WONDER PROJECTS DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA

1 NON­REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1713 OF 2020 Wonder Projects Development Pvt. Ltd.  & Anr.             ..Appellant(s)                                               Versus Union of India & Ors.                            ..Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T 1. The appellants are before this Court claiming to be aggrieved   by   the   order   dated   03.02.2020   passed   by   the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘NGT’ for short) in Appeal No. 54/2018.   The appellants herein were arrayed as respondent Nos. 11 and 12 in the appeal before the NGT.   By the order impugned herein, the NGT has set aside the Environmental Clearance (‘EC’ for short) issued   by   the   State   Environment   Impact   Assessment Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK SINGH Date: 2020.08.11 16:33:02 IST Reason: CA No.1713 of 2020 2 Authority (‘SEIAA’ for short), Karnataka, in favour of the appellants through its order dated 10.01.2018.   2. The   brief   facts   are   that   the   appellants   herein   are undertaking the construction of New High Rise Residential Building.     The   project   is   being   undertaken   in   Survey Nos.61/2, 62 and 63/2 of Kasavanahalli Village, Varthur Hobli,   Bengaluru   East   Taluk,   Bengaluru   District.     The construction is proposed on a plot area of 50,382.91 sq. m. with total built up area of 1,28,193.9 sq.m.  In respect of the said project the appellants had sought for issue of EC from the SEIAA, Karnataka which is the Competent Authority in that regard.  The SEIAA having considered the project report of the appellants has granted the EC through its order dated 10.01.2018.   The respondent No.2 herein being aggrieved that the construction being undertaken by the appellants herein is in the buffer zone of the Kaikondarahalli Lake, apart from being on the primary and secondary Rajkaluve and, therefore, the area being eco­fragile had assailed the EC granted in favour of the appellants by filing the appeal before the NGT.   The appellants herein had appeared and CA No.1713 of 2020 3 filed   their   objection   statements   denying   the   allegations made in the appeal.   In addition to the appellants being respondents   in   the   said   appeal,   the   Bruhat   Bengaluru Mahangara   Palike   (‘BBMP’   for   short)   within   whose jurisdiction the proposed project is being undertaken was also one of the respondents in the appeal.  The BBMP had filed   a   detailed   reply   dated   05.09.2019   and   had   in   fact contended   that   the   project   is   illegal   and   they   have   also issued the ‘stop work’ notice to the project proponent on 13.07.2018   since   there   is   violation   of   these   Zoning Regulation of the Revised Master Plan – 2015. 3. Based on the pleadings since a factual determination was   required   to   be   made   by   the   NGT,   the   NGT   also constituted   a  Joint  Committee   comprising   of   the   Central Pollution   Control   Board   (‘CPCB’   for   short),   SEIAA, Karnataka, State Pollution Control Board (‘KSPCB’ for short) and   the   Ministry   of   Environment,   Forest   and   Climate Change (‘MOEF&CC’ for short).   The said Joint Committee was required to make a spot inspection and submit a report. CA No.1713 of 2020 4 4. When   this   was   the   position   the   Joint   Committee submitted one of its reports dated 23.09.2019 indicating the details   of   the   property   situate   in   the   various   Survey Numbers, the activity carried out therein and the remarks relating to the violation if any in the buffer zone.  The NGT on   taking   note   of   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   more particularly   the   reply   filed   by   the   BBMP   and   the   Joint Committee Report dated 23.09.2019 has in that background taken note of the decision rendered by this Court in the case of  Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Forward Foundation & Ors.   2019 SCC Online SC 322 wherein it was ordered to restore the buffer zones in terms of the zonal plan.  The NGT in that regard has also taken note that the original buffer zone as per zonal plan is 30 mtrs. around the lake and 50 mtrs. from middle of the Rajkaluves in the case of primary Rajkaluves   and   25   mtrs.   in   the   case   of   secondary Rajkaluves and 15 mtrs. in the case of tertiary Rajkaluves. Resultantly the NGT has arrived at the conclusion that the EC   could   not   have   been   granted   so   as   to   permit construction in the buffer zone of the lake and drain by CA No.1713 of 2020 5 imposing   conditions.     The   appellants   are   therefore aggrieved. 5. Heard   Dr.   Abhishek   Manu   Singhvi,   learned   Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. N. Venkatraman, learned Additional   Solicitor   General,   Mr.   Darpan   for   respective respondents and perused the appeal papers. 6. While reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal the learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   appellants   inter   alia contended   that   the   very   manner   in   which   the   NGT   has proceeded to decide the appeal is not justified.  Apart from referring to the nature of the construction being put up by the   appellants   it   was   contended   that   though   a   Joint Committee had been appointed by the NGT and a report was sought, the appeal was considered and disposed of despite the report relating to the construction in the property in question   not   being     available   with   the   NGT.     It   was contended that as such the consideration made based on the   report   dated   23.09.2019   is   not   justified   since   the Committee   had   indicated   that   a   separate   report   will   be submitted in respect of the instant project.   Though the CA No.1713 of 2020 6 respective learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the order of NGT on merits by seeking to contend that   there   is   violation   of   the   zoning   regulation   and   the construction being put up by the appellants in the buffer zone cannot be permitted and the learned Senior Counsel for   the   appellants   while   seeking   to   controvert   the   said position sought to refer to the project details, we are of the opinion that the merits of the rival contentions relating to the   permissibility   or   otherwise   of   the   project   need   not engage our attention at this juncture.   We are of the said opinion   for   the   reason   that   the   point   which   requires consideration at the outset at this juncture is as to whether the   entire   material   including   the   report   of   the   Joint Committee which was relevant to consider the case of the parties   herein   was   available   before   the   NGT   and   as   to whether the NGT was justified in proceeding with the matter in the manner as it has presently done.  7. In order to consider this aspect, a careful perusal of the order dated 03.02.2020 impugned herein would disclose that the reply filed by the BBMP is extensively extracted.  It CA No.1713 of 2020 7 is no doubt true that contention has been urged by BBMP with regard to the project not being permissible.  In the light of the rival pleadings since the tribunal was to render a factual   finding   the   report   by   the   Joint   Committee   after making a spot inspection was necessary so as to assist the NGT in arriving at a conclusion.   As indicated above, the NGT   has   no   doubt   taken   note   of   one   of   the   reports submitted by the Joint Committee dated 23.09.2019.   The said   report   has   been   extracted   in   the   course   of   the impugned order which refers to the existing properties in Kaikondarahalli Lake buffer area and in the tabulated form the survey number, activity and violation of buffer if any is indicated   as   a   remark.     In   respect   of   certain   other properties, the remarks have been made either with regard to   there   being   no   violation   or   the   activity   not   being   a permitted activity.   Insofar as the property bearing Survey No.62 of Kasavanahalli Village which is one of the survey numbers   wherein   the   project   of   the   appellants   is   being developed,   a   reference   is   made   and   in   the   remark;   it  is recorded as hereunder:  CA No.1713 of 2020 8

            (emphasis supplied)  8. A   perusal   of   the   remark   extracted   and   emphasised herein would indicate that a separate O.A. No.602/2019 is also filed in respect of the instant project and the Committee has indicated that a separate report will be submitted by it. The   NGT   in   the   course   of   the   impugned   order   dated 03.02.2020 at para 7 has recorded that O.A. No.281/2019 and O.A. No.602/2019 which are also raised on an identical issue are being contemporaneously disposed of by separate orders.  The same would disclose that as on the date when the   appeal   wherein   the   impugned   order   is   passed   was CA No.1713 of 2020 9 disposed of along with O.A. No.602/2019 the report relating to the project of the appellant was not available on record before the NGT if the remarks extracted above are kept in view, since the Joint Committee was yet to complete the inspection.  9. In this  regard  it  is to be noted  that  while  ordering notice   in   this   appeal   on   02.03.2020   the   parties   were permitted   to   file   the   report   in   O.A.   No.602/2019   in   the Registry of this Court.   The respondent No.7 herein along with the affidavit has filed the report of the Joint Committee, which at the outset indicates that it is with regard to the project   relating   to   the   appellants   herein.     Further   on referring to certain aspects relating to the project the details of   the   inspection   carried   out   by   the   Joint   Committee   is referred at Clause 6.0.  It is indicated therein that in order to finalize the report the Joint Committee comprising of the members whose details are indicated made another round of inspection and meeting on 05.02.2020.   It is thus evident that as on the date the impugned order was passed i.e. 03.02.2020   the   final   round   of   inspection   had   not   been CA No.1713 of 2020 10 completed and as such the NGT did not have the benefit of the final report by the Joint Committee for making a factual determination, to arrive at a conclusion keeping in view the legal position.  Though the report of the Joint Committee is presently   placed   before   this   Court,   it   would   not   be appropriate for this Court to advert to the details of the report   and   in   that   background   take   note   of   the   rival contentions on merits since first appellate authority, based on the same has not made a factual determination so as to consider the   correctness  or otherwise  of  the  same  in an appeal of the present nature. 10. Presently since the report of the Joint Committee is available in O.A. No.602/2019 relating to the same project, the said report is required to be taken as a part of the consideration of the Appeal No.54/2018 which is disposed of through the impugned order by the NGT and a factual determination   in   accordance   with   law   is   required   to   be made.   To enable the same we find it appropriate to set aside   the   impugned   order   dated   03.02.2020   and   restore Appeal No.54/2018 to the file of the NGT so as to enable it CA No.1713 of 2020 11 to reconsider the appeal by taking into consideration the report   of   the   Joint   Committee   prepared   in   O.A. No.602/2019, which shall be made available to the NGT by respondent   No.7   herein.     It   is   made   clear   that   in   the circumstances under which the order dated 03.02.2020 is set aside, the validity or otherwise of the EC will remain subject to the fresh decision that would be taken by the NGT and the EC shall not stand revived at this juncture. This Court has not expressed any opinion on merits and all contentions are left open. 11. Taking note of the urgency indicated by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants we request the NGT to dispose of the appeal after reconsideration within a period of six weeks from the first date on which the parties appear before the NGT.   For the said purpose the NGT shall on receipt of this order indicate a date for appearance which shall   be   voluntarily   ascertained   by   the   parties   herein without expecting fresh notice to be issued by the NGT.  The NGT shall also provide opportunity to all the parties to put forth any additional documents or objections if any to the CA No.1713 of 2020 12 report and thereafter consider the matter in accordance with law.   12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.  The order dated 03.02.2020 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the NGT to restore Appeal No.54/2018 and reconsider the same in the manner indicated above.  No construction shall be put up in the meanwhile. There shall be no order as to costs. 13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ……………………………CJI.                                      [S.A. BOBDE] ……..………………………,J.                                        [A.S. BOPANNA] ………….…………………,J.                                                      [V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN] New Delhi, August 11, 2020 CA No.1713 of 2020