Case Summary
| Citation | |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | |
| Issues | |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | |
| Judgement | |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
Background
[On 24.03.2000 the Ministry of Defence (MoD) upon the request of the Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) considered to give NOC for acquisition of
Defence lands in respect of four bungalows in Mall Road, Cavelary Lane and
Chhatra Marg. Accordingly, by a Notification dated 2.05.2002 the MoD
issued the NOC. The GNCTD by Notifications dated 15.12.2000 and
14.02.2001 issued under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
notified that Bunglow No.1, 3 and 4 measuring a total area about 30512.16
Sq.m was acquired at the public expenses for a public purpose namely for
Mass Rapid Transport System(MRTS). In 2003, the DDA vide its Resolution
No. 19/2003 dated 28.03.2003 permitted DMRC to develop properties of area
up to 3 ha., other than the recreational area, on the basis of 25% ground
coverage and 100 FAR, without processing the change of land use. On
13.08.2008 DMRC gave two hectares of the land to M/s Young Builders
Private Limited for a Group Housing Residential Project and accordingly a
Lease Agreement for 90 years was executed between them for an amount of
Rs. 218 Cr. Upon the representation of the University of Delhi, the Engineer
Member Committee of the DDA constituted by Lt. Governor of Delhi on
27.04.2010 reported that construction of a high rise building of 8 storeys will
amount to grave intervention on the ambience of the University and will add
to a considerable traffic load on the two lane road of the University. Despite
representations by the University of Delhi, the DDA on 12.05.2011 permitted
the M/s Young Builders Private Limited to carry out construction as per the
norms available to a group housing society under the MPD- 2021 without any
height restriction and the 2 ha. plot leased out to the said builder be
considered as a separate entity. On 23.03.2018 the State Environmental
Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA)-Delhi granted Environmental
Clearance (EC) to the said Builders for construction of a group housing
society of 4 towers/blocks consisting of 410 dwellings units with a total height
of 139.6 meters S+G+37 floors. It was this EC which the University of Delhi
Challenged before the Hon’ble NGT in 2018. The Hon’ble NGT was pleased
to pass an interim order on 08.01.2020 directing to maintain status quo as on
237
the date and no further construction activity may be undertaken. Emphasizing
on the Precautionary Principle, the Hon’ble NGT in said interim order held
that “Applying the ‘Precautionary Principle’ of environmental law, we
consider it necessary to require an evaluation of relevant data and not the old
database by a joint Committee comprising representatives of the CPCB,
MoEF&CC and IIT Delhi” (para No.4 of the said interim order). The Builders
challenged the said interim order of the NGT before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Civil Appeal No.341 of 2020. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was
pleased to set aside the said interim order of the NGT on the ground that “the
correctness of the environmental clearance dated 23.03.2018 the material
relied upon will have to be taken note at the outset by the NGT even before
requiring any other report….the counter affidavit along with the documents
were available on record a detailed consideration was necessary and only
thereafter if any further report was required by constituting a committee the
same would have arisen” (para no.7 of Supreme Court Order dated
28.01.2020). The Hon’ble Supreme Court thus directed “The NGT shall take
note of the counter affidavit and the documents of the appellant and consider
the matter on its merits and pass orders in accordance with law” (para No.8
of the said Order). The Hon’ble NGT in compliance of the order of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court listed the matter and passed an order on 03.02.2020,
“Accordingly, while accepting prayer for adjournment, we direct that the
project proponent may not proceed with any further activity till further
consideration of the matter by this Tribunal.” This Order of NGT was further
challenged by the Builders before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a Civil
Appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct amongst others “to
examine various aspects including the viability of the Project
without being influenced by any of the opinions expressed by the
National Green Tribunal in the impugned order.” (Order dated
10.06.2020, in Civil Appeal No.2485/2020, M/s Young Builders Private Ltd. v.
University of Delhi & Ors.). It is in light of this background the present Order
was pronounced by the Hon’ble NGT on 20.01.2021.]
- This appeal has been preferred against the order of the State Environment
Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Delhi dated 23.03.2018, granting
Environmental Clearance (EC) for “Group Housing Complex located at 1 and 3
Cavalry Lane and 4 Chhatra Marg at Civil Lines Delhi” by Young Builders (P) Ltd.
The project is proposed on an area of 20,000 sq. m. with built up area of 1,17,733.81
sq. m. with four towers of 139.6m. height having 410 dwelling units. The total floors
238
proposed are S+G+37 with 31,740.26 sq. m. of basement area. The EC was earlier
granted in 13.08.2012. An application was submitted for amendment of the EC on
12.02.2018. According to the appellant, as per requirement of notification dated
14.09.2006, prior to its amendment on 22.12.2014, the project was to be treated as
Category A to be dealt with by MoEF&CC. To avoid such procedure, the project
proponent prayed for treating the application as a new project after 20.12.2014. The
SEIAA declared the earlier EC to be null and void and treated the application for
amendment as a fresh application. - Vide interim order dated 8.01.2020, the Tribunal directed maintenance of
status quo, pending further consideration and appointed a joint Committee to
undertake carrying capacity study of the environment to determine viability of the
project, having regard to the relevant data. In Civil Appeal No. 341/2020, filed against
the said order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 28.01.2020, set aside the
order dated 08.01.2020 and remanded the matter to this Tribunal to first consider the
merits of the case in the light of the material already on record and pass a fresh order.
All contentions of the parties were left open. - Accordingly, after consideration of the material on record and the rival
contentions, vide order dated 27.02.2020, the Tribunal held that prima facie the
project did not appear to be viable. The Tribunal noted that the project was the tallest
high rise building in the city with more than 37 floors, having 410 dwelling units, in
the vicinity of educational institutions, hospital, Metro Station, the Northern Ridge
and other heritage buildings. There was no due disclosure by the project proponent in
Form-1 and Form-1A. There was also no application of mind by the State Expert
Appraisal Committee (SEAC) and State Environment Impact Assessment Authority
(SEIAA) while granting EC. The project was earlier wrongly treated as category B
ignoring the ‘general condition’ appended to the EIA notification dated 14.9.2006.
Evaluation of the category B-1 project, on fresh application, was without appraisal of
the requisite carrying capacity in terms of air quality, noise level, traffic congestion
and other environmental considerations. The building was located close to the
Northern Ridge and the data of the air quality was not duly examined to assess the
assimilative capacity with reference to Particulate Matter (PM) load and other data.
The site in question was earlier a parking site for the Metro Station and once the
group housing complex is set up, the parking will be on the public roads, adversely
affecting the
environment. There are other detailed reasons to which reference is not considered
necessary for purposes of this order. Based on its conclusion, the Tribunal directed
that the EC be suspended pending further consideration. A Committee was constituted
to make an assessment as to the viability of the project.
239 - In appeal against the above order, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with the
matter vide order dated 10.06.2020, in Civil Appeal No. 2485/2020, M/s Young
Builders Private Ltd. v. University of Delhi & Ors. It was observed:
“(6) We direct the Committee to examine various aspects including the viability of the
Project without being influenced by any of the opinions expressed by the National
Green Tribunal in the impugned order. The appellant, University of Delhi and Delhi
Metro Rail Corporation are at liberty to file their respective representation along
with requisite documents before the Committee within the period of two weeks. The
Committee before it starts its first deliberation shall afford an opportunity of
preliminary hearing to the appellant, University of Delhi and Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation. Likewise, the Committee shall also afford a further opportunity of
hearing to the appellant, University of Delhi and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
before it submits its final report before the Tribunal.
(7) The Committee shall complete the deliberation and submit its final report within
two months from the date of the representation being filed by the appellant and
University of Delhi and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. The Member Secretary,
Central Pollution Control Board, shall coordinate and take necessary steps for
convening the meeting of the Committee. The meeting of the Committee shall be
conducted by virtual hearing, or video conferencing, and afford an opportunity of
hearing to the representatives of the parties, mentioned above.
(8) After submission of the final report by the said Committee, the appellant,
University of Delhi and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation are at liberty to raise all the
contentions/points before the National Green Tribunal.
(9) Since we have directed the Committee to examine the issue without being
influenced by any of the opinions expressed by the National Green Tribunal, it is
not necessary to pass any further direction. The civil appeal is accordingly disposed
of with the above direction and observation.” - The Committee, appointed in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 27.2.2020
and above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has given its report dated 10.12.2020.
Concluding part in the report is as follows:
“SUMMARY OBSERVATIONS ON VIABILITY OF THE PROJECT
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, vide its order dated June 10, 2020 directed the
Committee to examine various aspects, including viability of the project. Accordingly,
the proposed project was examined for compliance/approval status for statutory
240
requirements and an independent assessment of environmental and other impacts
during the construction and occupancy phase was undertaken. Specifically, all
environmental and other components, water, air, solid waste, traffic congestion,
population density (representing impact on services), load on urban infrastructure,
structural design adequacy have been examined.
It is observed that project proponents have obtained necessary approvals/clearances
such as electric sub-station, water supply, sewerage scheme, storm water drainage
scheme, Delhi fire services, Delhi urban arts commission, layout plan, tree
removal/transport permission, etc. (Annexure IV).
To assess the impact on the environment, the incremental impact of the project was
examined. It was then inferred if the impact was insignificant or otherwise in
comparison to baseline status. The impact was examined in a grid of 2 km x 2 km
(project site at the grid centre) as the maximum impact will be caused in the close
vicinity of the project.
Air Pollution: An increase in emission was estimated as: 0.25% in CO, 0.09% in HC,
and 0.1% in NOx and insignificant in PM (particulate matter) during the construction
and occupancy phase. The estimated incremental increase is insignificant to the
baseline emissions.
Water Demand and Solid waste: An increase of 0.003% (of water demand in the grid)
in the freshwater requirement, 0.002% in discharge of treated sewage into the
municipal sewer, an increase of 1.27% in solid waste generation from the current
generation in the grid was considered nominal.
Noise Pollution: No significant impact of noise on the environment is foreseen except
during intermittent operation of the DG sets; however, the DG set will be compliant
to CPCB noise norms for DG sets.
Traffic Congestion: An on-field traffic count, vehicle speed, volume and capacity of
main roads was undertaken. Traffic volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and vehicle speed
are two main parameters to assess the Level of Service (LoS) provided by the road.
There was a marginal increase in volume to capacity ratio (ranging from 0.04 to
0.16), suggesting that the LoS was acceptable to even during peak traffic hours.
Population density: Timarpur ward is the largest ward in the grid and an incremental
increase in the population was estimated in this ward. The estimated increase in the
population density in the Timarpur ward will be 6777 persons per sq. km. The
241
percentage increment in the ward will be 14%. This increase is significant; however,
tall residential buildings do give higher population density. This increase in density is
not likely to impact the urban infrastructure/ services, as noted above.
Structural and Earthquake Resistance Design: (i) FORM 07 (Structural Stability
Certificate) dated 04.07.2017 was submitted to North DMC along with building plan
approval application by the proponent, (ii) STR certificate dated 10.01.2018having
the detailed structural stability certificate issued by the structural engineer, and (iii)
A detailed foundation recommendation report of Prof. VS Raju, Ex. Director, IIT,
Delhi dated 17.04.2018, were considered as views of experts for structural safety
concerning earthquake.
The Committee members have suggested the following measures for implementation:
- The project proponent must ensure that all necessary approvals have been
obtained and are valid. - It is noted that the project proponent has calculated the proposed STP
capacity as 200 KLD based on the assumption of @ 4 persons per household.
However, based on Census data, 2011, Delhi’s average population density is
@ 4.75 persons per household (range 4.6 – 4.9). Thus, the corresponding
sewage generation of 225 KLD during the occupancy phase will exceed the - proposed STP capacity. Therefore, the project proponent is advised to
upgrade STP capacity to 225 KLD or restrict water supply so that peak
sewage generation must not exceed 200 KLD. - Considering that the project area is part of groundwater discharge zone, it is
advised to restrict construction to only one underground basement and one
stilt parking, instead of the proposed two. The parking plan may accordingly
be revised and necessary approvals obtained. - An undertaking may be submitted that no groundwater will be extracted
during the construction phase. - NOC may be obtained from the District Advisory Committee on Ground Water
of Govt. of NCT Delhi before dewatering during construction. - An inlet digital flow meter shall be installed at DJB freshwater supply line
- All environmental norms should be strictly adhered to during construction and
occupancy phase of the project.
242
In view of the impact analysis, the project seems viable as environmental impacts,
including impact on traffic congestion and urban infrastructure/services, are
minimal/nominal.
The viability of the project is contingent upon adequacy of the environment
management plan submitted and adherence to the commitments made by project
proponent and follow best practices. All EC conditions must be complied with at all
times.”
- The appellant has assailed the report by filing written submissions/objections
to the report on 15.01.2021. Headings of the objections are:
“1. Composition of Committee- Presence of Member who was party to
granting of Impugned Prior Environmental Clearance is improper and is
violative of the principle “nemo judex in causa sua”: - Meeting not conducted in a transparent manner:
- Appellant was not informed of the field visit of the site made by the
Committee: - Credentials of the Site Visit team of the Committee is questionable:
- Non-compliance of the order dated 10.06.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court:
- Assessment done contrary to decision taken in the meeting held on
05.08.2020: - Impact on population density is more significant than what is reported:
- Assumptions made for calculating vehicular pollution has no basis:
- Vehicles plying are considered to be petrol or CNG and not diesel for
evaluating vehicular pollution without any basis. - Inference with regards to Air Pollution is fictitious.
- Ambient PM Level of the area is already alarming.
- Traffic analysis based on wrong data
- Width of the roads not considered.
- No suggestions on Solid Waste Management including C&D waste as well
as Hazardous Waste Management. - Incomplete noise impact analysis.
- Location of the project viz-a-viz its surroundings have not been considered
properly. - No findings provided on the adverse effects of DG sets being Used.
- Change in layout and modification on basement and parking suggested
due to impact on groundwater discharge zone – Consequential impact of
suggestions not studied and moreover fresh EC would be required. - Analysis of seismic stability has various shortcomings and Irregularities.
243 - No clarity towards Ground Water Usage.
- Colourable violation of Precautionary Principle.
- No analysis of impact on the Ridge.
- No analysis on critically polluted areas.
- Contrary information submitted with regards to Najafgarh Drain.
- Incorrectly notes distance with interstate border.
- Factual Inaccuracies.
- No consideration of the detailed written representation of Appellant sent to
the Committee. - Further, the appellant has submitted that following points raised by the
Appellant before the Committee have not been considered:
“a. Objection towards the composition of the Committee comprising of Ms.
Meenakshi Dhote on the grounds that she was already a member of the decisionmaking process of the impug[ned EC
b. Affidavit of Ministry of Defence dated 01.02.2019 filed before this Hon’ble
Tribunal shows that the land where the project is proposed was illegally transferred
by NCT Delhi to M/s Young Builders after changing the land use arbitrarily from
‘Public and Semi- Public’ purpose to ‘Residential’ purpose.
c. Letter dated 25.10.1943 of Joint Secretary states that no unseemly buildings shall
be erected in the neighbourhood of Delhi University and that regulatory bodies
should consult University of Delhi before building plans are approved.
d. Master Plan of Delhi 2021 under Clause 11.3 imposes restriction on tall buildings
in North Delhi Campus area and Zonal Development Plan for Zone C under Clause
1.4.4 mandating preservation and the character and heritage of the campus.
e. Report dated 27.04.2010 of a Committee constituted by Lt. Governor of Delhi states
that any intervention at the doorstep of Delhi University constructing high rise
building of 8 stories or so will amount to grave intervention on ambience of the
University and will add to traffic load of two lanes which will further affect the
ambience of the campus.
f. Sub-Committee was constituted by SEAC vide letter dated 13.12.2011. One of the
members expressed the view that project being adjacent to the University Campus will
adversely affect the environment.
244
g. No study of AAQ status of the project and carrying capacity of the area in term of
air quality has been considered. Form IA of Respondent No. 4 is ambiguous on these
aspects.
h. Sample test report of M/s Young Builders shows AAQ to be beyond permissible
limits
i. Increase in dust pollution during construction will be detrimental to hospitals such
as VP Chest Institute.
j. Traffic in the two adjacent lanes is already high due to large movement of public
including students from metro to respective institutions and residential and
commercial areas.
k. As per DMRC website, ridership/footfall at the Vishwavidyalaya Metro is around
25,000 person and this increases during the time of admission.
l. The traffic Analysis report of 2011 cannot be relied upon for granting EC as it done
not reflect the updated status.
m. Traffic load increase will create an unbearable burden on the Cavalry Lane and
Chhatra Marg which are narrow lanes of 8.5 m and 10.8m respectively. Chhatra
Marg is accident prone area and will increase hardship of differently able community
as provided under the Report titled “The accessibility issues concerning persons with
disabilities near the Vishwa Vidyalaya Metro Area.
n. Traffic analysis Report of 2018 cannot be relied upon due to few anomalies
submitted such as it wrong estimates of road width of Cavalry lane and Chhatra Marg
considered, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) is shown to be higher than shown in 2011
report however number of cars mentioned in 2011 report is more than 2018 which is
not possible, among others.
o. Proposed project falls under silence zone and due to the sensitive location of the
proposed project, which is of 140 meters height, adverse impact on noise will be very
high. Faculty of Education, University of Delhi which is adjacent to the proposed site
offers various courses and there are also student hostels and schools and a
throwaway distance. Even according to the test report of Respondent No. 4 ambient
noise levels are high
p. DJB’s appraisal of waste requirement for the project is undervalued. Water
requirement of University of Delhi is itself not fulfilled. This will exacerbate pressure
on Groundwater.
q. Clearance by DJB given for 2,57,029 litres per day for 1,785 person which is 144
litres per person per day. This is far less than estimates contained in Delhi’s Water
245
Policy 2016 which estimates that the same to be 160-225 litres. This is corroborated
by Respondent No. 4 – M/s Young Builders in its own water balance study stating
requirement to be 332 KLD. Further the water balance sheet represents demand of
more quantity of water then what has been granted under the clearance by DJB.
Therefore, the water pressure will shift to groundwater.
r. Groundwater of the project area is overexploited and is in semi-critical state,
where no Groundwater can be drawn unless permission of CGWA is acquired.
s. Non-compliance of OM dated 10.11.2015 and 25.10.2017 in letter and spirit
relating to various aspects such as socioeconomic impacts, energy requirement to
minimize power and promote renewable energy, groundwater potential, alteration in
natural slope, water balance chart, recommendation of CAG among others. For
instance, only 1% of electrical load is submitted to be fulfilled from solar energy.
t. The dissent of two members for SEAC against the project has not been recorded.
u. Various shortcomings towards waste management such as on permission from
SPCB under Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, no plan or details of STP, location
of plant area required among others.
v. Non consideration of lack of fire equipment with Delhi Fire Services for fighting
high-rise buildings to deal with fire incidents and carrying out firefighting in
congested, narrow arteries as noted by Hon’ble High Court in Vikas Singh v. Lt.
Governor and Others. Compliance with Guidelines for High-Rise Buildings dated 6
June 2013 is highly questionable. Clearance dated 08.09.2017 of Delhi Fires service
not reliable as width of the road considered wrongly.
w. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has observed in Arpit Bhargava & Anr. v. North
Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. that Delhi is not in state of readiness in terms of
seismic structural stability of buildings.
x. Geo-Technical Investigation Report of 2011 soil investigation report of 2011
cannot be relied upon for processing of EC.
y. There is no proof that the Soil investigation report of 2018 was presented to SEIAA.
Further, the Foundation Report states that final excavation depth would be around
12m below existing ground level shows and would necessitate lowering of the ground
water table. This shows that project is subject to liquefaction.
z. Letter dated 11.01.2020 of Civitech approving the Soil Investigation done on the
site on 27.05.2009 issued to Respondent No. 4 which was filed before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has been suppressed before Hon’ble NGT.
246
aa. A total of 156 trees removed against the salient feature of Request of Proposal of
DMRC. Out of agreed sampling plantation of 1560 plants only 780 have been
reported to be planted and no information for the rest of them has been provided.
Respondent No. 4 sought compensatory afforestation in his own private land which is
not in norm under compensatory afforestation
bb. Proposed Construction will open a gateway or many more project in the vicinity.
cc. Project will hamper the privacy of women employees and women residing in
women hostels adjacent to the proposed site.
dd. Concealment of facts by the project proponent under its Form I– Delhi University
and Viceroy Buildings being adjacent to the proposed project, Najafgarh Drain being
close distance to the proposed project.
ee. No analysis of carrying capacity of the area.” - The appellant has also filed objections to the affidavit filed by the project
proponent on 08.01.2021 as follows:
“1. False statement regarding no impact on groundwater: In Para ‘b’ on Page 1599
of the affidavit, Respondent No. 4 has stated that the depth of the foundation would be
10.05m and there would be no adverse impact on the groundwater. This is contrary to
the own report of Respondent No. 4.which states that the foundation level will
actually be 13.05m and the Groundwater level will have to be lowered for any
construction. - Application to District Advisory Committee on Ground Water not mutually
exclusive to single basement: In its affidavit (Para iv at Page 1601), Respondent No.
4 contends that since it has filed an application for extraction of groundwater with the
District Advisory Committee, the suggestion of the Committee on single basement
should be ignored. If the District Advisory Committee gives its clearance, then there
would not be any obstruction of the groundwater and hence two basements can be
constructed. This is contrary to the suggestions of the Committee. The Committee has
suggested that there should be a single basement and there should be an application
to the District Advisory Committee. The said two tasks are not mutually exclusive. In
any event, the application is contrary to the recommendation given by Prof Raju
Consultants. The application is for lowering the water table level to 12.45m, whereas
the report of Prof Raju Consultants recommends lowering it to 13.05m. Prof Raju
Consultants Report notes the significant issues in dewatering and hence the
Committee recommended a single basement.”
247 - We further note that I.A. No. 14/2021 has been filed by the appellant to bring
on record certain additional documents as follows:
“3. xxx xxx xxx
a. Notification dated 03.04.2008 of Government of NCT Delhi establishing that area
falling within 100 meters of an educational institute among others will considered as
a silence zone. annexed as Annexure C.
b. Relevant pages of Zonal Development Plan for Zone – “C” – Civil Lines Zone
approved by the Ministry of Urban Development (Delhi Division) vide letter dated
08.03.2010 annexed as Annexure D.
c. Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2013 of MoEF&CC issuing Guidelines for High
Rise Building annexed as Annexure E.” - As against the above, the project proponent has also filed written submissions
on 18.01.2021 responding to the written submissions of the appellant and supporting
the report. We do not consider it necessary to reproduce the same in view of stand of
the project proponent during the hearing noted in next para. - When we took up the matter for final consideration, learned Senior Counsel
for the project proponent made a statement that as per his instructions, the project
proponent has to apply for fresh EC to the MoEF&CC and the impugned EC will not
be acted upon. Learned Counsel for the appellant states that if the impugned EC is not
to be acted upon and the matter is to be considered afresh by the MoEF&CC on merits
the appeal may be disposed of as infructuous, without prejudice to the rights to
challenge the fresh EC which may be granted. - In view of above stand of the parties, it is no longer necessary for this Tribunal
to go into the merits and express any final view about viability of the project or
otherwise. - Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of as infructuous, without prejudice to the
rights and remedies of the parties in accordance with law.
In view of order in the main appeal, all pending I.A.s will stand disposed of.
- A fresh EC was granted to the M/s Young Builders Private Limited on 21.05.2021
by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (MoEF & CC) which
has been appealed/challenged by the University of Delhi before the Hon’ble National
Green Tribunal in Appeal No. 17 of 2021. The hearing is concluded and order
reserved.
