‘NGT order no impediment,’ Bombay HC directs SEIAA to decide environment clearances as per DCPR 2034, UDCPR within 8 weeks

The NGT, in its judgment of September 13, 2022, had held that recreational ground has to be provided at the ground level which should not only be open to sky, but must also enable plantation of trees. The NGT had further directed that if any project proponent fails to provide recreational ground as per norms, the project may not be allowed to proceed.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjay V Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep V Marne passed a judgment in a plea by NAREDCO, which claimed to have more than 400 real estate developers as its members.

Senior advocate Pravin Samdani for the association said that it was aggrieved by inaction of SEIAA in repeatedly deferring various proposals by members of the association for environmental clearance. The petitioner referred to the case of delay by SEIAA in respect of a proposal for environmental clearance for proposed redevelopment of residential cum commercial project ‘Sagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited’ at Koparkhairane, Navi Mumbai by M/s Maithili builders. It said that in the minutes of the meeting of SEIAA held on September 28, 2022, “it merely deferred the proposal after deliberation” and no final decision rejecting or accepting the proposal was taken.

NAREDCO submitted that the NGO decision was applicable only to projects which are governed by Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR 1991) and was not applicable to the projects which are governed by the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR 2034) and Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulation (UDCPR).

Samdani argued that the NGT judgment would only govern the parties before it and the same cannot be considered as general direction to SEIAA not to sanction any proposal for environmental clearance unless recreational ground is provided at the ground level.

“However, since there is no clarity on the issue, it appears that SEIAA has been deferring the proposals rather than taking any final decision on the same. The petitioners are aggrieved by such an inaction on the part of the SEIAA,” the bench noted.

Additional Government Pleader Milind More for state government submitted that SEIAA felt bound by directions of NGT which were applicable not just for the parties before it and there was no clarity on the issue and the court can clarify the same so that SEIAA can accordingly proceed with applications before it.

After perusing submissions, the bench held, “We have no hesitation in holding that SEIAA could not have deferred decision of proposals for grant of environmental clearances merely on the basis of the said NGT judgment.” It observed that the NGT decision applied only to parties before it and same “would not govern each and every proposal submitted before the SEIAA based upon DCPR 2034 or UDCPR.”

It clarified that it has “only dealt with legality of action of SIEAA in deferring proposals rather than taking final decisions thereon.”. It added, “All questions on merits relating to permissibility of providing recreational open spaces at podium level in a particular project are left open to be decided by SEIAA on its own merits.”