KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD. versus SHRI ANIL V THARTHARE & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 17 S.C.R. 539 · Decided: 03-12-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
539
KEYSTONE REALTORS PVT. LTD.
v
SHRI ANIL V THARTHARE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2019)
DECEMBER 03, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Environmental Law: EIA Notification – S.O.1533 dated
14.09.2006 – Paragraph 2 – Expansion – Appellant project
proponent of a residential redevelopment project, commenced
construction of building at the project property – At the time of
commencement of construction, total construction area was
8720.320 sq. mtrs – Appellant expanded the ambit of project and
increased construction area to 32,395.17 sq. mtrs. – Under EIA
Notification, an Environment Clearance (EC) was necessary if the
total construction area exceeded 20,000 sq.mtrs and so appellant
applied for the EC –  On recommendations of SEAC, SEIAA granted
EC on 02.05.2013 – By letter dated 24.09.2013, the appellant
informed the Environment Department that construction was further
increased by 8085.71 sq.mtrs as a result of which the total
construction area of the project was enhanced to 40,482.88 sq.
mtrs – On 13.03.2014, an amendment to EC dated 02.05.2013 was
granted on the ground that there was only a marginal increase in
built up and construction area – Challenge to the grant of amended
EC dated 13.03.2014 by first respondent – NGT held that the
increase in the total construction area of the appellant’s project
was an expansion under Notification dated 14.09.2006 – NGT
found that the appellant had undertaken an expansion as set out
in Paragraph 2 of the Notification without complying with the
regulatory procedure prescribed and directed the appellant to
deposit Rs. One crore with the CPCB – Further, noting that the
construction at the project site had been completed, the NGT
appointed a five-member expert committee to study the impact of
the appellant’s expanded project and to suggest remedial measures
– In the instant appeal challenge was made to this order of the
NGT – Held: The entire scheme of the EIA Notification is to ensure
   [2019] 17 S.C.R. 539
539
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
540
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 17 S.C.R.
that any new or additional environmental impact is assessed and
certified by the relevant regulatory authorities – The lower limit
of Entry 8(a) of the Schedule is a built up area of 20,000 sq. mtrs
and the upper limit is 1,50,000 sq. mtrs – No doubt, the
environmental impact of a construction of 1,50,000 sq. mtrs would
be drastically more than construction of 20,000 sq. mtrs – It cannot
be disputed that as the size of the project increases, so does the
magnitude of the project’s environmental impact – 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 –  Thus, an
expansion within the limits prescribed by the Schedules would be
subject to the procedure set out in paragraph 7(ii) – At the time of
the second increase, the total construction area of the appellant’s
project was enlarged to 40,480.88 sq.mtrs – As a result of
expansion, appellant constructed sixteen additional flats –
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 – SEIAA did not require the appellant to
submit an updated Form 1 nor was the proposal processed and
evaluated by SEAC – The ‘amendment’ to EC dated 13.03.2014
did not discuss the potential environmental impact of the increase
in construction area – 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 SEIAA to grant an ‘amendment’ to the EC without
following the procedure set out in paragraph 7(ii) of the EIA
Notification – Further, as on the date of the impugned order
construction at the project site had already been completed – By
completing the construction of the project, the appellant denied
SEIAA and SEAC, the ability to evaluate 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.