Case: KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD Vs. ANIL V. THARTHARE

2. The appellant is the project proponent of a residential redevelopment, called "Oriana Residential Project" situated at CTS no 646, 646 (Pt) Gandhinagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400050. On 8 June 2010 the appellant received a Commencement Certificate to carry out the development and erect a building situated at the project property. The appellant began construction. When the construction commenced, the total construction area was 8,720.32 square metres. The ambit of the project was expanded, and the constructed area was increased to 32,395.17 square metres. Under the EIA Notification, an Environmental Clearancewas necessary if the total construction area exceeded 20,000 square metres. Hence, the appellant applied for an EC under the EIA Notification3. The fourth respondent, the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee for Maharashtrarecommended the grant of an EC for the project. On 2 May 2013 the third respondent, the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority for Maharashtra 6 , based on the recommendations of the SEAC granted an EC. It is not in dispute that at the time when the EC dated 2 May 2013 was granted, the total construction area of the project was 32,395.17 square metres. The grant of the EC was conditional on the appellant obtaining a "consent for establishment" from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1981 and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 19744. By a letter dated 24 September 2013, the appellant informed the Environment Department of the Government of Maharashtra, the second respondent, that the construction area was being further increased by 8,085.71 square metres, as a result of which the total construction area of the project would stand enhanced to 40,480.88 square metres. In its letter, the appellant sought an "amendment" to the EC dated 2 May 2013 by the third respondent to reflect the increase in the total construction area. On 13 March 2014, the third respondent granted an "amendment" to the EC dated 2 May 2013 on the ground that there was only a ?marginal increase in built up and construction area?. The third respondent noted the changes in the specification of the project as follows:5. The first respondent, claiming to be a resident of MIG Colony, Gandhinagar, Bandra East, Mumbai, challenged the grant of the amended EC dated 13 March 2014 before the Pune Bench of the NGT. In response, the appellant filed two applications, challenging the standing of the first respondent and contending that the challenge was barred by limitation. By an order dated 4 May 2016, the Pune Bench of the NGT rejected the applications questioning the maintainability of the proceedings and setting up the bar of limitation. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay to challenge the decision of the Pune Bench of the NGT. The Bombay High Court, allowing the writ petition held by an order dated 12 August 2016, that the appeal was not maintainable at the behest of the first respondent, and the challenge against the grant of the amended EC dated 13 March 2014 was barred by limitation. By an administrative order dated 31 July 2018, the dispute was transferred from the Pune Bench of the NGT to the Principal Bench which heard the parties and delivered the impugned order9. In applying for the original EC, the appellant submitted an application in Form 1 as required under the provisions of the EIA Notification. The total construction area identified in the appellants Form 1 was 32,395.17 square metres. However, in September 2013 the appellant informed the second respondent of an increase by 8,085.71 square metres as a result of which the total construction area of the project would be 40,480.88 square metres. In seeking an amendment to the EC dated 2 May 2013 the appellant did not submit an updated Form 1. Further, the "amendment" to the EC was granted by the SEIAA without the recommendations of the SEAC.

Court's reasoning:
14. The dangers effectively articulated by the learned counsel for the first respondent are real. If clause (ii) of paragraph 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 square metres and the upper limit is 1,50,000 square metres. It cannot be doubted that the environmental impact of a construction of 1,50,000 square metres is drastically more than construction of 20,000 square metres. If the appellant" argument is accepted in totality, a project proponent could potentially secure an EC for constructing 20,000 square metres and by "amendment" steadily increase the area of construction up to 1,50,000 square metres without submitting an updated Form 1 or any substantive review by the SEACThe draft amendment was not adopted in subsequent amendments to the EIA Notification. We find considerable merit in the observations of the committee that the requirement of an EC at the time of expansion forms a critical step in the environmental clearance regime. According to the committee, it assists officials not just in evaluating and mitigating any adverse impact caused by the expansion but also in assessing whether the project proponent is in compliance with their existing obligations. Crucially, any form of expansion necessarily puts a strain on the local environment and infrastructure and needs to be carefully evaluated in a holistic mannerThe 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" 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 paragraph 7(ii)17. At the time of the second increase, the total construction area of the appellant" project was enlarged from 32,395.17 square metres to 40,480.88 square metres. As a result of the expansion, the appellant constructed sixteen additional flats which were sold at the prevailing market rate. The appellant did not comply with the procedure set out under paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA Notification but rather sought an "amendment" to the EC. The third respondent did not require the appellant to submit an updated Form 1 nor was the proposal processed and evaluated by the fourth respondent. The "amendment"to the EC dated 13 March 2014 does not discuss the potential environmental impact of the increase in construction area, but merely records that the construction area now stands at 40,480.88 square metres. The procedure set out under paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA Notification exists to ensure that where a project is expanded in size, the environmental impact on the surrounding area is evaluated holistically considering all the relevant factors including air and water availability and pollution, management of solid and wet waste and the urban carrying capacity of the area. This was not done in the case of the appellant" s project. It was not open to the third respondent to grant an "amendment" to the EC without following the procedure set out in paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA Notification18. 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.