Mumbai: SEIAA given 8 weeks to decide pending pleas for environmental clearance

Mumbai: SEIAA given 8 weeks to decide pending pleas for environmental clearance

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne has said that the project proposals should be considered in accordance with the new DCPR 2034 and UDCPR for Maharashtra.

Staff ReporterUpdated: Saturday, January 28, 2023, 10:39 PM IST
article-image
Mumbai: SEIAA given 8 weeks to decide pending pleas for environmental clearance | Representative pic/ Pexels

Mumbai: The Bombay high court on Friday directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to decide within eight weeks, on merit, the real estate proposals which are pending for environmental clearance.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Sandeep Marne has said that the project proposals should be considered in accordance with the new Development Control and Promotional Regulations (DCPR) 2034 and Unified Development Control & Promotion Regulation (UDCPR) for Maharashtra. 

Order passed by a self-regulatory real estate body NAREDCO

The order was passed on a petition by NAREDCO, a self-regulatory real estate body, after SEIAA refused to consider several proposals pending before it in view of the National Green Tribunal registrar’s e-mail communication based on a September 13, 2022 order in the case of Kalpataru Developers.

The NGT 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 directed also that project failing to provide recreational ground (RG) at ground level, may not be allowed to proceed.

The high court noted that the NGT’s order, which emphasised the need for only ground floor open spaces in a real estate project, wouldn’t apply anymore as the 1991 DCR were replaced by the DPCR 2034. Under the new rules only a particular portion of open needed to be on the ground and the rest could be on a podium. 

The justices also remarked that the SEIAA “could not have deferred decision of proposals for grant of environment clearance merely on the basis of the judgment and order dated 13 September 2022 of National Green Tribunal (NGT)” which was in one particular case and hence “would not govern each and every proposal submitted before SEIAA under DCPR 2034”. 

Central govt questioned maintainability of petition

The SEIAA has been directed to consider and decide each environmental clearance proposals by applying provisions of DCPR 2034 or UDCPR, as applicable. Also, it has been left to the SEIAA to decide on merit all questions relating to permissibility of providing recreational open spaces at podium level.

NAREDCO had contended that the NGT order was only for projects governed by DCR 1991 and not applicable to projects governed by the DCPR 2034 and UDCPR. Also, it cannot be said that the NGT had issued general direction to SEIAA not to sanction any proposal for environmental clearance unless recreational ground is provided at the ground level. 

Maharashtra Government submitted SEIAA felt bound by the NGT order since there was no clarity on whether the order is applicable only to the projects governed by DCR 1991 or also to those government by DCPR 2034 or UDCPR. Hence, it decided to defer various proposals till the time there was clarity on the issue. 

An intervention application was filed opposing NAREDCO’s plea stating that it sought stay on the NGT order. 

Even the central government questioned the maintainability of the petition saying that there was alternate remedy available for challenging the NGT order. 

However, the HC said it has not gone into the merit of the petition. “All that we have dealt with in the present judgment is about the legality of action of SIEAA in deferring the proposals rather than taking final decisions thereon,” said the HC. “We are only issuing directions to SIEAA to take decisions on proposals submitted before it by applying and interpreting the provisions of the relevant DCPR 2034/UDCPR. Therefore, the objection to the availability of alternate remedy is repelled.” 

RECENT STORIES

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Mumbai: POCSO Court Sentences 2 Men To 10 Years In Prison For Eve-Teasing & Sexual Harassment Of...

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Upholds ₹3 Crore Compensation & Monthly Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Bombay High Court Questions Panvel Municipal Corporation's Retroactive Property Tax Demand

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...

Residents Cannot Be Penalised For Authorities' Delay In Executing Public Amenities Works: Bombay...

Bombay HC Asks Govt To Make State Mental Health Authority Fully Functional, Set Up 6 More Halfway...

Bombay HC Asks Govt To Make State Mental Health Authority Fully Functional, Set Up 6 More Halfway...