Project proponent not expected to anticipate changes in environmental clearance regimes: SC

The bench also noted that in its January this year order, the NGT had also held that further construction cannot be made without an environmental impact assessment.It is, however, made clear that if any further construction is proposed by the appellant with the sanctioned layout, the same should not be done on the strength of the EC granted on November 28, 2017, by the PCMC, it said.The bench said if the project proponent wishes to construct the remaining buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent authority, as per the currently applicable framework.

A project proponent is not expected to anticipate the changes in environmental clearance (EC) regimes especially as a result of judicial interventions and keep revisiting the sanctioned clearances or even raze down the validly constructed structures, the Supreme Court said on Friday.

The apex court observed in its verdict delivered on two separate pleas against the judgement of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) which had protected the already completed construction made by a builder based on EC issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (PCMC), Maharashtra.

A bench of Justices R S Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy noted that the project comprises six buildings of which three were constructed in full and the superstructure of the fourth building is completed and only the internal works remain to be done.

It also noted that in the fourth building, 40 out of the 64 apartments have already been sold.

"A project proponent is not expected to anticipate the changes in EC regimes, especially as a result of judicial interventions, and keep revisiting the sanctioned clearances by the competent authority or even raze down validly constructed structures," the bench said. "Neither can it be expected to knock the doors of an authority, not empowered at the relevant time, to process its applications? Such a scenario would render the process akin to a Sisyphean task, eternally inconclusive and never-ending," the bench said.

The top court said the four constructed buildings are to be treated to be under a valid EC with all legal consequences. The bench also noted that in its January this year order, the NGT had also held that further construction cannot be made without an environmental impact assessment.

"It is, however, made clear that if any further construction is proposed by the appellant with the sanctioned layout, the same should not be done on the strength of the EC granted on November 28, 2017, by the PCMC," it said.

The bench said if the project proponent wishes to construct the remaining buildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent authority, as per the currently applicable framework. While one of the pleas against the NGT order was filed by the project proponent, the other one was filed by the original applicant before the tribunal who was aggrieved by the order to protect the standing construction.

"The more compelling public interest might possibly diminish the degree of legitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be found. In the present matter, the appellant has acted on the EC and made substantial investments. They cannot be pushed to a precipice and be made to fall," the apex court said. "Doing so would be inequitable particularly when the appellant has scrupulously adhered to the applicable legal framework during the concerned period. Moreover, third-party interests have also cropped up in the interregnum," it noted.

The bench noted that the main issue that arises for its consideration in the matter was whether the project proponent possesses a validly granted EC under the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of September 2006. The 2006 EIA notification provided that projects above 20,000 square meters and below 1,50,000 square meters should obtain an EC from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC).

The bench noted that the project proponent had initially conceived a project of 15,040 square meters and it had approached the PCMC to lay out the order which was a prerequisite, to obtain an EC from the SEIAA. The building permission department of PCMC had granted the commencement certificate to the project proponent and approved the plan under the sanction letter of May 2013.

The builder had later filed an application for EC under the 2016 notification and the necessary permission for construction was issued in November 2017, stipulating the environmental conditions for buildings and constructions, and the nod was accorded as per the amended regime under the notification of December 2016 of the ministry and the consequential one of April 13, 2017, of the state government.

The bench noted that the NGT, while considering the challenge by certain applicants to the exemption from EC, had quashed certain portions of the MoEF&CC notification of December 9, 2016.

Later, when the builder secured construction permission on December 8, 2017, from the PCMC, an application was filed with the allegation that the project proponent had made construction without obtaining any EC.

A committee was constituted by the NGT which filed a report in August 2020.

The NGT, in its November 17, 2020 order, had opined that the constructions were irregular and remedial measures were directed for the project in question.

The NGT order was later set aside by the apex court which had remitted back the matter to the tribunal to pass a fresh order.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)