Allahabad High Court
M/S R.R.Civil Tech Private Limited ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 29 May, 2025
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32623-DB
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Lucknow
*****
Reserved on : 23.05.2025
Delivered on : 29.05.2025
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3518 of 2025
Petitioner :- M/S R.R.Civil Tech Private Limited Thru. Authorized Representative Rajesh Mishra
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Environment Forest And Climate Change Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Jaiswal Ojus Law
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
(1) Heard Shri Abdhesh Chaudhary and Shri Aditya Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tewari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
(2) The petitioner by virtue of the instant petition has sought to assail the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) on the grounds of jurisdictional error and material irregularity.
(3) Apparently, by the impugned order, SEIAA has denied Environmental Clearance to the Group Housing Project developed by the petitioner in the name and style of "Bliss Delight" at GH-2, Sector - G, Pocket-5, Sushant Golf City, HI-Tech Township, Lucknow, being built on an area of 41,371.93 Sqare Metre, even though, the State Level Environmental Appraisal Committee (SEAC), vide its 891st Meeting dated 24.10.2024, has recommended to grant environmental clearance for the said Group Housing Project, in favour of the Petitioner.
(4) The present writ petition was listed on 15.04.2025, wherein this Court issued notices both to the SEIAA, enumerated as opposite party No.2 and SEAC, enumerated as opposite party No.3, to the petition. However, on the subsequent date of listing i.e. on 01.05.2025, none appeared on their behalf and as such this Court, while adjourning the matter to 23.05.2025, passed the following orders, relevant to the context :-
"Affidavit of service has been filed, according to which, the notices has been served in the office of opposite party No.2 and 3 on 22.04.2025 but none has put in appearance, nevertheless, as a measure of abundant caution, let notice be issued to opposite party no. 2 and 3 by regular mode returnable at an early date"
(5) However, when the matter was called on 23.05.2025, none have appeared for the opposite party No. 2 and 3 and the Office Report says that notices were issued to opposite parties No.2 and 3 vide dispatch No. 4736/3.5.2025 and 4737/3.5.2025 booked through speed post on 09.05.2025. The office report further says that they are not in receipt of any non-delivery cover nor any Vakalatnama has been filed by the opposite parties. Be that as it may, opposite parties have been sufficiently served and we are of the view that this Court may not await any further for representation of the opposite parties no.2 and 3.
(6) Coming back to the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Project in question forms a part of the Hi-Tech City, which was earlier being developed by Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Limited. It is the case of the petitioner that they have stepped into the shoes of Ansal's qua the project in question by virtue of sale deed dated 18.07.2022 for Tower No. 1 & 3 and sale deed dated 10.07.2023 for Tower No. 2 & 4. According to him, in the said four towers, it has been proposed to develop almost 448 units against which 247 units have already been allotted to home buyers by the Ansal's itself way back in the year 2016-17 and the petitioner has executed the sale deeds in the context 'as is where is basis'.
(7) It has been submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that ever since the petitioner have bought the said project, the construction in the project could not be re-started by them owing to environmental issue and that as such, the fate of large numbers of home buyers are hanging in fire for quite some time.
(8) As far as the Environmental Clearance (EC) is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Environmental Clearance had been obtained by the erstwhile developers i.e. Ansal's for the proposed Hi-Tech City on 06.06.2007 and the same was extended to the present project in question vide another letter dated 09.06.2011 by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), which contained various general and specific conditions, including specific condition No. 5, which inter-alia stated that no buildings except those required for infrastructure shall be constructed and individual projects such as housing construction project, hospital etc. will have to separately apply environmental clearance as per rules.
(9) Learned Counsel has taken this Court to the half-yearly compliance report dated 14.09.2017 filed by Ansal's, wherein in reply to the special condition No.5 mentioned in the Environmental Clearance dated 09.06.2011, it has been replied by stating that only those building required as infrastructure are being constructed. The reply further says that as per MoEF & CC latest amendment to the EIA notification 2006, vide S.O. 3999 (E) dated 9th December, 2016, no separate environmental clearance is required for building and construction projects having built-up area less than equal to 1,50,000 square meters. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the total construction by the Project in question is for an area of 41,371.93 square meters and since they have been constructed during the said intervening period, no separate or specific environmental clearance was required for the project in question. It has been submitted that the general extended Environmental Clearance issued on 09.06.2011 was valid for the project in question, which came to lapse only in 2018.
(10) Thus, the fulcrum of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that no separate Environmental Clearance was required for the project in question at the time when it was constructed and since the Environmental Clearance came to lapse only in 2018, the application of the petitioner seeking issuance of Environmental Clearance was for renewal of Environmental Clearance and not for issuance of fresh Environmental Clearance post construction and, as such, the same cannot be rejected by SEIAA on the ground that an interim order dated 02.01.2024 has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1394 of 2023 : Vanashakti Vs. Union of India', staying the operation of the Office Memoranda dated 7th July, 2021 and 28th January, 2022 by virtue of which post-facto Environmental Clearance could had been granted by the Authority.
(11) The learned Counsel has, thus, submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti (supra) was not applicable to the project in question as the same is distinguishable on facts as pointed towards the clarificatory order passed by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 02.02.2024 and 17.12.2024. In any case, it has been submitted that the SEIAA has refused to issue the Environmental Clearance on absolutely new grounds and submitted that no doubt the order passed by the SEAC is recommendatory in nature, however, the EIA Notification of 2006 at paragraph No. 8 specifically provided that the recommendation by SEAC would be normally followed by the SEIAA and in case of any disagreement, SEIAA should remand the same to SEAC with request for reconsideration, which has not been done in the present case. According to him, the proprietary of the impugned order goes to the root of Jurisdiction and validity of the order passed by SEIAA.
(12) Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State has supported the impugned order and submitted that the application for grant of Environmental Clearance was rightly rejected by the SEIAA as the application was for a post-facto regime, which although had been allowed by the authority for a limited period window as is apparent from the Notification dated 2016 and SOP dated 17.07.2021. However, in the wake of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the notifications have been set-aside and as such, there could not be any post-facto environmental clearance. However, the learned Counsel for the State could not deny the provisions of EIA Notification of 2006 relating to the nature of power and responsibility vested with the SEAC and the SEIAA.
(13) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that no doubt after passing of the judgment in the case of Vanashakti (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not only struck down the notification of 2017 and SOP of 17.07.2021, but has also restrained the Central Government from issuing circulars/orders/OMs/notifications providing for grant of ex post facto Environmental Clearance in any form or manner or for regularising the acts done in contravention of the EIA notification. However, as submitted and highlighted by the petitioner that the present case is not related to issuance of ex post-facto Environmental Clearance but is related to renewal of Environmental Clearance, which may or may not be covered by the notification of 2017 and the SOP dated 17.07.2021.
(14) Be that as it may, this Court in its exercise of writ jurisdiction does not wish to enter the arena of factual disputes and test the veracity of the sets of allegations and counter-allegation of the parties, which has to be left to the experts of the field. This Court finds that although the SEAC has given a recommendation in favour of the petitioner vide their meeting dated 24.10.2024, however, the SEIAA chose not to agree with the said recommendation and passed the Impugned order. This Court finds that in view of the EIA notification of 2006, the moment SEIAA thought of disagreeing with the recommendation of SEAC, SEIAA ought to have requested the SEAC for reconsideration of its recommendation and should not have passed the impugned order dated 15.01.2025. Thus, the impugned order passed is without proper Jurisdiction.
(15) In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 15.10.2015 is hereby set-aside and the matter is remitted to the SEAC for fresh reconsideration, keeping in view the order passed by the SEIAA relating to the facts of the present case, as well as, the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti (supra) and its applicability to the case of the petitioner.
(16) Needless to say that the petitioner shall have a right to be heard and submit all relevant documents during the hearing before SEAC.
(17) For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms. It is expected that both, SEAC and SEIAA, would take steps to decide the matter, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(Om Prakash Shukla, J.) (Rajan Roy, J.)
Order Date : 29th May, 2025
Ajit/-
