Heard learned Advocate for the Applicant. He seeks leave to file service Affidavits, leave granted. The affidavit is taken on record.
We have heard learned Advocate for the parties including the Advocate appearing for Respondent No.9.
Though Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been served, unfortunately, none has appeared on their behalf.
Prima-facie the record shows that only Pollution Control Board has initiated actions against Respondent No.9. It appears that Pollution Control Board directed that electricity supply of the construction was contemplated to be stopped and therefore, show cause notices were issued. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.9 submits that the action of the Pollution Control Board is challenged before the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay. He submits that Writ Petition is filed against the show cause notice and it is pending before the Hon'ble High Court. According to him, due to pendency of such Writ Petition, the issue is subjudice and as such, the present matter may not be taken up at this juncture.
We do not agree with the contentions of learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.9 in as much as it is settled legal position that mere filing of Writ Petition or SLP without there being interim prohibitory order or interim order of any kind which directs the Tribunal to stop proceedings further in the matter, it cannot be legally stated as impediment to go ahead with the hearing.
Prima-facie, it appears that the SEAC came to the conclusion that the Respondent NO.9 committed violation of the EC condition by misleading the authority and has constructed more area than the area for which the EC was granted. It appears that the original EC granted to the Respondent No.9 on 4 April 2008 pertains to certain piece of land and the expansion activity was undertaken lateron. Whether the expansion activity required further EC or it was permissible or not is the subsequent issue to be determined, on the touchtone of the principles of the Environmental Law as well as the Regulations contained in the EIA Notification dated 14 September 2006. The fact however remains that SEAC noted the default committed by Respondent No.9 and breach of the condition of the original EC. The fact also remains that the unbridled, un-controlled and unexplained further construction is going on at the site as seen from notices of MPCB.
In this view of the matter, notwithstanding the fact that some other Writ Petition is filed against the Pollution Control Board by the Respondent No.9, pertaining to the actions of the MPCB and is pending, it may be proper to direct that the Respondent NO.9 shall be constrained to carry out any further construction and such mandatory injunction is warranted under the circumstances. Learned Advocate of Respondent No.9, at this juncture, states that Application is filed for seeking deemed permission which is part of the prayers in the Writ Petition. In other words, he himself comes out with a case that regulations of the illegal construction is sought through the Writ Petition, one way or the other. It is but natural that without such relief being granted by the Hon'ble High Court at Bombay or without any further EC granted by SEIAA or withdrawal of the directions by the authorities and so called regularisation is made by the authorities or permission of the Hon'ble High Court.
Respondent No.10 cannot stare in eyes of Law to seek continuation of illegal construction. We find good prima-facie case made out to prohibit the Respondent No.10 from going ahead with the construction henceforth and therefore, we direct Respondent No.10 to stop further construction at the site including the area for which EC was granted or any other plot adjoining the same which may tantamount to expansion adjoining construction or so called construction for which regularisation is sought. The authorities shall monitor such injunction including the Ward Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation to ensure that no further construction of what so ever nature shall be carried out and shall submit report about the status of the construction at the site within ten (10) days.