragraph (iv) was inserted:

"(iv) The prescribed procedure for sand mining or river bed mining and monitoring is given in Appendix XII.";
j) In the appendix part of EIA 2006, Appendix VII, VIII, IX, X, XI and XII were inserted which relate to mining projects hence we are not giving further details thereof but suffice it to mention that with this notification, number of Appendices increased to XII instead of VI as earlier.

O. Notification dated 03.03.2016 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Here paragraph 13 was inserted in EIA 2006 which reads as under:

"13. Preparation and presentation of Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report and Environment Management Plan (EMP).- The Environmental consultant organisations which are accredited for a particular sector and the category of project for that sector with the Quality Council of India (QCI) or National Accreditation Board for Education and Training (NABET) or any other agency as may be notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change from time to time shall be allowed to prepare the Environmental Impact Assessment report and Environmental Management Plan of a project in that sector and category and to appear before the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) or the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC). The Ministry will also prepare a panel of national level reputed educational and research institutions to work as Environmental Consultant Organisations".
P. Notification dated 14.09.2016 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 15.09.2016:

a) Paragraph 9 of EIA was substituted by this notification as under:

"9. Validity of Environmental Clearance (EC):

(i) The "Validity of Environmental Clearance" is meant the period from which a prior environmental clearance is granted by the regulatory authority, or may be presumed by the applicant to have been granted under sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 8, to the start of production operations by the project or activity, or completion of all construction operations in case of construction projects (item 8 of the Schedule), to which the application for prior environmental clearance refers. The prior environmental clearance granted for a project or activity shall be valid for a period of ten years in the case of River Valley projects [item 1(c) of the Schedule], project life as estimated by the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee or District Level Expert Appraisal Committee subject to a maximum of thirty years for mining projects and seven years in the case of all other projects and activities.

(ii) In the case of Area Development projects and Townships [item 8(b)], the validity period of seven years shall be limited only to such activities as may be the responsibility of the applicant as a developer:

Provided that this period of validity with respect to sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above may be extended by the regulatory authority concerned by a maximum period of three years if an application is made to the regulatory authority by the applicant within the validity period, together with an updated Form I, and Supplementary Form IA, for Construction projects or activities (item 8 of the Schedule):

Provided further that the regulatory authority may also consult the Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee or District Level Expert Appraisal Committee, as the case may be, for grant of such extension.

(iii) Where the application for extension under sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) above has been filed-

(a) within thirty days after the validity period of Environmental Clearance, such cases shall be referred to concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee or District Level Expert Appraisal Committee and based on their recommendations, the delay shall be condoned at the level of the Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change or Member Secretary, State Level Expert Appraisal Committee or Member Secretary, District Level Expert Appraisal Committee, as the case may be;"

Q. Notification dated 23.11.2016 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Here sub-paragraph (ii) of Paragraph 7 was substituted as under:

"7(ii). Prior Environmental Clearance (EC) process for Expansion or Modernization or Change of product mix in existing projects:

(a) All applications seeking prior environmental clearance for expansion with increase in the production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior environmental clearance has been granted under this notification or with increase in either lease area or production capacity in the case of mining projects or for the modernisation of an existing unit with increase in the total production capacity beyond the threshold limit prescribed in the Schedule to this notification through change in process and or technology or involving a change in the product - mix shall be made in Form I and they shall be considered by the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Appraisal Committee within sixty days, who will decide on the due diligence necessary including preparation of Environment Impact Assessment and public consultations and the application shall be appraised accordingly for grant of environmental clearance.

(b) Any change in configuration of the plant from the environmental clearance conditions during execution of the project after detailed engineering shall be exempt from the requirement of environmental clearance, if there is no change in production and pollution load. The project proponent shall inform the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change/State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority and the concerned State Pollution Control Board.

(c) Any change in product-mix, change in quantities within products or number of products in the same category for which environmental clearance has been granted shall be exempt from the requirement of prior environmental clearance provided that there is no change in the total capacity sanctioned in prior environmental clearance granted earlier under this notification and there is no increase in pollution load. The project proponent shall follow the procedure for obtaining No Increase in Pollution Load certificate from the concerned State Pollution Control Board as per the provisions given in Appendix -XIV.";"

b) This notification also inserted Appendix XIII giving details of process for obtaining "no increase in pollution load" certificate-permission from the State PCB.

R. Notification dated 09.12.2016 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Hereby after paragraph 13 of EIA 2006, paragraph 14 was inserted as under:

"14. Integration of environmental condition in building bye-laws.-

(1) The integrated environmental conditions with the building permission being granted by the local authorities and the construction of buildings as per the size shall adhere to the objectives and monitorable environmental conditions as given at Appendix-XIV.

(2) The States adopting the objectives and monitorable environmental conditions referred to in subparagraph (1), in the building bye-laws and relevant State laws and incorporating these conditions in the approvals given for building construction making it legally enforceable shall not require a separate environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change for individual buildings.

(3) The States may forward the proposed changes in their bye-laws and rules to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, who in turn will examine the said draft bye-laws and rules and convey the concurrence to the State Governments.

(4) When the State Governments notifies the bye-laws and rules concurred by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Central Government may issue an order stating that no separate environmental clearance is required for buildings to be constructed in the States or local authority areas.

(5) The local authorities like Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations, may certify the compliance of the environmental conditions prior to issuance of Completion Certificate, as applicable as per the requirements stipulated for such buildings based on the recommendation of the Environmental Cell constituted in the local authority.

(6) The State Governments where bye-laws or rules are not framed may continue to follow the existing procedure of appraisal for individual projects and grant of Environmental Clearance for buildings and constructions as per the provisions laid down in this notification.

(7) For the purpose of certification regarding incorporation of environmental conditions in buildings, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change may empanel through competent agencies, the Qualified Building Environment Auditors (QBEAs) to assess and certify the building projects, as per the requirements of this notification and the procedure for accreditation of Qualified Building Auditors and their role as given at Appendix-XV.

(8) In order to implement the integration of environmental condition in building bye-laws, the State Governments or Local Authorities may constitute the Environment Cell (herein after called as Cell), for compliance and monitoring and to ensure environmental planning within their jurisdiction.

(9) The Cell shall monitor the implementation of the bye-laws and rules framed for Integration of environmental conditions for construction of building and the Cell may also allow the third part auditing process for oversight, if any.

(10) The Cell shall function under the administrative control of the Local Authorities.

(11) The composition and functions of the Cell are given at Appendix-XVI.

(12) The Local Authorities while integrating the environmental concerns in the building bye-laws, as per their size of the project, shall follow the procedure, as given below:

BUILDINGS CATEGORY '1' (5,000 to < 20,000 Square meters)

A Self declaration Form to comply with the environmental conditions (Appendix XIV) along with Form 1A and certification by the Qualified Building Environment Auditor to be submitted online by the project proponent besides application for building permission to the local authority along with the specified fee in separate accounts. Thereafter, the local authority may issue the building permission incorporating the environmental conditions in it and allow the project to start based on the self declaration and certification along with the application. After completion of the construction of the building, the project proponent may update Form 1A online based on audit done by the Qualified Building Environment Auditor and shall furnish the revised compliance undertaking to the local authority. Any non-compliance issues in buildings less than 20,000 square meters shall be dealt at the level of local body and the State through existing mechanism.

OTHER BUILDINGS CATEGORIES (≥ 20,000 Square meters)

The project proponent may submit online application in Form 1 A alongwith specified fee for environmental appraisal and additional fee for building permission. The fee for environmental appraisal will be deposited in a separate account. The Environment Cell will process the application and present it in the meeting of the Committee headed by the authority competent to give building permission in that local authority. The Committee will appraise the project and stipulate the environmental conditions to be integrated in the building permission. After recommendations of the Committee, the building permission and environmental clearance will be issued in an integrated format by the local authority.

The project proponent shall submit Performance Data and Certificate of Continued Compliance of the project for the environmental conditions parameters applicable after completion of construction from Qualified Building Environment Auditors every five years to the Environment Cell with special focus on the following parameters:-

(a) Energy Use (including all energy sources).

(b) Energy generated on site from onsite Renewable energy sources.

(c) Water use and waste water generated, treated and reused on site.

(d) Waste Segregated and Treated on site.

(e) Tree plantation and maintenance.

After completion of the project, the Cell shall randomly check the projects compliance status including the five years audit report. The State Governments may enact the suitable law for imposing penalties for non-compliances of the environmental conditions and parameters. The Cell shall recommend financial penalty, as applicable under relevant State laws for non-compliance of conditions or parameters to the local authority. On the basis of the recommendation of the Cell, the local authority may impose the penalty under relevant State laws. The cases of false declaration or certification shall be reported to the accreditation body and to the local body for blacklisting of Qualified Building Environment Auditors and financial penalty on the owner and Qualified Building Environment Auditors.

No Consent to Establish and Operate under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 will be required from the State Pollution Control Boards for residential buildings up to 1,50,000 square meters.";"

b) Further in the schedule item 8 entries were substituted as under:

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
“8		Building/Construction projects/Area Development projects and Townships
8(a)	Building and Construction projects		≥ 20,000 sq. mtrs and < 1,50,000 sq. mtrs of built up area	The term “built  up  area”  for the purpose of this notification is the built up or covered area on all floors put together including its basement and other service areas, which are proposed in the buildings and construction projects.
				Note 1. The projects or activities shall not include industrial shed, universities, college, hostel for educational institutions,           but           such buildings          shall          ensure sustainable environmental management, solid and liquid and implement environmental conditions given at Appendix- XIV.
				Note      2.-General       Condition shall not apply.
				Note  3.-The  exemptions granted at Note 1 will be available only for industrial shed after integration of environmental norms with building permissions at the level of local authority.
8 (b)	Townships and          Area Development projects	≥ 3,00,000 sq. mtrs of built up area or Covering an area ≥ 150 ha	≥1,50,000 sq. mtrs and < 3,00,000 sq. mtrs built up area or covering an area	Note.- General Condition shall not apply”.
			≥ 50 ha and < 150 ha

c) This notification also inserted three Appendixes i.e. XIV, XV and XVI and we find the same to be relevant since all relates to environmental conditions for building and construction.

APPENDIX –XIV

ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS FOR BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTIONS (CATEGORY ‘1’: 5,000 to less than 20,000 Square meters

MEDIUM	S.N.	ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Topography and      Natural	1	The       natural        drain       system       should        be maintained for ensuring unrestricted flow of
Drainage		water. No  construction  shall  be  allowed  to
		obstruct the  natural  drainage  through  the
		site. No  construction  is  allowed  on  wetland  and
		water bodies. Check dams, bioswales, landscape,
		and other  sustainable  urban  drainage  systems
		(SUDS) are  allowed  for  maintaining  the  drainage
		pattern and to harvest rain water.
Water Conservation, Rain       Water Harvesting, and      Ground Water Recharge	2	Use of water efficient appliances shall be promoted. The local bye-law provisions on rain water harvesting should be followed. If local bye-law provision is not available, adequate provision for storage and recharge should be followed as per the Ministry of Urban Development Model Building Bye-Laws, 2016.
		A rain water harvesting plan needs to be designed where the recharge bores (minimum one recharge bore per 5,000 square meters of built up area) is recommended. Storage and reuse of the rain water harvested should be promoted. In areas where ground water recharge is not feasible, the  rain water should be harvested and stored  for  reuse. The ground water shall not be withdrawn without approval from the Competent Authority.
		All recharge should be limited to shallow aquifer.
	2(a)	At least 20% of the open spaces as required by the local building bye-laws shall  be  pervious. Use of Grass pavers, paver blocks with at least 50% opening, landscape etc. would be considered as pervious surface.
Waste Management	3	Solid waste: Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste.
		Sewage: In areas where there is no municipal sewage network, onsite  treatment systems  should be installed. Natural treatment systems which integrate with the landscape shall be promoted. As far as possible treated effluent should  be  reused. The excess treated effluent shall be discharged following the CPCB norms.
		Sludge from the onsite sewage treatment, including septic tanks, shall be collected, conveyed and
		disposed as per the Ministry of Urban Development, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems, 2013. The provisions of the Solid Waste (Management) Rules 2016 and the e-waste (Management) Rules 2016, and the Plastics Waste (Management) Rules 2016 shall be followed.
Energy	4	Compliance with the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) of Bureau  of  Energy Efficiency  shall be ensured. Buildings in the States which have notified their own ECBC, shall comply  with  the State ECBC. Outdoor and common area lighting shall be Light Emitting Diode (LED). Solar, wind or other Renewable Energy shall be installed to meet electricity generation equivalent to 1% of the demand load or as per the state level/ local building bye-laws requirement, whichever is higher. Solar water heating shall be provided to meet 20% of the hot water demand of the commercial and institutional building or as per the requirement of the local building bye-laws, whichever is higher. Residential buildings are also recommended to meet its hot water demand from solar water heaters, as far as possible. Concept of passive solar design that minimize energy consumption in buildings by using design elements, such as building orientation, landscaping, efficient building envelope, appropriate fenestration, increased day lighting design  and  thermal  mass etc. shall be incorporated in the building design. Wall, window, and roof u-values shall be as per ECBC specifications.
Air        Quality and Noise	5	Dust, smoke & other air pollution prevention measures shall be provided for the building as well as the site. These  measures  shall  include  screens for the building under construction, continuous dust/ wind breaking walls all around the site (at least 3 meter height). Plastic/tarpaulin sheet covers shall be provided for vehicles bringing in sand, cement, murram and other construction materials prone to causing dust pollution at the site as well as taking out debris from the site. Sand, murram, loose soil, cement, stored on  site shall be covered adequately so as to prevent dust pollution. Wet jet shall be provided for grinding and stone cutting. Unpaved surfaces and loose soil shall be adequately sprinkled with water to suppress dust. All construction and  demolition  debris  shall  be stored at the site (and not dumped on the roads or open   spaces   outside)   before   they   are   properly
		disposed. All demolition and construction  waste shall be managed as per the provisions of the Construction and Demolition Waste Rules 2016. All workers working at the construction site and involved in loading, unloading, carriage of construction material and construction debris or working in any area with dust pollution shall be provided with dust mask. For indoor air quality the ventilation provisions as per National Building Code of India shall be made.
	5 (a)	The location of the DG set and exhaust pipe height shall be as per the provisions of the CPCB norms.
Green Cover	6	A minimum of 1 tree for every 80 square meters of land should be planted and maintained. The existing trees will be counted for this purpose. Preference should be given to planting native species.
	6 (a)	Where the trees need to be cut, compensatory plantation in the ratio of 1:3 (i.e. planting of 3 trees for every 1 tree that is cut) shall be done and maintained.

(Category ‘2’: 20,000 to less than 50,000 Square meters)

MEDIUM	S.N.	ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Topography and          Natural Drainage	1	The natural drain system should be maintained for ensuring unrestricted flow of water. No construction shall be allowed to obstruct the natural drainage through the site. No construction is allowed on wetland and water bodies. Check dams, bio-swales, landscape, and other sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) are allowed for maintaining the drainage pattern and to harvest rain water. Buildings shall be designed to follow the natural topography as much as possible. Minimum cutting and filling should be done.
Water Conservation, Rain            Water Harvesting, and          Ground Water Recharge	2	A complete plan for rain water harvesting, water efficiency and conservation should be prepared. Use of water efficient appliances should be promoted with low flow fixtures or sensors. The local bye-law provisions on rain water harvesting should be followed. If local bye-law provision is not available, adequate provision for storage and recharge should be followed as per the Ministry of Urban Development Model Building Byelaws, 2016. A rain water harvesting plan needs to be designed where the recharge bores of minimum one recharge bore per 5,000 square meters of built up area and storage capacity of minimum one day of total fresh water  requirement  shall  be  provided.  In   areas where  ground  water  recharge  is  not  feasible,  the
		rain water should be harvested  and  stored  for reuse. The ground water shall not be withdrawn without approval from the Competent Authority. All recharge should be limited to shallow aquifer.
	2(a)	At least 20% of the open spaces as required by the local building bye-laws shall be pervious. Use  of Grass pavers, paver blocks with at least 50% opening, landscape etc. would be considered as pervious surface.
Waste Management	3	Solid waste: Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Sewage: Onsite sewage treatment of capacity of treating 100% waste water to be installed. Treated waste water shall be reused on site for landscape, flushing, cooling tower, and other end-uses. Excess treated water shall be discharged as per CPCB norms. Natural treatment systems shall be promoted. Sludge from the onsite sewage treatment, including septic tanks, shall be collected, conveyed and disposed as per the Ministry of Urban Development, Central Public Health and Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems, 2013. The provisions of the Solid Waste (Management) Rules 2016 and the e-waste (Management) Rules 2016, and the Plastics Waste (Management) Rules 2016 shall be followed.
	3 (a)	All non-biodegradable waste shall be handed over to authorized recyclers for which a written tie up must be done with the authorized recyclers.
	3(b)	Organic waste compost/Vermiculture pit with a minimum capacity of 0.3 kg/person/day must be installed.
Energy	4	Compliance with the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) of Bureau of Energy Efficiency shall be ensured. Buildings in the States which have notified their own ECBC, shall comply with the State ECBC. Outdoor and common area lighting shall be LED. Concept of passive solar design that minimize energy consumption in buildings by using design elements, such as building orientation, landscaping, efficient building envelope, appropriate fenestration, increased day lighting design and thermal mass etc. shall be incorporated in the building design. Wall, window, and roof u-values shall be as per ECBC specifications.
	4 (a)	Solar, wind or other Renewable Energy shall be installed to meet electricity generation equivalent to 1% of the demand load or as per the state level/ local building bye-laws requirement, whichever is higher.
	4 (b)	Solar water heating shall be provided to  meet 20% of the hot water demand of the commercial and institutional building or as per the requirement of the local building bye-laws, whichever is higher. Residential buildings are also recommended to meet its hot water demand from solar water heaters, as far as possible.
	4 (c)	Use of environment friendly materials in bricks, blocks and other construction materials, shall be required for at least 20% of the construction material quantity. These include flyash bricks, hollow bricks, AACs, Fly Ash Lime Gypsum blocks,  Compressed earth blocks, and other environment friendly materials. Fly ash should be used as building material in the construction as per the provisions of the Fly Ash Notification of September, 1999 as amended from time to time.
Air Quality and Noise	5	Dust, smoke & other air pollution prevention measures shall be provided for the building as  well as the site. These  measures  shall  include  screens for the building under construction, continuous dust/ wind breaking walls all around the site (at least 3 meter height). Plastic/tarpaulin sheet covers shall be provided for vehicles bringing in sand, cement, murram and other construction materials prone to causing dust pollution at the site as well as taking out debris from the site. Sand, murram, loose soil, cement, stored  on  site shall be covered adequately so as to prevent dust pollution. Wet jet shall be provided for grinding and stone cutting. Unpaved surfaces and loose soil shall be adequately sprinkled with water to suppress dust. All construction and demolition debris shall  be stored at the site (and not dumped on the roads or open spaces outside) before they are properly disposed. All demolition and construction  waste shall be managed as per the provisions of the Construction and Demolition Waste Rules 2016. All workers working at the construction site and involved in loading, unloading, carriage  of construction material and construction debris or working in any area with dust pollution shall be provided with dust mask. For indoor air quality the  ventilation  provisions  as per National Building Code of India.
	5 (a)	The location of the DG set and exhaust pipe height shall be as per the provisions of the CPCB norms.
Green Cover	6	A minimum of 1 tree for every 80 sq.mt. of land should be planted and maintained.  The  existing trees will be counted for this purpose. Preference should be given to planting native species.
	6 (a)	Where the  trees  need  to  be  cut,  compensatory
		plantation in the ratio of 1:3 (i.e. planting of 3 trees for every 1 tree that is cut) shall be done and maintained.
Top                    Soil preservation and reuse	7	Topsoil should be stripped to a depth of 20 cm from the areas proposed for buildings, roads, paved areas, and external services. It should be stockpiled appropriately in designated areas and reapplied during  plantation  of  the proposed vegetation on site
Transport	8	A comprehensive mobility plan, as per MoUD best practices guidelines (URDPFI), shall be prepared to include motorized, non-motorized, public, and private networks. Road should  be  designed  with due consideration for environment, and safety of users. The road system can be designed with these basic criteria.   Hierarchy of roads with proper segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Traffic calming measures. Proper design of entry and exit points. Parking norms as per local regulation.

(Category ‘3’: 50000 to 150000 m2)

MEDIUM	S.N.	ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
Topography and      Natural Drainage	1	The natural drain system should be maintained for ensuring unrestricted flow of water. No construction shall be allowed to obstruct the natural drainage through  the site. No construction is allowed on wetland and water bodies. Check dams, bio-swales, landscape, and other sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) are allowed for maintaining the drainage pattern and to harvest rain water. Buildings shall be designed to follow the natural topography as much as possible. Minimum cutting and filling should be done.
Water conservation- Rain        Water Harvesting, and      Ground Water Recharge	2	A complete plan for rain water harvesting, water efficiency and conservation should be prepared. The local bye-law provisions on rain water harvesting should be followed. If local bye-law provisions are not available, adequate  provision for storage and recharge should be  followed  as per the Ministry of Urban Development Model Building Byelaws, 2016. A rain water harvesting plan needs to be designed where the recharge bores of minimum one recharge bore per 5,000 square meters of built up area and storage capacity of minimum one day of total fresh water requirement shall be provided. In areas where ground water recharge is not feasible, the rain water should be harvested and stored for reuse. The ground water shall not be withdrawn without approval from the Competent
		Authority. All recharge should be limited to shallow aquifer.
	2(a)	At least 20% of the open spaces as required by the local building bye-laws shall be pervious. Use of Grass pavers, paver blocks with at least 50% opening, landscape etc. would be considered as pervious surface.
	2(b)	Use of water efficient appliances should be promoted. Low flow fixtures or sensors be used to promote water conservation.
	2(c)	Separation of grey and black water  should  be done by the use of  dual plumbing system.  In case of single stack system separate recirculation lines for flushing by giving dual plumbing system be done.
Solid      Waste Management	3	Solid waste: Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. The provisions of the Solid Waste (Management) Rules 2016 and the e-waste (Management) Rules 2016, and the Plastics Waste (Management) Rules 2016 shall be followed.
	3(a)	All non-biodegradable waste shall be handed over to authorized recyclers for which a written tie up must be done with the authorized recyclers.
	3(b)	Organic waste composter/Vermiculture pit with a minimum capacity of 0.3 kg/person/day must be installed.
Sewage Treatment Plant		Onsite sewage treatment of capacity of treating 100% waste water to be installed. Treated waste water shall be reused on site for landscape, flushing, cooling tower, and other end-uses. Excess treated water shall be discharged as per CPCB norms. Natural treatment systems shall be promoted. Sludge from the onsite sewage treatment, including septic tanks, shall be collected, conveyed and disposed as per the Ministry  of Urban Development, Central Public Health and Environmental                                               Engineering            Organisation (CPHEEO) Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems, 2013.
Energy	5	Compliance with the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) of Bureau of Energy Efficiency shall be ensured. Buildings in the States which have notified their own ECBC, shall comply with the State ECBC. Outdoor and common area lighting shall be LED. Concept of passive solar design that minimize energy consumption in buildings by using design elements,      such      as      building      orientation, landscaping,       efficient       building       envelope,
		appropriate fenestration, increased day lighting design and thermal mass etc. shall be incorporated in the building design. Wall, window, and roof u-values shall be as per ECBC specifications.
	5 (a)	Solar, wind or other Renewable Energy shall be installed to meet electricity generation equivalent to 1% of the demand load or as per the state level/local building bye-laws requirement, whichever is higher.
	5 (b)	Solar water heating shall be provided to meet 20% of the hot water demand of the commercial and institutional building or as per the requirement of the local building bye-laws, whichever is higher. Residential buildings are also recommended to meet its hot water demand from solar water heaters, as far as possible.
	5 (c)	Use of environment friendly materials in bricks, blocks and other construction materials, shall be required for at least 20% of the construction material quantity. These include flyash bricks, hollow bricks, AACs, Fly Ash Lime Gypsum blocks, Compressed earth blocks, and other environment friendly materials. Fly ash should be used as building material in the construction as per the provisions of the Fly Ash Notification of September, 1999 as amended from time to time.
Air Quality and Noise	6	Dust, smoke & other air pollution prevention measures shall be provided for  the  building  as well as the site. These measures shall include screens for the building under construction, continuous dust/ wind breaking walls all around the site (at least 3 meter height). Plastic/tarpaulin sheet covers shall be provided for vehicles bringing in sand, cement, murram and other construction materials prone to causing dust pollution at the site as well as taking out debris from the site. Wheel washing for the vehicles used be done. Sand, murram, loose soil, cement, stored on site shall be covered adequately so as to prevent dust pollution. Wet jet shall be provided for grinding and stone cutting. Unpaved surfaces and loose soil shall be adequately sprinkled with water to suppress dust. All construction and demolition debris shall be stored at the site (and not dumped on the roads or open spaces outside) before they are properly disposed. All demolition and construction waste shall be managed as per the provisions of the Construction and Demolition Waste Rules 2016. All workers working at the construction site and involved in loading, unloading, carriage of
		construction material and construction debris or working in any area with dust pollution shall be provided with dust mask. For indoor air quality the ventilation provisions as per National Building Code of India.
	6 (a)	The location of the DG set and exhaust pipe height shall be as per the provisions of the CPCB norms.
Green Cover	7	A minimum of 1 tree for every 80 sq.mt. of land should be planted and maintained. The existing trees will be counted for this purpose. Preference should be given to planting native species.
	7(a)	Where the trees need to be cut, compensatory plantation in the ratio of 1:3 (i.e. planting of 3 trees for every 1 tree that is cut) shall be done and maintained.
Top Soil Preservation and Reuse	8	Topsoil should be stripped to a depth of 20  cm from the areas proposed for buildings,  roads, paved areas, and external services. It should be stockpiled appropriately in designated areas and reapplied during plantation of the proposed vegetation on site.
Transport	9	A comprehensive mobility plan, as per MoUD best practices guidelines (URDPFI), shall be prepared to include motorized, non-motorized, public, and private networks. Road should be designed  with due consideration for environment, and safety of users. The road system can be designed with these basic criteria. Hierarchy of roads with proper segregation of vehicular and pedestrian traffic. Traffic calming measures. Proper design of entry and exit points. Parking norms as per local regulation.
Environment Management Plan	10	An environmental management plan (EMP) shall be prepared and implemented to ensure compliance with the environmental conditions specified in item number 1 to 9 above. A dedicated Environment Monitoring Cell with defined functions and responsibility shall be  put in  place to implement the EMP. The environmental  cell shall ensure that the environment infrastructure like Sewage Treatment Plant, Landscaping, Rain Water Harvesting, Energy efficiency and conservation, water efficiency and conservation, solid waste management, renewable energy etc. are kept operational and meet the required standards. The environmental cell shall also keep the record of environment monitoring and those related to the environment infrastructure.

APPENDIX-XV

Accreditation of Environmental Auditors (Qualified Building Auditors)

The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), through qualified agencies shall accredit the Qualified Building Environment Auditors (QBEAs). The Qualified Building Environment Auditors could be a firm/organization or an individual expert, who fulfils the requirements. The Ministry will implement this process of accreditation through Quality Council of India (QCI), National Productivity Council or any other organization identified by the Government. The organizations like Indian Green Building Council, Bureau of Energy Efficiency etc. can also be associated in the process of accreditation, training, and renewal. The environmental consultants accredited by the QCI for building sector will be qualified as QBEAs. The QBEAs will meet the following criteria. The accrediting agency can improvise on these criteria.

Qualifications of the Auditor:

a. Education: Architect (Degree or Diploma), Town Planners (Degree), Civil Engineer/Mechanical Engineer (Degree or Diploma), PG in Environmental Science or any other qualification as per the scheme of the accreditation.

Training:

b. Mandatory training to be given by the accreditation body or their approved training providers. This will be as per the scheme of the accreditation.

Experience:

c. At least 3 years of work experience in the related field or building sector Environment Impact Assessment consultants accredited by QCI or any other experience criteria as per the scheme of the accreditation.

Infrastructure and equipment:

d. As per the scheme of the accreditation

Renewal:

e. The accreditation will be valid for 5 years and will be renewed as per the process developed under the accreditation scheme.

Accountability/Complaint redressal mechanism: Any complaints regarding the quality of the work of QBEAs shall be made to the accreditation body. The accreditation body shall evaluate the complaint and take appropriate action including black listing or cancellation of the accreditation with wide public notice. This will be in addition to the action at the level of local authority for penalty and blacklisting. The Ministry can also take such action in case of specific complaint or feedback.

APPENDIX-XVI

Environmental Cell at the level of Local Authority:

An Environmental Cell shall be setup at the local authority level to support compliance and monitoring of environmental conditions in buildings. The Cell shall also provide assistance in environmental planning and capacity building within their jurisdiction. The responsibility of this cell would be monitoring the implementation of this notification and providing an oversight to the Third-Party Auditing process. The cell will operate under the local authority.

Constitution of the cell:

The cell will comprise of at least 3 dedicated experts in following fields:

a. Waste management (solid and liquid)

b. Water conservation and management

c. Resource efficiency including Building materials

d. Energy Efficiency and renewable energy

e. Environmental planning including air quality management.

f. Transport planning and management.

The Cell shall induct at least two outside experts as per the requirements and background of dedicated experts. Existing environmental cells at the level of local authority can be co-opted and trained for this Cell.

Financial Support:

An additional fee may be charged along with processing fee for building permission for integrating environmental conditions and it's monitoring. The local authority can fix and revise this additional fee from time to time. The amount of this fee shall be deposited in a separate bank account, and used for meeting the requirement of salary/emoluments of experts and running the system of online application, verifications and the Environmental Cell.

Functions of the Cell:

1. The cell shall be responsible for assessing and appraising the environmental concerns of the area under their jurisdiction where building activities are proposed. The Cell can evolve and propose additional environmental conditions as per requirements. These conditions may be area specific and shall be notified in advance from time to time. These additional conditions shall be approved following a due consultation process. These environmental conditions will be integrated in building permissions by the sanctioning authority.

2. Develop and maintain an online system for application and payment of fees. The Cell shall maintain an online database of all applications received, projects approved, the compliance audit report, random inspections made. The Cell shall maintain a portal for public disclosure of project details including self certification and compliance audit reports filed by the Qualified Building Environment Auditors for public scrutiny of compliance of environmental conditions by the project.

3. Monitoring the work of Environmental Audit process carried by the Qualified Building Auditors.

4. The Cell shall review the applications; finalize the additional environmental conditions if required within 30 days of the submission of the application to the local authority.

5. The Cell shall adopt risk based random selection of projects for verifying on site for certification of QBA, compliance of environmental conditions and five yearly audit report.

6. The Cell shall recommend to the local authority for financial penalty for non-compliance of environmental conditions by the project proponent.

7. The Cell shall recommend to the accrediting body and the local authority against any Qualified Building Environment Auditor, if any lapse is found in their work."

d) This amendment notification sought to decentralize regulation of building projects, by authorizing urban local bodies to grant approval for building permission by providing integrated environmental conditions examined by environmental cell constituted in the said local bodies and this was required to be processed after making requisite changing/amendments in the by-laws and the relevant rules to be notified by State Governments after having concurrence from MoEF&CC and where such by-laws and rules are amended and, thereafter, on the recommendation of the environmental cell, constituted under urban local bodies, building permissions are granted. It was provided that Central Government may issue an order exempting requirement of separate EC for such projects. Different provisions were provided for the buildings having size of the projects between 5,000 m2 < 25,000 m2 and more than 20,000 m2.

e) This amendment notification was challenged before Tribunal in OA 677/2016, Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity vs. Union of India; OA 01/2017, Pushp Jain vs. Union of India; OA 7/2017, Ajay Kumar Singh vs. MoEF&CC; OA 55/2017, Mahendra Pandey vs. UOI and OA 67/2017, R. Shreedhar vs. UOI along with MA Nos. 148/2017, 03/2017, 445/2017, 879/2017 and 620/2017. The above OAs were disposed of by Principal Bench of Tribunal vide judgment dated 08.12.2017 and striking out provisions of clause 14(8) as amended by the above notification, Tribunal directed MoEF&CC to re-examine the notification dated 09.12.2016 and take appropriate steps to delete, amend and rectify the clauses in the light of the observations made in the judgment. In the meantime, since bye-laws were also amended by Delhi Development Authority by notification dated 22.03.2016, Tribunal held that the said notification also shall not be given effect to unless the amendment notification dated 09.12.2016 is re-considered and amended as per the directions continued in the judgment. Tribunal also restrained MoEF&CC from giving effect to amendment dated 09.12.2016 till the above judgment is complied with. However, as per the earlier existing provisions of EIA 2006, the applications for grant of prior EC may be considered. This Tribunal gave a categorical and clear message to MoEF&CC that laudable social cause of providing houses to poor, does not get defeated by business, economic profitability with reference to ease of doing business while particularly protecting environment. The above judgment was challenged in Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2522/2018, Union of India vs. Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity which is pending.

S. Notification dated 30.12.2016 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) By this notification in paragraph 11 (2), another sub-paragraph (3) was inserted as under:

"(3) Where an allocation of iron ore block pertaining to the State of Karnataka is cancelled in any legal proceeding, or by the Government in accordance with law, the environmental clearance granted in respect of such iron block may be transferred subject to the same validity period it was initially granted, to any legal person to whom such block is subsequently allocated, and in such case, obtaining of "no objection" from either the holder of environmental clearance or from the regulatory authority concerned shall not be necessary and no reference shall be made to the Expert Appraisal Committee or the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee concerned.";
T. Notification dated 25.07.2018 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) This amendment notification was issued in view of the judgment dated 11.04.2018 and 19.06.2018 passed by High Court of Jharkhand (at Ranchi) in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1806 of 2015, Court on its Own Motion Versus the State of Jharkhand & Others and W.P. (PIL) No. 290 of 2013, Hemant Kumar Shilkarwar Versus the State of Jharkhand & Others. Appendix X of EIA 2006 was substituted.

U. Notification dated 14.11.2018 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) By this notification, certain conditions were imposed upon Municipalities, Development Authorities, District Panchayats by delegating them power to ensure compliance of environmental conditions as specified in the Appendix in respect of building and construction projects with built up area ≥20,000 sq. mtrs. to 50,000 sq. mtrs. and industrial sheds, educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institution ≥20,000 sqm upto 1,50,000 sqm along with building permission and to ensure that the conditions specified in Appendix are complied with, before granting the occupation certificate/completion certificate. The Appendix given in this notification is as under:

"APPENDIX
Environmental Conditions for Buildings and Constructions

(Category: Building or Construction projects or Area Development projects and Townships > 20,000 to < 50,000 Square meters as well as for industrial sheds, educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institutions from 20,000 sq.m to < 1,50,000 sq.m)

S.N	MEDIUM	ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
(1)	(2)	(3)
1	Topography and Natural Drainage	The natural drain system shall be maintained for ensuring unrestricted flow of water. No construction shall be allowed to obstruct the natural drainage through the site. No construction is allowed on wetland and water bodies. Check dams, bio-swales, landscape, and other sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) are allowed for maintaining the drainage pattern and to harvest rain water. Buildings shall be designed to follow the natural topography as much as possible. Minimum cutting and filling should be done.
2	Water Conservation, Rain Water Harvesting and Ground Water Recharge	A complete plan for rain water harvesting, water efficiency and conservation should be prepared and implemented. Use of water efficient appliances  should be promoted with low flow fixtures or sensors. The local bye-law provisions on rain water harvesting should be followed. If local bye-law provision is not available, adequate provision for storage and recharge should be followed as per the Ministry of Urban Development Model Building Bye-laws, 2016. A rain water harvesting plan needs to be designed where the recharge bores of minimum one recharge bore per 5,000 square   meters   of   built-up   area   and storage capacity of minimum one day of
		total fresh water requirement shall be provided. In areas where ground water recharge is not feasible, the rain water should be harvested and stored for reuse. The ground water shall not be withdrawn without approval from the Competent Authority. All recharge should be limited to shallow aquifer.
2(a)		At least 20 per cent  of  the  open  spaces as required by the local  building  bye- laws shall be pervious. Use of Grass pavers, paver blocks, landscape etc. with at least 50 per cent opening in paving which would be considered as pervious surface.
3	Waste Management	Solid waste: Separate wet and dry bins must be provided in each unit and at the ground level for facilitating segregation of waste. Sewage: Onsite sewage treatment of capacity of treating 100 per cent waste water to be installed. Treated waste water shall be reused on site for landscape, flushing, cooling tower, and other end-uses. Excess treated water shall be discharged as per statutory norms notified by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Natural treatment systems shall be promoted. Sludge from the onsite sewage treatment, including septic tanks, shall be collected, conveyed and disposed as per the Ministry of Urban Development, Central Public Health                           and            Environmental Engineering Organisation (CPHEEO) Manual on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment Systems, 2013. The provisions of the Solid Waste (Management) Rules 2016 and the e- waste (Management) Rules 2016, and the Plastics Waste (Management) Rules 2016 shall be followed.
3 (a)		All non-biodegradable waste shall be handed over to authorized recyclers for which a written tie up must be done with the authorized recyclers.
3(b)		Organic waste compost/Vermiculture pit with a minimum capacity of 0.3 kg per person per day must be installed.
4	Energy	Compliance with the Energy Conservation Building    Code     (ECBC)    of    Bureau     of
		Energy Efficiency shall be ensured. Buildings in the States which have notified their own ECBC, shall  comply with the State ECBC. Outdoor and common  area  lighting  shall be Light Emitting Diode (LED). Concept of passive solar design that minimize energy consumption in buildings by using design elements, such as building orientation, landscaping, efficient building                                  envelope,               appropriate fenestration, increased day lighting design and thermal mass etc. shall be incorporated in the building design. Wall, window, and roof u-values shall be as per ECBC specifications.
4 (a)		Solar, wind or other Renewable Energy shall be installed to meet electricity generation equivalent to 1 per cent of the demand load or as per the state level/ local building bye-laws requirement, whichever is higher.
4(b)		Solar water heating shall be provided to meet 20 per cent of the hot water demand of the commercial and institutional building or as per the requirement of the local building bye-laws, whichever is higher. Residential buildings are also recommended to meet its hot water demand from solar water heaters, as far as possible.
4(c)		Use of environment friendly materials in bricks, blocks and other construction materials, shall be required for at least 20 per cent of the construction material quantity. These include flyash bricks, hollow bricks, Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC), Fly Ash Lime Gypsum blocks, Compressed earth blocks, and other environment friendly materials. Fly ash should be used as building material in the construction as per the provisions of the Fly Ash Notification S.O. 763(E) dated 14th September, 1999 as amended from time to time.
5	Air Quality and Noise	Roads leading to or at construction sites must be paved and blacktopped (i.e. metallic roads). No excavation of soil shall be carried out without adequate dust mitigation measures in place. No loose soil or sand or Construction & Demolition Waste or any other
		construction material that causes dust shall be left uncovered. Wind-breaker of appropriate height i.e. 1/3rd of  the  building  height  and maximum up to 10 meters shall  be provided. Water sprinkling system shall be put in place. Dust mitigation measures shall be displayed prominently at the construction site for easy public viewing. Grinding and cutting of building materials in open area shall be prohibited. Construction material and waste should be stored only within  earmarked  area and road side storage of construction material and waste shall be prohibited. No uncovered vehicles carrying construction material and waste shall be permitted. Construction and Demolition Waste processing and disposal site shall be identified and required dust mitigation measures be notified at the site. Dust, smoke and other air pollution prevention measures shall be provided for the building as well as the site. Wet jet shall be provided for grinding and stone cutting. Unpaved surfaces and loose soil shall be adequately sprinkled with water to suppress dust. All demolition and construction waste shall be managed as per the provisions of the Construction and Demolition Waste Rules 2016. All workers working at  the  construction site and involved in loading, unloading, carriage of construction material and construction debris  or  working  in  any area with dust pollution shall be provided with dust mask. For indoor air quality the ventilation provisions as  per  National  Building  Code of India.
5(a)		The location of the Genset and exhaust pipe height shall be as per the provisions of the statutory norms notified by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. The Genset installed for the project shall follow the emission limits, noise limits
		and general conditions notified by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change vide GSR  281(E)  dated 7th March 2016 as amended from time to time.
6	Green Cover	A minimum of 1 tree for every 80 sq.mt. of land should be planted and maintained. The existing trees will be counted for this purpose. Preference should be given to planting native species.
6 (a)		Where the trees need to be cut, compensatory plantation in the ratio of 1:3 (i.e. planting of 3 trees for every 1 tree that is cut) shall be done and maintained.
7	Top Soil Preservation and reuse	Topsoil should be stripped to a depth of 20 cm from the areas proposed for buildings, roads, paved areas, and external services. It should be stockpiled appropriately in designated areas and reapplied during plantation of the proposed vegetation on site.
8	Transport	The building plan shall be aligned  with the approved comprehensive mobility plan (as per Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs best practices guidelines (URDPFI)).

V. Notification dated 15.11.2018 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Paragraph 14 of EIA 2006 and entries in the item 8 in the schedule were substituted as under:

"14. Local bodies such as Municipalities, Development Authorities and District Panchayats, shall stipulate environmental conditions while granting building permission, for the Building or Construction projects with built-up area > 20,000 sq. mtrs and < 50,000 sq. mtrs and industrial sheds, educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institutions from built-up area ≥ 20,000 sqm to < 1,50,000 sq.m as specified in Notification S.O. 5733(E) :   dated 14th November, 2018."

(ii) in the Schedule, for item 8 and the entries relating thereto, the following item and entries shall be substituted, namely:-

(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
“8	Building or Construction projects or Area Development projects and Townships as well as for industrial sheds, educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institutions
8(a)	Building and Construction projects		≥50,000 mtrs. sq. and <1,50,000 sq. mtrs. of built-up area	Note-1: The term “built-up area” for the purpose of this notification is the built- up or covered area on all the floors put together including its basement and other service  areas,  which are proposed in the buildings                           or construction projects. Note  2:  The  projects or activities shall not include              industrial sheds,           educational institutions, hospitals and          hostels          for educational institutions. Note 3: General Conditions shall not apply.
8 (b)	Townships and         Area Development projects     as well             as industrial sheds educational institutions, hospitals and hostels for educational institutions		≥1,50,000 sq. mtrs. of built-up area and or covering an area ≥ 50 ha.	A             project            of Township and Area Development Projects            covered under        this        item shall        require      an Environment Assessment      Report and be appraised as Category                   ‘B1’ Project. Note: - General Conditions shall not apply.

b) Notifications dated 14.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 were issued in complete disregard of directions contained in the judgment dated 08.12.2017. MoEF&CC insisted to delegate power to local bodies ignoring that these local bodies have any expert in the matter and no study was conducted whether expert infrastructure is available to such bodies. It is also true that though appeal was filed in Supreme Court but the same was pending and judgment of Tribunal has its legal consequences so long it is not otherwise ordered by appellate Court i.e., Supreme Court.

c) The notifications dated 14.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 were challenged in Delhi High Court in various writ petitions wherein interim orders were passed. These writ petitions are 12571/2018, Social Action for Forest and Environment vs UOI and No. 12570/2018, Society for Protection of Environment & Biodiversity (SPENBIO) vs. UOI. The same issue was raised before this Tribunal also in OA 1017/2018, Shashikant Vithal Kamble vs UOI but referring to the matter pending in Delhi High Court, Tribunal had deferred the matter sine-die vide order dated 22.01.2019.

W. Notification dated 16.01.2020 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Paragraph 7 (ii) clause (c) was substituted as under:

"(c) Any change in raw material-mix or product-mix, change in quantities within products or number of products in the same category for which prior environmental clearance has been granted, shall be exempted from the requirement of prior environmental clearance provided there is no increase in pollution load and the resultant increase in production is not more than 50 percent of the production capacity permitted in the earlier environmental clearance and the project proponent shall follow the procedure for obtaining 'No Increase in Pollution Load' certificate from the concerned State Pollution Control Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee, as the case may be, as per the provisions given in Appendix -XIII";
X. Notification dated 17.02.2020 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary on 18.02.2020:

a) Hereby paragraph 7 sub-paragraph (i) for sub-heading "(II) Stage (2)-Scoping" and entries thereto were substituted by the following:

"II. Stage (2)-Scoping:

(i) "Scoping" refers to the process to determine detailed and comprehensive Terms of Reference (ToR) addressing all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Assessment and Environment Management Report in respect of the project or activity for which Prior Environmental Clearance is sought.

(ii) All projects or activities listed under Category "B2" of the schedule shall not require Scoping.

(iii) Sector specific Standard Terms of References developed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, from time to time shall be displayed on its website.

(iv) The Standard Terms of References shall be issued to the following projects or activities through online mode, on acceptance of application within 7 working days, without referring to EAC or SEAC by the Ministry or SEIAA, as the case may be:

(a) All Highway projects in Border States covered under entry (i) and (ii) of column (3) and (4) against item 7(f) of the Schedule;

(b) All projects or activities proposed to be located in industrial estates or parks (item 7(c) of the Schedule) approved by the concerned authorities, and which are not disallowed in such approvals; and

(c) All expansion proposals of existing projects having earlier Prior Environmental Clearance:

Provided that EAC or SEAC may recommend additional specific Terms of Reference in addition to the Standard ToR, if found necessary, for a project or activity, within 30 days from the date of acceptance of application.

(v) All new projects or activities other than specified in sub- paragraph (iv) above, shall be referred to the EAC or SEAC by the Regulatory Authority, as the case may be, within 30 days from the date of application, for recommending the specific ToR in addition to the Standard ToR, deemed necessary. In case, the regulatory authority does not refer the matter to the EAC or SEAC, as the case may be, within 30 days of date of application in Form-I, sector specific Standard ToR shall be issued, online, on 30th day, by the Regulatory Authority.

(vi) Applications for Terms of Reference may be rejected by the regulatory authority concerned on the recommendation of the EAC or SEAC concerned. In case of such rejection, the decision together with reasons for the same after due personal hearing shall be communicated to the applicant in writing within sixty days of the receipt of the application.

(vii) The project proponent shall prepare the EIA report based on the sector specific Standard ToR as well as additional specific ToR, if any, stipulated by the EAC or SEAC.

(viii) The Terms of Reference for the projects or activities except for River valley and Hydroelectric projects, issued by the regulatory authority concerned, shall have the validity of four years from the date of issue. In case of the River valley and Hydro-electric projects, the validity will be for five years."

Y. Notification dated 28.03.2020 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) By this notification, after sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of EIA 2006, sub-paragraph (3) was inserted as under:

"(3) The successful bidder of the mining leases, expiring under the provisions of sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 8A of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) and selected through auction as per the procedure provided under that Act and the rules made thereunder, shall be deemed to have acquired valid prior environmental clearance vested with the previous lessee for a period of two years, from the date of commencement of new lease and it shall be lawful for the new lessee to continue mining operations as per the same terms and conditions of environmental clearance granted to the previous lessee on the said lease area for a period of two years from the date of commencement of new lease or till the new lessee obtains a fresh environmental clearance with the terms and conditions mentioned therein, whichever is earlier:

Provided that the successful bidder shall apply and obtain prior environmental clearance from the regulatory authority within a period of two years from the date of grant of new lease.";"

b) Appendix IX was substituted giving cases where prior EC would not be required and the same reads as under:

"EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CASES FROM REQUIREMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

The following cases shall not require Prior Environmental Clearance, namely:

1. Extraction of ordinary clay or sand by manual mining, by the Kumhars (Potter) to prepare earthen pots, lamp, toys, etc. as per their customs.

2. Extraction of ordinary clay or sand by manual mining, by earthen tile makers who prepare earthen tiles.

3. Removal of sand deposits on agricultural field after flood by farmers.

4. Customary extraction of sand and ordinary earth from sources situated in Gram Panchayat for personal use or community work in village.

5. Community works, like, de-silting of village ponds or tanks, construction of village roads, ponds or bunds undertaken in Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment and Guarantee Schemes, other Government sponsored schemes and community efforts.

6. Extraction or sourcing or borrowing of ordinary earth for the linear projects such as roads, pipelines, etc.

7. Dredging and de-silting of dams, reservoirs, weirs, barrages, river and canals for the purpose of their maintenance, upkeep and disaster management.

8. Traditional occupational work of sand by Vanjara and Oads in Gujarat vide notification number GU/90(16)/MCR-2189(68)/5-CHH, dated the 14th February, 1990 of the Government of Gujarat.

9. Manual extraction of lime shells (dead shell), shrines, etc., within inter tidal zone by the traditional community.

10. Digging of wells for irrigation or drinking water purpose.

11. Digging of foundation for buildings, not requiring prior environmental clearance, as the case may be.

12. Excavation of ordinary earth or clay for plugging of any breach caused in canal, nallah, drain, water body, etc., to deal with any disaster or flood like situation upon orders of the District Collector or District Magistrate or any other Competent Authority.

13. Activities declared by the State Government under legislations or rules as non-mining activity."

Z. Notification dated 21.05.2020 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Hereby minor amendments were made in paragraph 3, 5 and Appendix VI in item 7 of EIA 2006 as under:

"(i) in paragraph 3, in sub-paragraph (6), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided that wherever considered necessary and expedient, the Central Government may extend the term for a further period not exceeding six months."

(ii) in paragraph 5, for sub-paragraph (c), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely:-

"(c) The Expert Appraisal Committee and State Level Expert Appraisal Committee shall be reconstituted after every three years:

Provided that wherever considered necessary and expedient, the Central Government may extend the term for a further period not exceeding six months."

(iii) in the APPENDIX VI, in item 7, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-

"Provided that wherever considered necessary and expedient, the Central Government may extend the term of such member for a further period not exceeding six months."

AA. Notification dated 20.10.2020 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary dated 22.10.2020:

a) In paragraph 3 (vi) proviso, the word "six months" were substituted by "twelve months" and similar amendments were made in para 5 sub-para (c) proviso and Appendix VI item 7 proviso.
BB. Notification dated 27.11.2020 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) After paragraph 9, another paragraph 9A was inserted as under:

"9A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, the validity of prior environmental clearances granted under the provisions of this notification in respect of the projects or activities whose validity is expiring in the Financial Year 2020-2021 shall deemed to be extended till the 31st March, 2021 or six months from the date of expiry of validity, whichever is later. Such extension is subject to same terms and conditions of the prior environmental clearance in the respective clearance letters, to ensure uninterrupted operations of such projects or activities which have been stalled due to the outbreak of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and subsequent lockdowns (total or partial) declared for its control"."
CC. Notification dated 18.01.2021 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) This notification was necessitated on account of the conditions arose due to outbreak of Corona Virus and subsequent lockdown by the Government of India.

b) In order to take into consideration, the situation as arisen on account of the above situation, in para 7 sub-para 7(i) under sub-heading (ii), "Stage 2-Scoping", after clause (viii), clause (ix) was inserted as under:

"(ix). Notwithstanding anything contained above, the period from the 1st April, 2020 to the 31st March, 2021 shall not be considered for the purpose of calculation of the period of validity of Terms of Reference granted under the provisions of this notification in view of outbreak of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and subsequent lockdowns (total or partial) declared for its control, however, all activities undertaken during this period in respect of the said Terms of Reference shall be treated as valid.";
c) Further paragraph 9A was substituted as under:

"9A. Notwithstanding anything contained in this notification, the period from the 1st April, 2020 to the 31st March, 2021 shall not be considered for the purpose of calculation of the period of validity of Prior Environmental Clearances granted under the provisions of this notification in view of outbreak of Corona Virus (COVID-19) and subsequent lockdowns (total or partial) declared for its control, however, all activities undertaken during this period in respect of the Environmental Clearance granted shall be treated as valid.".
DD. Notification dated 02.03.2021 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) This notification was issued for amendment of EIA 2006 after considering the request of processing production and manufacturing sector for permitting increase in production capacity without having to go through entire environmental clear process again so long as there is not increase in pollution load and some other aspects.

b) In para 2, clauses (ii) and (iii) were merged together and were substituted by clause (ii) as under:

"(ii) Expansion, modernisation or any change in the product mix or raw material mix in existing projects or activities, listed in the Schedule to this notification, resulting in capacity beyond the threshold limits specified for the concerned sector in the said Schedule, subject to conditions and procedure provided in the sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 7";
c) In para 7, following amendments were made:

2. in paragraph 7,-

A. in the heading, the words "for New Projects" shall be omitted;

B. in the sub-paragraph (i), the words "For new projects or activities listed in the Schedule to this notification:" shall be inserted as heading to the sub-paragraph;

C. in the sub-paragraph (ii),-

(I) in the clause (a), after the words "application shall be appraised accordingly for grant of environmental clearance", the following words shall be inserted, namely:-

"in respect of projects or activities other than falling in clause (b) and (c)";

(II) for clauses (b) and (c), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-

'(b) Existing projects (having Prior Environmental Clearance) with no increase in pollution load: Any increase in production capacity in respect of processing or production or manufacturing sectors (listed against item numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Schedule to this notification) with or without any change in (i) raw material-mix or (ii) product-mix or (ii) quantities within products or (ii) number of products including new products falling in the same category or (iv) configuration of the plant or process or operations in existing area or in areas contiguous to the existing area (for which prior environmental clearance has been granted) shall be exempt from the requirement of Prior Environmental Clearance provided that there is no increase in pollution load (derived on the basis of such Prior Environmental Clearance):

Provided that such exemption shall be applicable only consequent to-

A. the project proponent furnishing information regarding such changes along with no increase in pollution load certificate, from the environmental auditor or reputed institutions empanelled by the State Pollution Control Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee or Central Pollution Control Board or Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, as per the procedure laid down in Appendix-XIII, on PARIVESH portal as well as to the concerned State Pollution Control Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee.

Note: If on verification, the State Pollution Control Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee, as the case may be, after giving the project proponent the opportunity of being heard, holds that such change or expansion or modernisation results in increase in pollution load, the exemption claimed under this clause shall not be valid and it shall be deemed that the project proponent was always liable to obtain prior environmental clearance, in respect of such change or expansion or modernisation, as per the clause (a) and the provisions of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 shall apply accordingly;

B. installation and implementation of Online Continuous Monitoring System (OCMS) with at least 95% uptime, connected to the servers of the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Board or Union Territory Pollution Control Committee concerned to report the quantity and quality, of emission and discharges:

Provided further that the provisions of this clause shall not be applicable if such change or increase results in change in category of project or activity from Category-'B2' to either Category-'A' or Category 'B1'.

(c) Any change in configuration of the plant or activity from the environmental clearance conditions during execution of the project after detailed engineering, in respect of projects or activities, falling in any item of the Schedule to this notification, shall not require prior environmental clearance, if there is no change in production capacity and there is no increase in pollution load subject to furnishing particulars of such changes on PARIVESH portal in the format as may be provided by the Government from time to time, before implementing such changes whereupon a system generated acknowledgement will be issued by the concerned Regulatory Authority.

Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-paragraph, "Pollution load" shall be determined on the basis of multiplication of quantity and concentration of different components and parameters (as provided or referred in the Prior Environment Clearance or the Environment Impact Assessment Report (EIA) and Environment Management Plan based on which such Prior Environment Clearance has been granted), in respect of emissions, effluents or discharge, solid, industrial hazardous waste and such other parameters notified under the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time."

d) Appendix XIII was also substituted.

e) In the Schedule, against item 5(g), after entry in column (5), the following entry was inserted:

"Note: Expansion of sugar manufacturing units or distilleries, having Prior Environment Clearance and for production of ethanol, to be used as fuel for blending only as certified by the competent authority, shall be appraised as Category 'B2' projects.";
EE. Notification dated 18.03.2021 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) In para 7, sub-para (i) under the sub-heading number II, Stage (2)- Scoping, after the serial number (ix), another serial number (x) was inserted as under:

"(x) Notwithstanding anything contained above, the projects where construction and commissioning of proposed activities have not been completed within the validity period of the Environmental Clearance (EC) and a fresh application for EC has been submitted due to expiry of the said period of the EC, the concerned Expert Appraisal Committee or State Level Expert Committee, as the case may be, may exempt the requirement of public hearing subject to the condition that the project has been implemented not less than fifty percentage in its physical form or construction."
FF. Notification dated 16.06.2021 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) In para 4(iii), the following was inserted:

"(iii a) Such Category 'B' projects, as notified by the Central Government on account of exigencies such as pandemics, natural disasters, or to promote environmentally friendly activities under National Programmes or Schemes or Missions, shall be considered at the Central level as Category 'B' projects;"
GG. Notification dated 13.07.2021 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary of the same date:

a) Hereby sub-paragraph (3) of para 11 was substituted as under:

"(3) The prior Environmental Clearance vested with the previous lessee shall be deemed to have been transferred during its validity period in terms of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (67 of 1957) as amended by the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Amendment Act, 2021 (16 of 2021) to the successful bidder of the mining leases, from the date of commencement of new lease for the remaining validity period (calculated from the date from which the said Environmental Clearance was initially granted), subject to the new lessee registering online on PARIVESH portal along with an undertaking to comply with all the conditions of the transferred Environmental Clearance".

100. A perusal of EIA 2006 and its amendments made from time to time particularly, in respect of projects/activities covered by entry 8 in Schedule I of the said notification shows that the activities relating to building construction and development would require EC from Competent Authority, if the built up area is more than 20,000 m2. Item 8(a) says that in respect of building and construction projects, if built up area is more than 20,000 m2 and less than 1,50,000 m2, the project would be treated as 'B2' category project. Item 8(b) covers another category of township and area development activities/projects where land is more than 50 ha or built up area is more than 1,50,000 m2 and under this item, the category would be 'B1'. However, under item 8, the projects whether under item 8(a) or 8(b), the same would be 'B category' projects. The difference in categorization of the projects is in respect to process of consideration of application for prior EC and appreciation by the concerned Environmental Assessment Committee.

101. There is some lacuna in the above notification relating to item 8 in as much as item 8(a) deals with building and construction projects, and built up area is between 20,000 m2 to 1,50,000 m2. Can it be said that if built up area is more than 1,50,000 m2 and project/activity is within the purview of item 8(a), it will not require any prior EC, even if impact on environment of such a project due to its size obviously would be more than a smaller project.

102. It cannot be said that a building and construction project is identical with the term township and area development so as to cover the projects/activities of more than 1,50,000 m2 under item 8(b). On this aspect, we are clearly of the view that a project, if falls under item 8(a) and is more than 1,50,000 m2, the procedure applicable to the projects which are within 20,000 m2 to 1,50,000 m2, would be made applicable and no one can claim exemption from requirement of prior EC on the ground that the project/activity though falls under item 8(a) and built up area is more than 1,50,000 m2, it will not require any prior EC, since it is not mentioned specifically.

103. We may also notice at this stage that the term "town area and area development" covers the construction activities where constructions are raised in an undeveloped area and may involve various kinds of facilities, as explained by Supreme Court Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary vs. Union of India and Others (supra), giving widest possible scope to entry 8(b). If other requirements are satisfied, the requirement of prior EC would be considered by treating the project/activities as 'B1' category and shall be proceeded accordingly.

104. Provisions of EIA 2006 and the process thereunder have been considered in detail, by Supreme Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India,   (2019) 15 SCC 401. It was an appeal taken to Supreme Court, from a judgment/order dated 21.08.2018 passed by this Tribunal in Appeal No. 5/2018 (earlier Appeal No. 61/2015/WZ), Federation of Rainbow Warriors vs. Union of India & Ors. and Appeal No. 6/2018, Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs. Union of India, wherein grant of EC for development of green field International Airport at Mopa, Goa, was challenged. Project was in category 'A' hence as per EIA 2006 'Prior EC' was to be granted by MoEF. EC was granted on 28.10.2015. It was challenged by M/s. Federation of Rainbow Warriors in Appeal No. 61/2015 at Tribunal's Western Zonal Bench, Pune. Another Appeal No. 1/2016 was filed by Hanuman Laxman Aroskar at NGT, Western Zonal Bench, Pune. Both these appeals were transferred to Principal Bench at New Delhi and numbered as Appeal No. 5 and 6 of 2018 respectively. One of the issues raised before Supreme Court was; PP did not give complete information in Form 1 submitted to the Competent Authority for grant of EC; PP is duty bound to make a proper disclosure and highest level of transparency is required; and there was concealment of certain facts by leaving certain columns blank or by not giving required details. It was contended that for these reasons, application for EC ought to have been rejected.

105. Supreme Court considered scheme of EIA 2006 in detail. Going into historical backdrop of EIA 2006, Court said that by Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act 1976 w.e.f. 03.01.1977, Article 48A was inserted to the Constitution which mandates that State shall endeavor to protect and improve environment and safeguard forests and wildlife of the country; Article 51A(g) of Constitution places a corresponding duty on every citizen to protect and improve natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures; following decisions taken at United Nations Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm (Stockholm Conference) in June 1972, in which India also participated, Parliament enacted EP Act, 1986 to protect and improve environment and prevent hazards to human beings, other living creatures, plants and property; on 27.01.1994, MoEF&CC, in exercise of powers under Section 3(1) read with (2)(v) of EP Act, 1986 and Rule 5(3)(d) of EP Rules, 1986, issued notification, S.O. 60(E) :  , 1974, imposing restrictions and prohibitions on the expansion and modernization of any activity or new project unless an EC was granted under the procedure stipulated in the notification; Notification contemplated that any person undertaking a new project or expanding and modernizing an existing project, would submit an application to the Secretary, MoEF; application to be made in accordance with Schedule, also provided that, it shall accompany project report including EIA Report, an Environment Management Plan (hereinafter referred to as 'EMP') and other details as per the Guidelines issued by Government from time to time; Competent Impact Assessment Agency would then evaluate application and submit report; and if necessary, it is also empowered to constitute a Committee of Experts which would have a right of entry into and inspection of the site during or after the commencement of the preparations relating to the project; concealment of any factual data or submitting false or misleading information would make the application liable for rejection and would lead to cancellation of any EC already granted on that basis; EIA 1994 was superseded by EIA 2006; real distinction between EIA 1994 and EIA 2006 is that in the later EC must be granted by Regulatory Authority prior to commencement of any construction work or preparation of land; EIA 2006 divides all projects in Category A and Category B projects; under EIA 1994, PP was required to submit application along with all reports including EIA report but under EIA 2006 prior to preparation of EIA report by PP, the authority concerned would formulate comprehensive Terms of Reference (hereinafter referred to as 'ToR') on the basis of information furnished by PP addressing all relevant environmental concerns; this would form the basis for preparation of EIA Report; a pre-feasibility Report is also required to submit with the application unless exempted in the Notification; under EIA 1994, final approval was granted by Impact Assessment Authority but under Notification of 2006, final regulatory approval is granted by MoEF&CC or SEIAA, as the case may be; but approval is to be based on recommendations of EAC functioning in MoEF&CC or State Expert Appraisal Committees (SEACs) which are constituted for that specific purpose; thus the salient objective which underlies EIA 2006 is protection, preservation and continued sustenance of environment when the execution of new projects or the expansion or modernization of existing projects is envisaged; it imposes certain restrictions and prohibitions based on the potential environmental impact of projects unless 'Prior EC' has been granted by the authority concerned.

106. Supreme Court said that an application must be submitted prior to the commencement of any construction activity or preparation of the land at the site. The process to obtain EC comprised broadly 4 stages i.e. (i) Screening, (ii) Scoping, (iii) Public Consultation and (iv) Appraisal. The step of screening is restricted to Category B projects. It entails an examination of whether the proposed project or activity requires further environmental studies for preparation of an EIA for its appraisal prior to grant of EC. The projects requiring an EIA are further categorized as Category B1 projects and remaining projects are categorized as Category B2 projects. Category B2 projects do not require an EIA. The categorization is in accordance with the guidelines issued by MoEF&CC in this regard from time to time. The stage of scoping requires formulation of comprehensive ToR so as to address all relevant environmental concerns for the preparation of EIA. Amongst other things, information furnished by applicant in Form 1 and Form 1A along with the proposed ToR forms the basis for preparation of ToR. Public consultation at the third stage is attracted in all Category A and Category B1 projects. Summary of EIA is prepared in the format given in Appendix IIIA on the basis of ToR furnished to the applicant. This stage involves the process by which concerns of local affected persons and others who have plausible stake in the environmental impact of the project or activity are ascertained with a view of taking into account all the material concerns in the project or activity design as appropriate. The stage of appraisal involves detailed scrutiny by EAC or SEAC of all documents submitted by applicant for the grant of EC. The appraisal is carried out in a transparent manner in a process to which PP is also invited for furnishing clarification in person or through an authorized representative. The scheme requires Regulatory Authority to examine documents strictly with reference to ToR and if there is any inadequacy to communicate to EAC or SEAC within 30 days of receipt of the documents; recommendations made by EAC or SEAC are then required to be considered by MoEF&CC or concerned SEIAA who are supposed to communicate their decision to PP within 45 days of receipt of the recommendations. Ordinarily Regulatory Authorities are supposed to accept recommendations of EAC or SEAC. In case of disagreement, Regularity Authority is required to seek a reconsideration of recommendations by the concerned recommending body. Importance of provisions of EIA 2006 in reference to protection of environment has been stressed upon by Supreme Court in para 56 of the report (SCC) as under:

"The 2006 notification embodies the notion that the development agenda of the nation must be carried out in compliance with norms stipulated for the protection of the environment and its complexities. It serves as a balance between development and protection of the environment: there is no trade-off between the two. The protection of the environment is an essential facet of development. It cannot be reduced to a technical formula. The notification demonstrates an increasing awareness of the complexities of the environment and the heightened scrutiny required to ensure its continued sustenance, for today and for generations to come. It embodies a commitment to sustainable development. In laying down a detailed procedure for the grant of an EC, the 2006 notification attempts to bridge the perceived gap between the environment and development."

107. Court also observed that under EIA 2006, process of obtaining an EC commences from the production of information stipulated in Form 1/Form 1A; crucial information regarding particulars of proposed project is sought to enable EAC or SEAC to prepare comprehensive ToR which applicant is required to address during the course of preparation of EIA. Relevant observations in para 60 of judgment are as under:

"60. Under the 2006 Notification, the process of obtaining an EC commences from the production of the information stipulated in Form 1/Form 1A.

........

........

Some of the information sought is produced thus:

60.1. Construction, operation or decommissioning of the project involving actions, which will cause physical changes in the locality (topography, land use, changes in water bodies, etc.).

60.2. Use of natural resources for construction or operation of the project (such as land, water, materials or energy, especially any resources which are non- renewable or in short supply).

60.3. Use, storage, transport, handling or production of substances or materials, which could be harmful to human health or the environment or raise concerns about the actual or perceived risks to human health.

60.4 Production of solid wastes during construction, operation or decommissioning.

60.5. Release of pollutants or any hazardous, toxic or noxious substances to air.

60.6. Generation of noise and vibration, and emissions of light and heat.

60.7. Risks of contamination of land or water from releases of pollutants into the ground or into sewers, surface waters, groundwater, coastal waters or the sea.

60.8. Risk of accidents during construction or operation of the project, which could affect human health or the environment.

60.9. Environment sensitivity which includes, amongst other things, the furnishing of the following details:

60.9.1. Areas protected under international and national legislation.

60.9.2. Ecologically sensitive areas

60.9.33 Areas used by protected, important or sensitive species of flora or fauna."

(Emphasis added)

108. The importance of correctness and transparency of the information and that any false statement or concealment of the same would be fatal, was particularly stressed by Court in para 62 of judgment, observing:

"62. The information provided in Form 1 serves as a base upon which the process stipulated under the 2006 notification rests. An applicant is required to provide all material information stipulated in the form to enable the authorities to formulate comprehensive ToR and enable persons concerned to provide comments and representations at the public consultation stage. The depth of information sought in Form 1 is to enable the authorities to evaluate all possible impacts of the proposed project and provide the applicant an opportunity to address these concerns in the subsequent study. Missing or misleading information in Form 1 significantly impedes the functioning of the authorities and the process stipulated under the notification. For this reason, any application made or EC granted on the basis of a defective Form 1 is liable to be rejected immediately. Clause (vi) of paragraph 8 of the notification provides thus:

"Deliberate concealment and/or submission of false or misleading information or data which is material to screening or scoping or appraisal or decision on the application shall make the application liable for rejection, and cancellation of prior environmental clearance granted on that basis. Rejection of an application or cancellation of a prior environmental clearance already granted, on such ground, shall be decided by the regulatory authority, after giving a personal hearing to the applicant, and following the principles of natural justice."

(Emphasis added)

109. Supreme Court also referred and approved two judgments of this Tribunal in Save Mon Region Federation vs. Union of India,  2013 (1) All India NGT Reporter 1 and Shreeranganathan K P vs. Union of India wherein, on the basis of information furnished in Form 1, the deficiencies in EIA Report, process of appraisal etc., were considered in detail to find out whether EC was granted in accordance with law or not. Court distinguished an earlier judgment in Lafarge Umiam Mining Private Limited vs. Union of India   2011 (7) SCC 338 observing that it was the case under EIA 1994 when provisions of EIA 2006 were not applicable. Court said that decision was based on facts of that case, summarized by Court in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra) in para 138 of judgment. It was also held that, relevant material, if has been excluded for consideration or extraneous circumstances were brought in mind, there was a failure to observe binding norms under EIA 2006 and consequential serious flaw in the decision-making process, would amount to an illegal exercise and failure of statutory duty, so as to vitiate EC. In para 157 of judgment, importance of the correct and complete disclosure of information by PP in his application, Form 1 and Form 1A, and further consideration by Competent Authority has been discussed, as under:

"The 2006 Notification must hence be construed as a significant link in India's quest to pursue the SDGs. Many of those goals, besides being accepted by the international community of which India is a part, constitute a basic expression of our own constitutional value system. Our interface with the norms which the international community has adopted in the sphere of environmental governance is hence as much a reflection of our own responsibility in a context which travels beyond our borders as much as it is a reflection of the aspirations of our own Constitution. The fundamental principle which emerges from our interpretation of the 2006 Notification is that in the area of environmental governance, the means are as significant as the ends. The processes of decision are as crucial as the ultimate decision. The basic postulate of the 2006 Notification is that the path which is prescribed for disclosures, studies, gathering data, consultation and appraisal is designed in a manner that would secure decision making which is transparent, responsive and inclusive."

(Emphasis Added)

110. Further, in para 158 of the judgment, in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar (supra), Court observed:

"Repeatedly, it has been urged on behalf of the State of Goa, MoEFCC and the concessionaire that the need for a new airport is paramount with an increasing volume of passengers and consequently the flaws in the EIA process should be disregarded. The need for setting up a new airport is a matter of policy. The role of the decision-makers entrusted with authority over the EIA process is to ensure that every important facet of the environment is adequately studied and that the impact of the proposed activity is carefully assessed. This assessment is integral to the project design because it is on that basis that a considered decision can be arrived at as to whether necessary steps to mitigate adverse consequences to the environment can be strengthened."

(Emphasis Added)

111. Supreme Court ultimately held that report of EIA based on incomplete information supplied by PP is vitiated. In para 159, it is said:

"In the present case, as our analysis has indicated, there has been a failure of due process commencing from the non-disclosure of vital information by the project proponent in Form 1. Disclosures in Form 1 are the underpinning for the preparation of the ToR. The EIA report, based on incomplete information has suffered from deficiencies which have been noticed in the earlier part of this judgment including the failure to acknowledge that within the study area contemplated by the Guidance manual, there is a presence of ESZs."

(Emphasis Added)

112. Manner in which application submitted for grant of EC has to be dealt with by SEIAA or MoEF, has been considered in Bengaluru Development Authority v. Sudhakar Hegde & Ors.;   (2020) 15 SCC 63. Supreme Court had an appeal arising from NGT's judgment dated 08.02.2019, whereby EC granted to appellant (BDA) for development of an eight lane Peripheral Ring Road connecting Tumkur Road to Hosur Road, a length of 65 kilometers was quashed, on the ground that report was based on primary data collected more than three years prior to submission to SEIAA. Tribunal directed that PP will not proceed on the basis of EC, which was quashed. Three issues were raised before Supreme Court. For our purpose, relevant question is, "whether EIA 2006 was followed or not". In para 87 of judgment, Court said that

"appraisal by SEAC is structured and defined by EIA Notification, 2006. At this stage, SEAC is required to conduct "a detailed scrutiny" of the application and other documents including EIA report submitted by applicant for grant of an EC. Court also said that upon completion of appraisal processes, SEAC makes "categorical recommendations" to SEIAA either for grant of a 'Prior EC' on stipulated terms and conditions or rejection of the application. The recommendations made by the SEAC for the grant of EC, are normally accepted by the SEIAA and must be based on "reasons"."

(Emphasis Added)

113. Court further said that reasons furnished by SEAC must be assessed with reference to the norm that it is required to submit reasons for its recommendations. Court found that SEAC, in that case, analyzed the matter perfunctory and fails to disclose reasons upon which it made recommendation to SEIAA for grant of EC. It merely proceeds on the reply submitted by PP. In para 89 of judgment, Court said:

"SEAC is under an obligation to record the specific reasons upon which it recommends the grant of an EC. The requirement that the SEAC must record reasons, besides being mandatory under the 2006 Notification, is of significance for two reasons: (i) The SEAC makes a recommendation to the SEIAA in terms of the 2006 Notification. The regulatory authority has to consider the recommendation and convey its decision to the project proponent. The regulatory authority, as para 8(ii) of the 2006 Notification provides, shall normally accept the recommendations of the EAC. Thus, the role of the SEAC in the grant of the EC for a proposed project is crucial; and (ii) The grant of an EC is subject to an appeal before the NGT under Section 16 of the NGT Act 2010. The reasons furnished by the SEAC constitute the link upon which the SEIAA either grants or rejects the EC. The reasons form the material which will be considered by the NGT when it considers a challenge to the grant of an EC".

(Emphasis added)

114. Approving judgment of this Tribunal in Shreeranganathan K P v Union of India; Supreme Court said:

"EAC had not conducted a proper appraisal given its failure to consider the available material and objections before it. The EAC had thus failed to conduct a proper evaluation of the project prior to forwarding to the regulatory authority its recommendation".

(Emphasis added)

115. In para 92 of the judgment, Supreme Court said:

"SEAC, as an expert body, must speak in the manner of an expert. Its remit is to apply itself to every relevant aspect of the project bearing upon the environment and scrutinize the document submitted to it. The SEAC is duty bound to analyze the EIA report. .............. The SEAC is not required to accept either the EIA report or any clarification sent to it by the project proponent. In the absence of cogent reasons by the SEAC for the recommendation of the grant of EC, the process by its very nature, together with the outcome, stands vitiated. "

(Emphasis added)

116. Reiterating on importance of protection of environment, Supreme Court said:

"protection of the environment is premised not only on the active role of Courts, but also on robust institutional frameworks within which every stakeholder complies with its duty to ensure sustainable development. A framework of environmental governance committed to the rule of law requires a regime which has effective, accountable and transparent institutions. Equally important is responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision making. Environmental governance is founded on the rule of law and emerges from the values of our Constitution. Where the health of the environment is key to preserving the right to life as a constitutionally recognized value under Article 21 of the Constitution, proper structures for environmental decision making find expression in the guarantee against arbitrary action and the affirmative duty of fair treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution. Sustainable development is premised not merely on the redressal of the failure of democratic institutions in the protection of the environment, but ensuring that such failures do not take place."

(Emphasis added)

117. Expansion of project without complying with regular procedure was disapproved by NGT vide judgment dated 11.02.2019 in Appeal No. 122/2018, Anil Tharthare vs. State of Maharashtra and this was subject matter of consideration before Supreme Court in Keystone Realators Pvt. Ltd. vs. Anil V. Tharthare & Others   (2020)2 SCC 66. The project proponent i.e. Keystone Realators Pvt. Ltd. proposed residential project i.e. "Oriana Residential Project" at CTS No. 646, 646(Pt), Gandhinagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai. Commencement certificate was issued on 08.06.2010. The total construction area was 8720.32 sqm. The ambit of project was expanded and constructed area was increased to 32395.17 sqm. Under EIA 2006, EC was necessary if total construction area exceeded 20000 sqm. Proponent thus, applied for prior EC under EIA 2006. EC was granted on 02.05.2013 by SEIAA. EC was conditional since it required proponent to obtain a consent to establish from Maharashtra PCB under Water Act 1974 and Air Act 1981. Vide letter dated 24.09.2013, proponent informed Environment Department of Government of Maharashtra that construction area is being further increased by 8085.71 sqm as a result whereof total construction area of the project would stand enhanced to 40480.88 sqm. Proponent sought an amendment to EC dated 02.05.2013 by SEIAA to reflect increase in total construction area. On 13.03.2014, SEIAA allowed amendment to EC dated 02.05.2013 on the ground that there was only a "marginal increase in built up and construction area". This amended EC dated 13.03.2014 was challenged at Pune Bench of NGT. Proponent filed two applications before NGT Pune Bench challenging locus of the first respondent (applicant before Tribunal) and also the appeal on the ground of limitation. By order dated 04.05.2016, both applications were rejected whereby maintainability of proceedings on the ground of locus and limitation was challenged. Proponent filed Writ Petition before Bombay High Court, challenging order of Pune Bench of NGT which was allowed vide judgment dated 23.08.2016 holding that appeal was not maintainable at the behest of Anil Taharthare and also that the appeal was barred by limitation. By order dated 31.07.2018, passed on administrative side, dispute was transferred from Pune Bench to Principal Bench where it was heard and decided by order dated 11.02.2019. Supreme Court examined in detail the provisions of EIA 2006 and thereafter, formulated following issues

"Whether amended EC dated 13.03.2014 granted by SEIAA without following the procedure stipulated in para 7(ii) of EIA 2006 as valid."

118. Interpreting paragraphs 2 and 7 of EIA 2006, Supreme Court in para 13, 14, 15 and 19 said as under:

"13. The central controversy between the parties to the present dispute is the manner in which Paras 2 and 7 of the EIA Notification should be interpreted. Clause (ii) of Para 2 of the EIA Notification stipulates that a project proponent shall require an EC prior to the start of construction in the case of an "expansion". Clause (ii) uses the phrase "expansion...beyond the limits specified for the sector concerned". The first respondent sought to lay emphasis on this construction to argue that any expansion beyond the lower limit stipulated in the Schedule would attract the requirement of a prior EC under Para 2. However, the above language in clause (ii) is further qualified by the phrase "that is, projects or activities which cross the threshold limits given in the Schedule after expansion or modernisation." A plain reading of the second half of clause (ii) would indicate that it applies to cases where a project was initially below the threshold limits stipulated in the Schedule but after the proposed expansion, would breach the threshold limits. Clause (ii) of Para 2 of the EIA Notification therefore would not appear to cover a case where a project had already crossed the lower threshold limit set out in the Schedule and the expansion does not cross the upper limit stipulated by the Schedule.

14. However, clause (ii) of paragraph 2 must be read with Para 7(ii) of the EIA Notification. Para 7(ii) lays down the exact procedure to be followed by a project proponent in the case of an expansion. Two crucial points must be noted with respect to Para 7(ii). First, it uses the phrase, "expansion with increase in production capacity beyond the capacity for which prior environment clearance has been granted". Second, the qualifying language referring to breaching the threshold limits "after expansion" is absent. An "expansion" can occur even after the grant of an EC when the project first crossed the lower limit stipulated in the threshold and it is not necessary for the project to breach the upper limit after the expansion. Therefore, a close reading of Para 7(ii) would support the interpretation put forth by the first respondent - that even after obtaining an EC if the project is expanded beyond the limits for which the prior EC was obtained, a fresh application would need to be made even if the expansion is within the upper limit prescribed in the Schedule.

15. The dangers effectively articulated by the learned counsel for the first respondent are real. If clause (ii) of Para 2 does not cover a case where the expansion is within the limits stipulated by the Schedule, a project proponent may incrementally keep increasing the size of the project area over time resulting in a significant increase in the project size without an assessment of the environmental impact resulting from the expansion. Such an outcome would defeat the entire scheme of the EIA Notification which is to ensure that any new or additional environmental impact is assessed and certified by the relevant regulatory authorities. In the present case, the lower limit of Entry 8(a) of the Schedule is a built-up area of 20,000 sq m and the upper limit is 1,50,000 sq m. It cannot be doubted that the environmental impact of a construction of 1,50,000 sq m is drastically more than construction of 20,000 sq m. If the appellant's argument is accepted in totality, a project proponent could potentially secure an EC for constructing 20,000 sq m and by "amendment" steadily increase the area of construction up to 1,50,000 sq m without submitting an updated Form 1 or any substantive review by the SEAC.

19. In a case where the text of the provisions requires interpretation, this Court must adopt an interpretation which is in consonance with the object and purpose of the legislation or delegated legislation as a whole. The EIA Notification was adopted with the intention of restricting new projects and the expansion of new projects until their environmental impact could be evaluated and understood. It cannot be disputed that as the size of the project increases, so does the magnitude of the project's environmental impact. This Court cannot adopt an interpretation of the EIA Notification which would permit, incrementally or otherwise, project proponents to increase the construction area of a project without any oversight from the Expert Appraisal Committee or the SEAC, as applicable. It is true that there may exist certain situations where the expansion sought by a project proponent is truly marginal or the environmental impact of such expansion is non-existent. However, it is not for this Court to lay down a bright-line test as to what constitutes a "marginal" increase and what constitutes a material increase warranting a fresh Form 1 and scrutiny by the Expert Appraisal Committee. If the government in its wisdom were to prescribe that a one-time "marginal" increase (e.g. 5% or 10%) in project size, within the threshold limit stipulated in the Schedule, could be subject to a lower standard of scrutiny without diluting the urgent need for environmental protection, conceivably this Court may give effect to such a provision. This would be subject to any challenge on the ground of their being a violation of the precautionary principle. However, as the EIA Notification currently stands, an expansion within the limits prescribed by the Schedules would be subject to the procedure set out in Para 7(ii)."

119. Having said as above, and holding that grant of amendment in EC was illegal, Court found that by the time order was passed, the construction had already completed. In that situation, what should be the proper order, was considered by Supreme Court in para 21 and it said as under:

"21. We further note that as on the date of the impugned order construction at the project site had already been completed. A core tenet underlying the entire scheme of the EIA Notification is that construction should not be executed until ample scientific evidence has been compiled so as to understand the true environmental impact of a project. By completing the construction of the project, the appellant denied the third and fourth respondents the ability to evaluate the environmental impact and suggest methods to mitigate any environmental damage. At this stage, only remedial measures may be taken. The NGT has already directed the appellant to deposit rupees one crore and has set up an expert committee to evaluate the impact of the appellant's project and suggest remedial measures. In view of these circumstances, we uphold the directions of NGT and direct that the committee continue its evaluation of the appellant's project so as to bring its environmental impact as close as possible to that contemplated in the EC dated 2-5-2013 and also suggest the compensatory exaction to be imposed on the appellant."

120. In view of this, appeal field by proponent was ultimately dismissed.

121. Challenging order dated 31.07.2020 of NGT in Sridevi Datla Vs. Union of India, an appeal was preferred, under Section 22 of NGT Act, 2010 along with delay condonation application, to Supreme Court in Sridevi Datla vs. Union of India  : (2021)5 SCC 321. Brief facts are that for construction of new Greenfield International Airport, Environmental Clearance was granted by MoEF on 14.08.2017 which was challenged by Sridevi Datla in Appeal filed on 13.11.2017 before NGT. She also filed an application seeking condonation of delay since appeal was filed after 30 days. Tribunal rejected the application, declined to condone delay and consequently dismissed appeal also. It was argued that a pragmatic view ought to have been taken which includes communication of every decision otherwise the provision of appeal would become meaningless. On the web of the Government of India, date of putting Environmental Clearance on website was 14.08.2020 and it was requested to be taken as the date of reckoning of limitation. Government of India supported Project Proponent M/s. Bhogapuram International Airport Corporation Ltd. Supreme Court examined Section 16 of NGT Act, 2010 which conferred appellate jurisdiction upon NGT. It is said that Environmental disputes are complicated and entail expertise in diverse fields such as ecology, chemistry, biology, economics, administration, management, law etc. for their determination in an effective and speedy fashion, which is not possible within regular judicial and administrative set up in India. In other words, environmental disputes relating to forests, biodiversity, air and water are complicated in nature; resolving and expeditiously disposing of these cases is not possible without a separate special court. For effective prevention and control of environmental protection there was an urgent need for a separate environmental court or tribunal to adjudicate without much delay.

122. Court also said that for condonation of delay the term sufficient cause is relative, fact dependent, and has many hues, largely deriving colour from the facts of each case, and behavior of the litigant who seeks condonation of delay. A considerable latitude should be given. It also said that if last date of limitation is a holiday then Section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897 could have been applied and there is nothing in NGT Act 2010 to exclude application of General Clauses Act, 1897. Court held "It is also noticeable that there is no indication in the NGT Act that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act cannot be applied. It is therefore, held that the provision applies proprio vigore to all appeals filed under the NGT Act." It is also said that the appellant had opposed project and therefore cannot said to be a public-spirited citizen but an interested party. In any case there was nothing in NGT Act, 2010 which excludes parties who would be directly affected by a project, that has environmental repercussions, from accessing tribunal (NGT). Likewise, characterizing nature of legal advice that can be accessed for challenging land acquisition, as similar to a challenge to environmental clearance which involves application of mind to technical issues in a detailed manner, would be unfair and simplistic. Scientific or technical support - apart from expert professional legal advice is necessary, if NGT were to be approached. In these circumstances, rejection of appeal by dismissing application for condonation of delay, on the ground that no sufficient cause shown, was erroneous and based on a narrow reading of the law. An appeal to NGT in such matters is no ordinary matter; it has the potential of irrevocably changing environment with the possibility of likely injury. Application of judicial mind by an independent tribunal in such cases, at the first appellate stage, is almost a necessity.

123. The question, whether EC was required for expansion of National Highway 45A between Viluppuram to Nagapattinam, was considered in National Highways Authority of India v. Pandarinathan Govindarajulu & Another  : (2021) 6 SCC 693. The project was approved by Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition), in March, 2018 and agreements were entered into between NHAI and the concessionaires. Process for acquisition of land was initiated and at this stage, Writ Petitions were filed in High Court of Madras by certain aggrieved farmers and Public Interest Litigants, questioning commencement of project without obtaining prior EC. High Court held that EC was necessary. There against appeal came to Supreme Court. Court held that a plain reading of Item 7 (f) of EIA Notification as amended by Notification dated 22.08.2013, make it clear that expansion of a National Highway project needs prior EC in case (a) expansion of the National Highway project is greater than 100 km. and (b) it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses. There is no ambiguity in the above provision as it gives no scope for any doubt. The distance of 100 km is important as expansion of National Highways below 100 km needs no prior environmental clearance. If project involves expansion of a National Highway greater than 100 km, prior environmental clearance would be required only if it involves additional right of way or land acquisition greater than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or by passes. Court however found that no EC, in the facts of the case, was needed in the above project. However, Court accepted findings of High Court that segmentation as a strategy is not permissible for evading requirement of EC under EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 and 22.08.2013. High Court said that requirement for EC says that the length of Highway is greater than 100 km. In such a case, if total length is much more, than segmentation of length so as to avoid prior EC is not permissible otherwise provisions of statute would become a dead letter and in every case such segmentation can be made to avoid compliance of law. Supreme Court showed its agreement with the above findings of the High Court and said that "therefore, we are in agreement with the High Court that segmentation as a strategy is not permissible for evading environmental clearance as per Notifications dated 14.09.2006 and 22.08.2013."

124. Court also had said that, however, whether segmentation of a project is impermissible under any circumstances is a matter that needs to be examined by an Expert Committee. An argument that width of toll plaza, if goes beyond prescribed limit, will not attract provisions of EIA since it cannot be included in the definition of "Right of way" was rejected and in para 24 and 25, Court said:

"24. A bare perusal of the above figure shows that toll plazas are included in the "right of way". The aforementioned Manual issued by the Planning Commission of India has been relied upon by the appellant to highlight the definition of the expression "right of way". However, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that amenities such as toll plazas and rest houses cannot be part of the right of way. In other words, the appellant contended that toll plazas and rest houses can be set up beyond the limit specified in the Notification dated 22.08.2013. We do not agree. As Para 2.3 of the aforementioned Manual makes it clear that right of way is the total land width required for the project Highway to accommodate right of way, side drains, service roads, tree plantations, utilities etc., toll plazas and rest houses should be included in the "right of way".

25. For the sake of clarity, we hold that the "right of way" includes the existing National Highway and the additional right of way. To illustrate further, if the existing National Highway is 20 meters then the right of way will be that 20 meters and the land acquired for the additional right of way."

125. The judgment of High Court, however, was set aside with the following directions:

"27.1 There is no requirement for obtaining environmental clearances for NH 45-A Villuppuram-Nagapattinam Highway as land acquisition is not more than 40 meters on existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments or bypasses.

27.2 The Appellant is directed to strictly conform to the Notification dated 14.09.2006 as amended by the Notification dated 22.08.2013 in the matter of acquisition of land being restricted to 40 meters on the existing alignments and 60 meters on realignments.

27.3 The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India shall constitute an Expert Committee to examine whether segmentation is permissible for National Highway projects beyond a distance of 100 kms and, if permissible, under what circumstances.

27.4 The Appellant is directed to fulfill the requirement of reafforestation in accordance with the existing legal regime."

126. The above authorities make it clear that for the project/activities, whereupon EIA 1994 or EIA 2006 were applicable, requirement of EC is mandatory and where there has been violation of such mandatory requirement and the project has commenced or construction have been made, Supreme Court has taken the matter very seriously and besides demolition in appropriate cases, it has imposed heavy environmental compensation also.

127. Interpretation of the terms building and construction, township and area development as contained in item 8 of Schedule II of EIA 2006 came up for consideration before Supreme Court in Re: Construction of Park at Noida near Okhla Bird Sanctuary vs. Union of India and Others,   (2011)1 SCC 744. Therein environmental issues arising from development of five parks at Sector 95 at NOIDA by State Government and NOIDA were considered. The project was opposed by applicants who brought the matter in Supreme Court in pending W.P. No. 202/1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Others, by means of IAs, on the ground that large number of trees were cut down for clearing ground in an area which was 'forest' in terms of judgment in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (supra), in violation of FC Act, 1980 and EP Act, 1986. Project on its western side lies in very proximity to Okhla Bird Sanctuary which included a large water body and is home to about 302 species of birds. Sanctuary was so declared by Notification dated 08.05.1990 issued under Section 80 of WLP Act, 1972. The stand taken by State Government was that project area does not have naturally grown trees but planted trees; area has neither been notified as "forest" nor recorded as "forest" in Government record and not identified as deemed forest. Court accepted stand of the State and held that project site is not forest land hence does not contravene Section 2 of FC Act, 1980. With regard to application of EIA 2006 to the said project, Court examined provisions of EIA 2006, and said that entries 8(a) and 8(b) of Schedule talk of "building and construction project" and "townships and area development project". Since two kinds of projects are treated separate and differently, it would mean that an 'area development project' though may involve a good deal of construction, would not be a 'building and construction project'. Court also considered the argument that in Category 8(a), there is no mention of the construction activities of more than 1,50,000 sq.m. and, therefore, necessarily, it would be covered by Category 8(b) and said in para 64, 65, 66 and 67, as under:

"64. The amicus, also arguing in the same vein, submitted that as far as building and construction projects are concerned there was no qualitative difference in Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification. A combined reading of the two clauses of Item 8 of the schedule would show the continuity in the two provisions; 1,50,000 sq m of built-up area that was the upper limit in Item 8(a) was the threshold marker in Item 8(b). This clearly meant that building and construction projects with built-up area/activity area between 20,000 sq m to 1,50,000 sq m would fall in Category 8(a) and projects with built-up area of 1,50,000 sq m or more would fall in Category 8(b). The amicus further submitted that though it was not expressly stated, the expression "built-up area" in Item 8(b) must get the same meaning as in Item 8(a), that is to say, if the construction had facilities open to sky the whole of the "activity area" must be deemed to constitute the "built-up area".

65. It is extremely difficult to accept the contention that the contention that the categorisation under Items 8(a) and 8(b) has no bearing on the nature and character of the project and is based purely on the built-up area. A building and construction project is nothing but addition of structures over the land. A township project is the development of a new area for residential, commercial or industrial use. A township project is different both quantitatively and qualitatively from a mere building and construction project. Further, an area development project may be connected with the township development project and may be its first stage when grounds are cleared, roads and pathways are laid out and provisions are made for drainage, sewage, electricity and telephone lines and the whole range of other civic infrastructure. Or an area development project may be completely independent of any township development project as in case of creating an artificial lake, or an urban forest or setting up a zoological or botanical park or a recreational, amusement or a theme park.

66. The illustration given by Mr. Bhushan may be correct to an extent. Constructions with built-up area in excess of 1,50,000 would be huge by any standard and in that case the project by virtue of sheer magnitude would quality as township development project. To that limited extent there may be a quantitative correlation between Items 8(a) and 8(b). But it must be realised that the converse of the illustration given by Mr. Bhushan may not be true. For example, a project which is by its nature and character an "area development project" would not become a "building and construction project" simply because it falls short of the threshold mark under Item 8(b) but comes within the area specified in Item 8(a). The essential difference between items 8(a) and 8(b) lies not only in the different magnitudes but in the difference in the nature and character of the projects enumerated thereunder.

67. In light of the above discussion it is difficult to see the project in question as a "building and construction project". Applying the test of "dominant purpose or dominant nature" of the project or the "common parlance" test i.e. how a common person using it and enjoying its facilities would view it, the project can only be categorised under Item 8(b) of the schedule as a township and area development project". But under that category it does not come up to the threshold marker inasmuch as the total area of the project (33.43 ha) is less than 50 ha and its built-up area even if the hard landscaped area and the covered areas are put together comes 1,05,544.49 sq m i.e. much below the threshold marker of 1,50,000 sq m. The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that the project does not fall within the ambit of the EIA Notification S.O. 1533(E) dated 14-9-2006. This is not to say that this is the ideal or a very happy outcome but that is how the notification is framed and taking any other view would be doing gross violence to the scheme of the notification."

128. On the question of project being within 10 kms of Okhla Bird Sanctuary, it was noticed that Sanctuary is hardly at a distance of 50 meters but unfortunately, neither there was any notification declaring eco-sensitive zone nor Central or State Government have notified buffer zones around Sanctuaries and National Parks to protect sensitive and delicate ecological balance required for the Sanctuaries. However, Court said that absence of statute will not preclude Court from examining project's effects on the environment with particular reference to Okhla Bird Sanctuary. As per jurisprudence developed by Court, environment is not merely a statutory issue but is one of the facets of the Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution. Environment, therefore, is a matter directly under Constitution and if Court perceives any project or activity as harmful or injurious to environment, it would feel obliged to step in. Consequently, Court issued certain directions for maintaining soft/green landscaping and thick cover of trees of native variety on the side of bird sanctuary.

129. Court also noticed anomaly in EIA 2006 Items 8(a) and 8(b) and in para 84 said:

"84. .... The EIA Notification dated 14-9-2006 urgently calls for a close second look by the authorities concerned. The projects/activities under Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the schedule to the notification need to be described with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built-up area with facilities open to the sky needs to be freed from its present ambiguity and vagueness. The question of application of the general condition to the projects/activities listed in the schedule also needs to be put beyond any debate or dispute. We would also like to point out that the environmental impact studies in this case were not conducted either by the MoEF or any organisation under it or even by any agencies appointed by it. All the three studies that were finally placed before the Expert Appraisal Committee and which this Court has also taken into consideration, were made at the behest of the project proponents and by agencies of their choice. This Court would have been more comfortable if the environment impact studies were made by the MoEF or by any organisation under it or at least by agencies appointed and recommended by it."

130. In Goel Ganga Developers India Private Limited vs. Union of India, (2018) 18 SCC 257, judgment dated 27.09.2016 passed by NGT in Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs. Union of India, was challenged. Tribunal held that the builder/proponent has violated conditions of EC and therefore, liable to pay environmental compensation of Rs. 100 Crores or 5% of the total cost of project, whichever is less for restoration and restitution of environment damage and degradation. In addition, it shall also pay Rs. 5 Crores for contravening mandatory provisions of environmental laws. Tribunal also imposed fine of Rs. 5 Lakhs upon Pune Municipal Corporation and cost of Rs. 1 Lakh each upon the said Corporation, Department of Environment, State of Maharashtra and SEIAA Maharashtra. Two appeals were filed, one by the proponent and another by Pune Municipal Corporation. The factual background is that the Proponent purchased 79,900 sq. meters or 7.91 hectares of land comprised in six survey nos. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 in Vad Gaon, Pune. All these survey numbers were amalgamated to become one plot. Proponent applied for sanction of layout and building proposal plan on 12.03.2017 on an area of 15,141.70 sq. meters, originally depicted as plot no. 3. Sanctioned FSI was 5,15,313.16 sq. meters. Thereafter, on 05.09.2007, revised layout plan was submitted for an area measuring 28233.23 sq. meters and sanctioned FSI was 39526.54 sq. meters. Proponent also applied for EC vide proposal dated 27.06.2007. He assured that he would be erecting/constructing 12 buildings having 552 flats, 50 shops and 34 offices. 12 buildings were to have stilts with basements and 11 floors. Total built up area was indicated as 57,658.42 sq. meters. EC was granted on 04.04.2008. Defining as to what is the meaning of the term "built up area", Court after referring to EIA 2006, said in para 16 as under:

16. From a bare perusal of the two hash tags (#) in Column 4 and 5 of Item 8(a), it is apparent that what is shown under Column 5 is actually a continuation of Column 4 and basically it describes or defines "built up area" to mean covered construction and if the facilities are open to the sky, it will be taken to be the activity area. This by itself clearly shows that under the notification of 2006, all constructed area, which is covered and not open to the sky has to be treated as "built up area". There is no exception for non-FSI area."

131. It also said that the concept of FSI or non-FSI has no consonance or connection with the grant of EC. The same may be relevant for the purpose of Building Plans under Municipal Laws and Regulations but has no linkage or connectivity with the grant of EC. The authority while granting EC is not concerned whether area is to be constructed as FSI area or non-FSI area. Both will have an equally deleterious impact on environment. Construction implies usage of lot of material like sand, gravel, steel, glass, marble etc., all of which will impact environment. Merely because under Municipal Laws some of the constructions are excluded while calculating FSI, is no ground to exclude it while granting EC. Therefore, when EC is granted for a particular construction, it includes both FSI and non-FSI area. Considering correctness of Notification dated 04.04.2011 and clarification dated 07.07.2017, Court said that such memorandums could not or should not have been issued. EIA 2006 is a statutory Notification and such Notifications cannot be set at naught by a Joint Director by issuing any clarificatory letter. In para 22, Court said, "we are of the view that since such decision has not been notified in the gazette the statutory notification dated 14-9-2006 and its subsequent clarification dated 4-4-2011 could not have been virtually set aside by this office memorandum". It was also held that OM dated 07.07.2017 is not clarificatory since EIA 2006 itself was very clear and considering question, whether Proponent has violated conditions of EC, Court found that construction raised was much more than what was approved and permitted in EC. Against the total built up area sanctioned in EC i.e., 57,658.42 sq. meters, Proponent has constructed 1,00,002.25 sq. meters which was patently illegal. Then, Court considered as to what order could have been or ought to have been passed. Considering the probability including justification for demolition, Court found that large number of flats and shops are already occupied by innocent people who have paid money. These people are from middle class having invested from their life's earning in the project. Since these persons are not parties, Supreme Court took the view that the demolition is not proper answer in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as that would put innocent people at loss. However, Court added in para 54 by observing that PP cannot be permitted to build any more flats than what was permitted but only to complete construction of 807 flats and 117 shops/offices and cultural center including the club house. Court stopped from constructing two buildings and directed to refund the money with 9% interest. In this regard, Court said in para 54, "There is no equity in favour of these persons since the plan to raise this construction was submitted only after 2014 when the validity of the earlier EC had already ended. Therefore, though we uphold the order of the NGT dated 27-9-2016 that demolition is not the answer in the peculiar facts of the case, we also make it clear that the project proponent cannot be permitted to build nothing more than 807 flats, 117 shops/offices, cultural centre and club house."

132. Court did not find any ground to award special damages to original applicant/complainant looking into his conduct. For the assessment of damages, Court observed that it cannot introduce a new concept of assessing and levying damages unless expert evidence in this behalf is led or there are some well-established principles. No such principles have been accepted or established in that case. No assessment in actual terms can be made, though Court can impose damage or cost on principles which have been well-settled by law. Referring to some earlier matters, where Court awarded damages as 5% of the project cost and also looking to the fact that the case in hand was where severe violations were found and PP was in transient and unapologetic behavior, it imposes damages of 100 Crores or 10% of project cost whichever is more besides, Rs. 5 Crores as damages in addition to above for contravening mandatory provisions for environmental laws. In this regard, the observations of the Court are as under:

"64. Having held so we are definitely of the view that the project proponent who has violated law with impunity cannot be allowed to go scot-free. This Court has in a number of cases awarded 5% of the project cost as damages. This is the general law. However, in the present case we feel that damages should be higher keeping in view the totally intransigent and unapologetic behaviour of the project proponent. He has maneuvered and manipulated officials and authorities. Instead of 12 buildings, he has constructed 18; from 552 flats the number of flats has gone upto 807 and now two more buildings having 454 flats are proposed. The project proponent contends that he has made smaller flats and, therefore, the number of flats has increased. He could not have done this without getting fresh EC. With the increase in the number of flats the number of persons, residing therein is bound to increase. This will impact the amount of water requirement, the amount of parking space, the amount of open area etc.. Therefore, in the present case, we are clearly of the view that the project proponent should be and is directed to pay damages of Rs. 100 crores or 10% of the project cost whichever is more. We also make it clear that while calculating the project cost the entire cost of the land based on the circle rate of the area in the year 2014 shall be added. The cost of construction shall be calculated on the basis of the schedule of rates approved by the Public Works Department (PWD) of the State of Maharashtra for the year 2014. In case the PWD of Maharashtra has not approved any such rates then the Central Public Works Department rates for similar construction shall be applicable. We have fixed the base year as 2014 since the original EC expired in 2014 and most of the illegal construction took place after 2014. In addition thereto, if the project proponent has taken advantage of Transfer of Development Rights (for short "TDR") with reference to this project or is entitled to any TDR, the benefit of the same shall be forfeited and if he has already taken the benefit then the same shall either be recovered from him or be adjusted against its future projects. The project proponent shall also pay a sum of Rs. 5 crores as damages, in addition to the above for contravening mandatory provisions of environmental laws."

133. In M.C. Mehta (Kant Enclave matters) v. Union of India & Others   (2018)18 SCC 397 (order dated 11.09.2018 in IA No. 2310/2008 and others in W.P. No. 4677/1985 & IA No. 2310-11 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995), a question was raised, whether land notified under Punjab Land (Preservation) Act, 1900 is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land and if so whether construction carried out by R Kant & Co. on the said land is in contravention of notification dated 18.08.1992 issued under the said Act, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the decisions of the Supreme Court. Court answered both the questions in affirmative. However, considering the fact that there were bona-fide purchasers, Court observed that it will not be proper to demolish buildings raised before 18.08.1992. However, subsequent constructions were directed to be demolished. On applying the principle of 'Polluters Pay', Court observed that the builder, Kant & Co. has already spent an amount of Rs. 50 Crores, must pay 10% more thereof, for rehabilitation of damaged area.

134. Now, when we examine ISSUE-III in the light of the above law, we find from record that process for development of land comprising survey no. 13B/1+2+3 and 14(part) commenced in 1992 when agreements were executed by Tukaram Sopanrao Mulik, Krishnabai H. Tingre, Jajibai Alias Laxmibai Tupe, Lilabai Kurhade and Yashoda Khandve. We have given detailed facts in the preceding paragraphs but it would be convenient to place the relevant facts in tabulated form as under:

135. Total area under the aforesaid agreements came to be owned by above five tenure holders as 1,63,916 m2. Since land was agricultural, the above owners applied for permission for change of use as non-agriculture i.e., residential. Permission was granted by Additional Collector, Pune, vide the letter dated 26.11.1993 in respect of part of land, i.e., 1,22,165.05 m2. The letter categorically stated that the land would be used only for residential purposes and none else. Various conditions in the permission letter, we have referred to above. Thereafter, Sukumar Estate Limited submitted Development Plan before Town Planning Department, PMC, Pune which was sanctioned vide order dated 25.11.1994. Details of the land, over which development was sought as such is not available on record but from joint Committee Report dated 23.11.2020, we find that Chief Engineer, PMC, Pune gave information that the then developer constructed bungalow society namely "Kumar City Residency" on 51,968 m2 land and another building projects namely "Kumar Kruti" and "Sophronia" for residential purposes was developed on 52,605.159 m2. Besides, 10,007.28 m2 is claimed to be affected by Development Plan Roads Reservation and 4,895.60 m2 land was kept as recreational open space. Total of the above comes to 1,19,476.039 m2 (51,968+52,605.159+10,007.28+4,895.60). It is also said that 23,096.80 m2 land was designated as Amenity Space. The total measurement of land comes to 1,42,572.839 m2 (1,19,476.039+23,096.80).

136. The information appears to be misleading in as much as Chief Engineer, PMC, Pune said that total area of land comprised 1,36,445.83 m2 while breakup as discussed above brings total land to 1,42,572.839 m2 which is about 6000 and more square meter but no explanation has come in this regard. Moreover, permission of use of land for agriculture purposes was only in respect of 1,22,165.05 m2, hence details of additional land, we find missing from record. If additional land was also for agricultural use, there is no record to show that its change of use was ever allowed.

137. Be that as it may, it has also come on record that "Kumar City Residency", "Kumar Kruti" and "Sophronia" came to be completed between 2004 to 2007. Built up area of "Kumar City Residency" is not stated but for "Sophronia" and "Kumar Kruti" and as also Club House and Badminton Hall, banquet, total built up area given in the joint Committee report is 1,01,219 m2.

138. In the reply dated 15.10.2020 filed by respondents 1 and 2, it is said that layout was sanctioned by PMC on 28.03.2007 and 28.05.2015. Respondents-proponents filed application on 19.03.2012 for grant of prior EC for the proposed residential and commercial project- "Kumar Kruti", "Sophronia", "Kairos and Fun N Fair". Evidently, when "Kumar Kruti" and "Sophronia" projects were already complete. Ultimately EC has been granted on 13.12.2019. However, neither this EC would condone the violations nor would render the illegalities committed by PPs in this case, legal. The issue of validity of EC shall be considered later after answering the issue of violations.

139. Violation on the part of PPs is multifarious, multifold, frequent, consistent and in fact, since the date of commencement of the proceedings till the date of filing of this OA and even thereafter.

140. As we have already referred to the facts borne out from record, initially 13 ha and 16.05 R (i.e., 1,31,605 m2) of Tukaram S. Mulik and 32,374.08 m2 land of other four owners was subjected to transfer to said five incumbents vide deed of sale/confirmation deeds comprising survey no. 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (part). Out of this, above five owners sought permission for non-agricultural use on 1,22,165.05 m2 land, comprising survey no. 13B(1+2+3) and 14 (part) which was allowed by Additional Collector, Pune vide order dated 26.11.1993. The order clearly states that non-agricultural purpose of "residential" was permitted. Respondent 1 in the reply dated 15.10.2020 has claimed that before filing OA, there was substantial development on land measuring 1,63,985 m2 in the project named as "Kumar Kruti", "Sophronia" and "Cerebrum IT Park", but, details given in the reply do not justify the above claim of respondent 1. There is no document of any development of so called Cerebrum IT Park and this has been stated by respondent 1 in the reply dated 10.10.2020 without supporting by any document to show that the said project commenced validly on the land in dispute. It is further said that initially, layout plan was approved by PMC on 06.07.1995, (at one stage, said, 25.11.1994), revised plan was sanctioned by PMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 22.03.2000, approving construction of gymnasium/cafe, badminton hall building. Again, revised plan was sanctioned vide Commencement Certificate dated 22.03.2002 for gymnasium/cafe, badminton hall building. These dates of approval of revised plans are mentioned in para 18 of reply dated 15.10.2020 filed by respondent 1. Development Agreement dated 04.07.2019, entered by KUDPL with Subhash Capital and KCCHCHSL, mention in Para C, at page 242 of the paper book, that amalgamation and sub-division layout of larger land including society land was sanctioned by PMC vide Commencement Certificate dated 14.05.2010. Here, larger land has been referred as per Para A at page 240 comprising land bearing 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (part). The above agreement also refers to the permission granted by Additional Collector, Pune for use of agricultural land as non-agricultural purposes but the date of order is mentioned as 27.01.1993 but the document on record on page 289 shows its date as 26.11.1993 and also says that grantee shall be bound to fulfill the conditions laid down in ULC exemption order dated 23.11.1992 and corrigendum order dated 23.02.1993.

141. Be that as it may, permission for non-agricultural use is confined for "residential" and area of land is 1,22,165.05 m2 only. The Development Agreement nowhere shows that in the entire land, actual construction and development was made till the date when the said development agreement 04.06.2019 was executed. It is true that the said document deals for development of part of total land termed as "Amenity Space" admeasuring 23,096.31 m2, specified in the layout but there against agreement refers to only 16,682.04 m2 lying on each side of the "Amenity Space" which is also termed as "Larger Amenity Plot" lying in survey no. 14 (part).

142. In the Joint Committee Report dated 28.01.2020, reference has been made to certificate issued by Architect submitted by PP to the Committee stating that total plot area of the project is 68263 m2 and PP has constructed Sophronia Building, Kumar Kriti Building, Club House, Badminton Hall and gymnasium by Commencement Certificates, plinth Completion Certificate and Occupancy Certificates, issued on various dates, as per the following chart:

143. The alleged certificate is not of Architect but of KUL Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. which has jointly claimed to develop project with KUDPL. It is Annexure 1 to the report and shows that total construction built up area in the above 3 constructions is 101219 m2. It refers to Commencement Certificates dated 15.05.2004, 31.03.2005, 26.07.2006, 31.03.2005, 30.03.2007 and 22.03.2002. The certificate issued by KUL Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd., jointly claiming to develop project with KUDPL, filed as annexure 1 to Joint Committee Report, nowhere refers to occupancy certificate but refers to various Commencement Certificates only and the same be reproduced as under:

144. On page 87 A of paper book, there is a Commencement Certificate dated 08.01.2018 which shows that a commercial development of property was proposed on the land at Survey No. 13B/1 + 2 + 3 and 14 (part) which was approved by PMC. It refers to several earlier revised development plans approved by Government of Maharashtra on various dates i.e., 05.01.1987, 06.12.2007, 18.09.2008, 02.03.2012 and 04.04.2012.

145. The document on page 130A of paper book is a letter dated 02.01.2012 issued by PMC, raising objection to proposal/reasons of additional construction. The said letter refers to the proposal dated 27.12.2011 for revision/additional development plan submitted by Respondent PPs and required PPs to comply with the terms referred with commencement certificate dated 22.03.2002. Objections raised in the said letter are:

"Ref:- Your Proposal dt. 27/12/2011 for Revision/Additional Construction Plan.

1. Comply with the terms related in Commencement Certificate No. 4084 dt. 22/03/2002.

2. It is necessary to verify as to how much Construction is carried out and in what manner the changes are required and therefore you are required to remain personally present on site.

3. File Tax Clearance Certificate till 23/03/2012

4. The Signatures of Land Owners/PAH and Licensed Architect are required on the proposed Plan.

5. Personal Certification about the changes to be done in the Plans.

6. From the perusal of the proposal/plans we are unable to find out as to what purpose Proposal for Revision/Additional Construction Plans is filed.

7. The Plans are not colored as per the Rules.

8. Clarification about the Court Case filed by the Society.

9. Clarification about the Construction Carried out on Nala.

Upon Compliance of above Objections only the proposal for revision/additional construction can be considered. Till that time the proposal for revision/additional construction plans is rejected."

146. Further, PPs submitted application dated 19.03.2012 to SEIAA for grant of EC. In the said application, PPs mentions 'proposed development of residential and commercial project "Kumar Kriti", "Sophronia", "Kairos and Fun N Fair" by KUL Novel Housing Pvt. Ltd. and KUDPL at land comprising Survey No. 13B/1+2+3 and 14 (Part) at Wadgaon Sheri, Kalyaninagar, Pune'. The said application was in reference of only 68,263 m2 of land in the above survey nos. though built-up area was shown as 2,59,865 m2.

147. The said application was considered in SEIAA meetings at various dates i.e., 13th to 16th February, 2013; 12th, 13th and 14th December, 2013; 12th July, 2014 and 12th to 14th August, 2014. In the meeting dated 12th to 14th August, 2014, SEAC-III found that construction was done at site prior to obtaining EC and, therefore, Committee considered the proposal as "violation case" and various discrepancies were noted by SEAC.

148. PPs submitted a revised proposal for EC for a total plot area 1,63,986 m2 and built up area as 2,79,495 m2.

149. Again, PPs submitted application dated 31.08.2017 to MoEF&CC for grant of EC as violation case in reference to MoEF&CC notification dated 14.03.2017. No order is shown to have been passed on the said application by MoEF&CC.

150. Another application was submitted to SEAC-III for grant of EC as a violation case with reference to MoEF&CC notification dated 08.03.2018. The last application dated submitted in 2018 by PPs to SEAC-III was considered in Committee's 65th Meeting dated 31.05.2018. The document on record as annexure A3 at page 132 shows certain information given by PP and we refer herein the relevant one as hereunder: