MUMBAI: The National Green Tribunal has directed a developer to deposit Rs 1 crore as "interim cost of damage to the environment" for violating laws all over construction of a luxurious residential challenge in MIG Colony in Bandra (E). The challenge is Rustomjee Oriana, being advanced through Resilience Realty Pvt Ltd. The tribunal held that environmental clearances given for two further flooring, comprising 16 flats-each sold for Rs 6 crore, weren't given according to procedures.
The tribunal held that "the relevant factors, including the carrying capacity of the area, having regard to the impact of expansion on the environment, specifically water and air quality have not been examined by the State Expert Appraisal Committee". The developer Rustomjee stated they're "exercising legal remedies available in accordance with law".
The NGT's primary bench at Delhi, comprising Justice Adarsh Goel, Justice Okay Ramakrishnan and skilled member Dr Nagin Nanda, further arrange a five-member committee "to carry out carrying capacity study of the area for relevant environment parameters and impact of such expansion on already congested and stressed areas". The panel has been asked to suggest the volume which will have to be recovered from the developer for the violation in addition to "remedial measures including action against violators of law who complete projects in violation of mandatory provisions making the situation irreversible, parameters for appraisal of such projects even if such projects are within FSI when cities are already highly congested with no sufficient space for traffic and open areas and the cost of restoration of environment".
The developer, Rustomjee, stated in a statement to TOI: "The company is always in compliance with applicable laws. Since the matter is sub judice before the court, we would not like to comment on the contents of the interim order. We are exercising our legal remedies available in accordance with law since the interim order was passed without 'granting us' any opportunity of being heard."
The tribunal was once listening to an utility filed through Anil Tharthare, a resident of MIG Colony, who claimed that the environmental clearance granted through the State-Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in March 2013 for additions to the residential challenge was once in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EAI) laws. The authentic challenge concerned rehabilitating around 64 tenants and creating 61 flats for sale. The revised plan proposed 64 flats for the original tenants and 77 flats for sale through including two flooring. The 2014 clearance was once granted through the SEIAA through treating it as an "amendment" to the plans.
Advocate Aditya Pratap, counsel for the petitioner, stated it will have to had been handled as an "expansion" of the challenge, which might have entailed appraisal through the SEAC. The state setting department, SEIAA and SEAC antagonistic the appliance announcing that the challenge was once less than 1.five lakh square and it was once a case of most effective 'amendment' and no longer 'enlargement'. They contended that the amendment "was marginal and impact of environment was minimal". It was once argued through the events that it was once a consistent practise to regard enlargement as a minor amendment.
The NGT held that there was once no criminal sanction for such alleged consistent observe and the 2014 environmental clearance may just no longer be sustained and was once liable to be quashed. It stated that the concept that of sporting capacity of an area was once the most important for sustainable development in Mumbai. The NGT stated, "It is a highly congested city and any further constructions must be strictly legal. Any illegal construction must be visited with permissible adverse legal action... Severely straining and degrading the available natural resources of a particular area without regard to capacity assessment are causing irreversible damage to the ecology in terms of pollution of air, water and earth."
The tribunal has asked the five-member committee, comprising two representatives of Central Pollution Control Board (one engineer and one scientist), one representative of NEERI and two contributors of SEAC (one engineer and one scientist), to publish its report through April 30. The meantime amount needs to be deposited with the CPCB.
The tribunal held that "the relevant factors, including the carrying capacity of the area, having regard to the impact of expansion on the environment, specifically water and air quality have not been examined by the State Expert Appraisal Committee". The developer Rustomjee stated they're "exercising legal remedies available in accordance with law".
The NGT's primary bench at Delhi, comprising Justice Adarsh Goel, Justice Okay Ramakrishnan and skilled member Dr Nagin Nanda, further arrange a five-member committee "to carry out carrying capacity study of the area for relevant environment parameters and impact of such expansion on already congested and stressed areas". The panel has been asked to suggest the volume which will have to be recovered from the developer for the violation in addition to "remedial measures including action against violators of law who complete projects in violation of mandatory provisions making the situation irreversible, parameters for appraisal of such projects even if such projects are within FSI when cities are already highly congested with no sufficient space for traffic and open areas and the cost of restoration of environment".
The developer, Rustomjee, stated in a statement to TOI: "The company is always in compliance with applicable laws. Since the matter is sub judice before the court, we would not like to comment on the contents of the interim order. We are exercising our legal remedies available in accordance with law since the interim order was passed without 'granting us' any opportunity of being heard."
The tribunal was once listening to an utility filed through Anil Tharthare, a resident of MIG Colony, who claimed that the environmental clearance granted through the State-Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) in March 2013 for additions to the residential challenge was once in violation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EAI) laws. The authentic challenge concerned rehabilitating around 64 tenants and creating 61 flats for sale. The revised plan proposed 64 flats for the original tenants and 77 flats for sale through including two flooring. The 2014 clearance was once granted through the SEIAA through treating it as an "amendment" to the plans.
Advocate Aditya Pratap, counsel for the petitioner, stated it will have to had been handled as an "expansion" of the challenge, which might have entailed appraisal through the SEAC. The state setting department, SEIAA and SEAC antagonistic the appliance announcing that the challenge was once less than 1.five lakh square and it was once a case of most effective 'amendment' and no longer 'enlargement'. They contended that the amendment "was marginal and impact of environment was minimal". It was once argued through the events that it was once a consistent practise to regard enlargement as a minor amendment.
The NGT held that there was once no criminal sanction for such alleged consistent observe and the 2014 environmental clearance may just no longer be sustained and was once liable to be quashed. It stated that the concept that of sporting capacity of an area was once the most important for sustainable development in Mumbai. The NGT stated, "It is a highly congested city and any further constructions must be strictly legal. Any illegal construction must be visited with permissible adverse legal action... Severely straining and degrading the available natural resources of a particular area without regard to capacity assessment are causing irreversible damage to the ecology in terms of pollution of air, water and earth."
The tribunal has asked the five-member committee, comprising two representatives of Central Pollution Control Board (one engineer and one scientist), one representative of NEERI and two contributors of SEAC (one engineer and one scientist), to publish its report through April 30. The meantime amount needs to be deposited with the CPCB.
Builder to pay Rs 1cr for green rules violation
![Builder to pay Rs 1cr for green rules violation]()
Reviewed by Kailash
on
February 14, 2019
Rating:
