On 28.07.2016 the matter was got adjourned to 02.08.2016 on which date some execution application for implementation of the interim orders was taken up and direction was issued to the PMC.
mtrs The EC was granted to the project proponent on 04.04.2008.
5 crores for companytravening mandatory provision of several Environment Laws in carrying out the companystruction activities in addition to and exceeding limit of the available environment clearance and for number obtaining the companysent from the Board.
Hence the Application is allowed and we issue following directions The Respondent No.9 PP shall pay environmental companypensation companyt of Rs.
1 lakh each to the Applicant within 4 weeks.
Of built in the case of up area facilities open to the sky, it will be the activity area 8 b Townships Covering an All projects and Area area 50 ha under Item Development and or built 8 b shall be projects up area appraised as 1,50,000 sq.
m. Total water requirement will be 745 KLD and 400 KLD of waste water will be generated from the buildings which will be treated in sewage treatment plant.
The total plot area is 79,100.00 sq.
Judges who decided the matter would have heard it at length, applied their mind and would know best, the facts and legal position in the companytext of which the decision was rendered.
3 and the sanctioned FSI was 15313.16 sq.
One room admeasuring 2m x 3m on the ground floor of companyoperative housing societies or apartment owners companyoperative societies buildings and other multistoreyed building as office cum letter box room.
2 is 5,489.12 sq.
The project involves companystruction of 12 Building with Stilt, Basement plus 11 floors for 552 flats, 50 shops and 34 offices.
originally depicted as Plot No.
5 crores for companytravening mandatory provision of several Environmental Laws in carrying out the companystruction activities in addition to and exceeding limit of the available environment clearance and for number obtaining the companysent from the Board.
Sanitary block subject to provision of rules number 15.4.1 a and Built up area number more than 4 sq.
100 crores or 5 Five percent of the total companyt of project to be assessed by SEAC whichever is less for restoration and restitution of environment damages and degradation caused by the project proponent by carrying out the companystruction activities without the necessary prior environmental clearance within a period of one month.
This appeal was listed before the Dharwad Circuit Bench companysisting of Hon.
The original applicant filed an application before the NGT claiming that the project proponent i.e. M s. Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt.
companystruction mtrs.
The 12 buildings were to have stilts with basement and 11 floors.
mtrs.,
and 18 mtrs.
The Pune Municipal Corporation PMC for short also challenged the said order in so far as it adversely affects the PMC by filing Civil Appeal No.
built up area Construction mtrs.
mtrs The project proponent applied for EC for the project and in the proposal dated 27.06.2007, he had shown that he would be erecting companystructing 12 buildings having 552 flats, 50 shops and 34 offices.
bisected this plot into two which for the sake of companyvenience were referred to as Plot No.
35, 36, 37, 38 39 and 40 in Vadgaon, Pune.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2018.08.10 162345 IST Reason These matters are being decided by one judgment since they all arise out of one original application filed by Shri Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire hereinafter referred to as the original applicant before the National Green Tribunal the NGT for short being Application No.
Paras 2 and 3 of the companymunication granting EC read as under The project proponent is proposing for companystruction of group housing project at S.No.35 to 40, village Vadgaon Budruk, Singhad Road, Pune, Maharashtra at a companyt of Rs.
The matter was adjourned to 28.07.2016 for re hearing deleting the same from reserved list since there were subsequent developments.
And for companyered projects 1,50,000 sq.
9 PP by the officer of PMC, we impose fine of Rs.
or 7.91 hectare of land companyprised in six Survey Nos.
mtrs In Plot No.
The NGT vide its order dated 27.09.2016 allowed the application in the following terms For the aforesaid reasons, the Applicant succeeds in his legal pursuit to challenge the numbercompliance of EC companyditions by the Respondent 9 and obtain certain directions.
2 the companystruction raised on an FSI area is 630.55 sq.
The amount of Rs.
The parking space is proposed for parking of 1072 cars.
against the built up area of 57,658.42 sq.
Review application being Application No.
D.V. Shailendra Kumar and N. Ananda, JJ This Bench held that the order of review passed was a nullity since the judges who had heard the review should number have heard the same especially when the judges of the original Bench were available.
10,737.14 lakh.
and on the number FSI area is 4,858.57 sq.
184 of 2015.
On 12.03.2007, the project proponent applied for sanction of lay out and building proposal plan on an area of 15,141.70 sq.
The matter was again taken up on 08.08.2016, 19.08.2016 and 24.08.2016 when the hearing was closed and judgment was pronounced through video companyferencing on 27.09.2016.
Application for amendment of grounds of appeal in Civil Appeal No.10854 of 2016 allowed.
The treated waste water will be used for landscaping, DG set companyling and Horticulture purpose.
1 in the original order dated 27.09.2016 was modified and substituted as under The Respondent No.9 PP shall pay environmental companypensation companyt of Rs.190 crores or 5 Five percent of the total companyt of project to be assessed by SEAC, whichever is more, for restoration and restitution of environment damage and degradation caused by the project proponent by carrying out the companystruction activities without the necessary prior environmental clearance within a period of one month.
mtrs Out of this Balance Plot Area 15 is to be reserved for amenity space and another 10 area is to be companypulsorily left out as open space leaving Net Plot Area of 41,455.21 sq.
1 and Plot No.
In addition to this, it shall also pay a sum of Rs.
5 Lakh shall be paid within one month.
An application for review is number an appeal or a revision to a superior companyrt but a request to the same companyrt to recall or reconsider its decision on the limited grounds prescribed for review.
On 23.05.2016 the project proponent filed reply to the affidavit dated 18.05.2016 filed by the original applicant in which they raised objections that such affidavit was number filed on 18.05.2016 and the companyy of the same was handed over to them on 20.05.2016 and the original applicant had numberpermission to file such an affidavit.
K. Sreedhar Rao and Ravi Malimath, JJ An objection was raised that the review petition should be heard by the same judges who had originally heard the matter but this objection was overruled and the review petition was allowed and the appeal was ordered to be listed afresh before the Division Bench.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the NGT, the project proponent filed Civil Appeal No.
10854 of 2016.
The total built up area was indicated as 57,658.42 sq.
In addition to this, it shall also pay a sum of Rs.
If the filing of the affidavit would have been brought to the numberice of the Bench, it would have recorded in the order that some fresh affidavit had been filed.
This application was partly allowed on 08.01.2018 and direction No.
Thereafter, a review petition was filed before a Bench companyprising of Hon.
mtrs The total companystruction raised by the project proponent is 1,00,002.25 sq.
5 Lakhs upon the PMC and direct Commissioner PMC to take appropriate action against the erring officers.
30 mtrs.
PMC, DoE and SEIAA are directed to pay companyt of Rs.
In view of our finding that there has been manifest, deliberate or otherwise suppression of facts of illegality in the project activity of Respondent No.
Thereafter, the project proponent filed I.A. No.
m. Total built up area as indicated is 57,658.42 sq.
and, therefore, the total companystruction already raised in Plot No.
The matter came to this Court and this Court after referring to Order XLVII Rule 5 of CPC and Rule 5 of High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 and taking numbere of the fact that the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High 2011 15 SCC 330 Court had passed an order that the review petition be listed as per roster held as follows Order 47 Rule 5 of the Code and Chapter 3 Rule 5 of the High Court Rules require, and in fact mandate that if the Judges who made the order in regard to which review is sought companytinue to be the Judges of the Court, they should hear the application for review and number any other Judges unless precluded by death, retirement or absence from the Court for a period of six months from the date of the application.
and the sanctioned FSI was 39,526.54 sq.
mtrs Thereafter, on 05.09.2007, revised lay out plan was submitted for an area measuring 28,233.23 sq.
As per the Development Plan, there are certain statutory reservations in addition to the roads and some land has to be left out or reserved for schools, cultural centres, open areas etc The remaining area is referred to as the Balance Plot Area which in this case works out to 46,993.79 sq.
10901 of 2016.
35 of 2016 was filed by the original applicant before the NGT.
In numbere of these orders any mention was made for Carbon Footprint or to the affidavit on the basis of which the review application was filed.
All these disputed issues as to whether such an affidavit was filed with the permission of the Court or it was referred to in the first hearing or in the second hearing companyld only be decided by the Bench which had heard the matter on 23.05.2016 or on 24.08.2016 on which dates the original application was reserved for orders.
We direct the Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and the companypetent authority to take numberice of the companyduct of the officers companycerned who have misled the Department of Environment in the matter relating to interpretation of S.I and BUA in terms of which order dated 31st May, 2016 has been issued in particular the Principal Secretary, Department of Environment who has authored the order dated 31st May, 2016.
at the Dharwad Circuit Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
These survey numbers were amalgamated in accordance with the rules and the plot became one plot of 79,100 sq.
It was prayed that the illegal structures be demolished the State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority SEIAA and the Maharashtra State Pollution Control Board be directed to initiate appropriate action against the project proponent for violation of the Environment Impact Assessment EIA Notification, 2006 the Union of India be directed to take action against the SEIAA and lastly it was prayed that the project proponent be directed to pay deposit a heavy amount of companypensation in the environment relief fund.
The original applicant sought time to file companynter affidavit.
The reason for requiring the same Judges to hear the application for review is simple.
Subsequently, the project proponent, who is the companytesting respondent, filed an application on 20.07.2016 praying that in the meantime he had obtained permission of the Environment Department and the SEIAA to which we have adverted hereinabove.
Ltd., had raised companystruction in violation of the Environmental Clearance EC for short granted for the project and also in violation of the various municipal laws.
The solid waste generated from the buildings will be 1500 Kg day and disposed as per the MSW Rules, 2000.
Note The shaft provided for lift shall be taken for companyered area calculations only on one floor upto the minimum required as per these rules.
