Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Original Application No. 688/2019 (With report dated 13.02.2020)

Attorney(S)

Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singh, AEE, HSPCB,

Judges

Adarsh Kumar Goel
Chairperson
S.P. Wangdi, Member (Judicial)
Nagin Nanda, Expert Member
Siddhanta Das, Expert Member

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The opinion arises from an allegation that Sare Homes Society at Gurgaon, Haryana, was disposing untreated sewage in the open, causing a health hazard in the area. The Tribunal sought reports from the District Magistrate, Gurgaon and the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB).

The SPCB filed a report dated 27.11.2019 stating the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) of the project was not properly functioning and polluting discharge was being released illegally. Prosecution was initiated against M/s Ramprastha Saare Township (Village Wazirpur Meoka, Gurugram) for violation of environmental norms, and prosecution was recommended against the Directors of the project. A proposal was also made for recovery of environmental compensation.

A further status report dated 13.02.2020 from the SPCB indicated ongoing non-functioning of the STP, discharge of effluents into horticulture areas and a cess pool, and a series of other non-compliances. The SPCB assessed compensation of Rs. 41,62,500/- (at the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per day). The Senior Town Planner, Gurugram and the Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana were asked to take action for non-compliance with Occupation Certificate conditions.

The Tribunal noted that such non-compliance by group housing project proponents in Haryana has been frequent, with action often taken only after directions from the Tribunal. The opinion records concern about the effectiveness of monitoring mechanisms post-clearance and pre-clearance, and refers to prior Tribunal orders dealing with similar large-scale non-compliances. The Tribunal issued directions to the Chief Secretary, Haryana to consider vigilance/other inquiries and to oversee remedial action, and directed a report within one month. The matter was listed for further consideration on 14.04.2020.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Mukund Dhote v. Union Of India (O.A. No. 506/2019)	The Tribunal identified serious and consistent defaults in compliance with Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions by a group housing project (Vista Heights, Sector 86, Faridabad), and emphasized the need for remedial steps, enhanced monitoring, and coercive measures (including blacklisting, sealing, interim compensation and joint assessment by MoEF&CC, CPCB and State PCB).	The Court relied on the observations in Mukund Dhote to show a pattern of serious non-compliance in Haryana and to justify issuing directions in the present matter for remedial action, strengthened monitoring, and involvement of senior State functionaries to ensure enforcement of environmental norms.
Kissan Udey Samiti v. State of Haryana (O.A. No. 764/2018)	Summarized violations across projects: absence of prior EC and CTE, STP deficiencies, discharge of untreated effluents, non-compliance with Solid Waste Management Rules, and general monitoring failures; it highlighted the need for State-led remedial steps and a survey of projects to furnish status reports.	The Court used this precedent to demonstrate that the violations in the present case are part of a wider, systemic problem and to support directions for the State and regulatory agencies to survey, monitor and take remedial action against defaulting housing projects.
Sandeep Mittal v. MoEF&CC (O.A. No. 837/2018)	The Tribunal observed that monitoring of projects was delayed and inadequate, resulting in rampant violations; it called for MoEF&CC to actively monitor compliance of EC conditions.	The Court cited this precedent to underscore the inadequacy of existing monitoring and to support its direction that State authorities urgently review monitoring mechanisms and incorporate safeguards to enforce environmental compliance.
Praveen Kakar v. Ministry Of Environment & Forests (O.A. No. 661/2018)	The Tribunal, dealing with serious violations (including non-payment of assessed compensation), instructed the Chief Secretary to suggest mechanisms for enforcement of law, to consider action against collusion by State officers, and to contemplate coercive measures such as blacklisting, attaching assets, or referring matters to investigative agencies.	The Court applied the principles and directions from Praveen Kakar to direct the Chief Secretary, Haryana, to consider referral to vigilance or other measures to ascertain intentional or collusive violations, and to oversee remedial enforcement measures in the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal's reasoning proceeds from fact-finding to remedial prescription, summarised as follows (based strictly on the text of the opinion):

Factual foundation: The SPCB's inspections and reports (dated 27.11.2019 and 13.02.2020) established that the project's 850 KLD STP was not functioning properly, treated effluent parameters exceeded prescribed limits, and partially treated effluent was being disposed into an on-site open cess pool and horticulture area. The SPCB reported multiple additional non-compliances (e.g., lack of grey/black water segregation, absence of UV/ozonization disinfection, no rainwater harvesting pretreatment, missing composting for biodegradable waste, failure to meet discharge standards, failure to submit compliance reports and environment statements, and absence of fire department clearance).
Assessment of enforcement gaps: The Tribunal observed that the compensation assessed by the SPCB (Rs. 41,62,500/-) appeared inadequate given the seriousness of violations, and that the SPCB's action had been slow. The Tribunal noted recurring instances across Haryana where project proponents flagrantly violated environmental norms and conditions of Occupancy Certificates, with action often taken only after Tribunal intervention.
Systemic concern and collusion risk: Given the gravity and recurrence of violations, and delays in enforcement, the Tribunal found that the possibility of collusion by State officers was not ruled out in permitting or failing to remedy such violations.
Reliance on prior precedents: The Tribunal referenced earlier orders (Mukund Dhote, Kissan Udey Samiti, Sandeep Mittal, Praveen Kakar) that documented similar defaults and called for stronger monitoring and remedial measures. These precedents were used to establish that the present concerns are part of a broader, systemic failing requiring urgent administrative correction.
Mandated remedial and supervisory measures: On these bases, the Tribunal directed the Chief Secretary, Haryana to consider referring the matter to vigilance (or other appropriate bodies) to determine whether there was intentional or collusive violation of law, and to oversee speedy remedial enforcement of environmental norms. The Tribunal specified that safeguards and monitoring mechanisms be strengthened (including possible guarantees from project directors, seizing of properties, blacklisting, and other coercive measures), and it directed the Chief Secretary to furnish an action taken report within one month by e-mail to the Tribunal.
Administrative follow-up: The Tribunal further directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Chief Secretary, and listed the matter for further consideration on 14.04.2020.

Holding and Implications

CORE RULING: The Tribunal issued administrative directions to the Chief Secretary, Haryana to urgently review and strengthen enforcement and monitoring mechanisms, to consider referral to vigilance or other appropriate authorities to ascertain intentional or collusive violations, and to oversee remedial action for speedy enforcement of environmental norms in relation to the Sare Homes / Ramprastha Saare Township matter.

Direct consequences for the parties (as recorded in the opinion):

The SPCB initiated prosecution against M/s Ramprastha Saare Township and recommended prosecution against the project's Directors.
The SPCB assessed environmental compensation at Rs. 41,62,500/- (Rs. 37,500/- per day) based on the findings of non-compliance.
The Tribunal directed the Chief Secretary to review enforcement mechanisms, consider vigilance referral, and to furnish an action taken report within one month to the Tribunal at judicial-ngt@gov.in. A copy of the order was to be sent to the Chief Secretary by email.
The matter was listed for further consideration on 14.04.2020.

Broader implications noted by the Tribunal:

The Tribunal emphasised systemic failures in post-clearance monitoring of group housing projects in Haryana and the need for safeguards (including guarantees by Directors, blacklisting, seizure of properties and other coercive steps) so that State machinery can effectively remedy violations even after a project proponent has completed or abandoned a project.
The Tribunal referenced earlier orders where substantial interim compensation and coercive administrative measures were imposed in comparable cases, using those orders to support its directions in the present matter.

The opinion does not purport to lay down a new legal principle; rather, it applies prior Tribunal findings and directs administrative and investigative steps targeted at enforcement and remediation in this specific factual matrix.

Show full summary ...

Aditya Jakhar v. State Of Haryana

1. A report was sought from the District Magistrate, Gurgaon and the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) with reference to the allegation of disposal of untreated sewage in open by Sare Homes Society at Gurgaon, Haryana, causing health hazard in the area.

2. The State PCB has filed its report on 27.11.2019 to the effect that STP of the project was not properly working and polluting discharge was being released illegally. Prosecution has been initiated against M/s Ramprastha Saare Township, Village Wazirpur Meoka, Gurugram, on account of violation of environmental norms. Prosecution has also been recommended against the Directors of the project. Proposal has been made for recovery of environmental compensation.

3. During the hearing, the learned counsel for the State PCB has handed over latest status report dated 13.02.2020 to the effect that the STP is not functioning properly and the effluents are being discharged in the horticulture area and into the cess pool on the side of the complex. Other violations have also been found. Noncompliances are mentioned as follows:

“a. The STP of 850 KLD is not working properly to treat the domestic effluent generated by the group housing tower and as per analysis report received the parameters were found exceeding the prescribed limits. Also unit has not achieved the zero exit discharge as engaged in disposing this partially treated effluent into open cess pool created in side by vacant land.

b. No separation of grey and black water is done by using dual plumbing line and also no re-circulation/recycling is being done for flushing to achieve zero exit discharge.

c. Not provided ultra violet radiation or ozonization facility for disinfection of treated effluent.

d. No rain water harvesting for roof run off and surface run off provided with pre-treatment through sedimentation tanks.

e. No segregation composting facility provided for bio-degradable solid waste generated as per the requirement of MSW Rule, 2016.

f. The project is non complying with standards for discharge of environmental pollutants as per the latest A/R.

g. The project proponent is not submitting six monthly reports on the status of compliance of stipulated EC conditions in Regional Officer, HSPCB.

h. The statutory clearance/approval not obtained from Fire Department, Haryana.

i. Project proponent is not submitting the environment statement for each financial year in form-V as prescribed under EP rules, 1986.”

4. Compensation assessed is Rs. 41,62,500/- at the rate of Rs. 37500/- per day. It is further stated that the Senior Town Planner, Gurugram and Town & Country Planning Department, Haryana have been asked to take action against the project proponent for non-compliance of the condition of Occupation Certificate.

5. It has been seen in the recent past that allegations of non-compliance of environmental norms as well as conditions of grant of Occupancy Certificates are being flagrantly violated by project proponents of group housing projects in the State of Haryana. Action is initiated only after directions of this Tribunal, on receiving complaints. It is not clear as to what are the safeguards incorporated by the Town & Country Planning Department, SEIAA and PCB to prevent or remedy such situation at the ground level. Effectiveness of monitoring mechanism post clearance as well as examination pre-clearance appear to be open to question Vide order dated 23.10.2019 in O.A No. 764/2018.

“9. In the light of above settled principles, the action taken by the SPCB does not match the facts found in the inspection report dated 16.07.2019 filed by a joint Committee comprising of officers of the State Government. The violations, noted above, are of very serious nature and possibility of collusion of the officers of the State is not ruled out in permitting such violations and in failing to take requisite actions. The compensation assessed being grossly inadequate and disproportionate and the action of the SPCB being too slow shows the SPCB lacks necessary sensitivity for enforcing the rule of law or there is collusion at some level to cover up the illegality.

10. We accordingly direct the Chief Secretary, Haryana to consider referring the matter to vigilance or otherwise to ascertain intentional and collusive violation of law. The Chief Secretary may also oversee remedial action for speedy enforcement of environmental norms in the interest of health of the inhabitants.”

Vide order dated 21.11.2019 in O.A No. 506/2019, Mukund Dhote v. Union Of India, while dealing with serious violations of environmental norms by Vista Heights, Sector 86, Faridabad and inadequate action by the authorities in the matter, this Tribunal inter-alia, observed:

“5. The above shows serious and consistent defaults in compliance of EC conditions and complete disregard for environmental norms. As against requirement of two STPs, only one has been installed, creating environmental hazard. Water discharged from the STP is not as per norms. Treated water was to be used for flushing and unused water is to be sent to public sewer, which was not being done. Ground water is being illegally extracted. There is no provision of segregation of solid waste. Parking and green belt have not been provided and solid waste is not being properly handled. Noise level monitoring data is not being maintained. STP waste water is being discharged into unknown land. Water harvesting pits are not clean. Consent to Operate has not been renewed, apart from other defaults as noted in the above report.

xx xx xx

6. We find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. There are other instances of non-compliance in the construction projects in Haryana dealt with by this Tribunal (Vide order dated 23.10.2019 in Kissan Udey Samiti v. State of Haryana - O.A. No. 764/2018, the Tribunal observed: “5. From the above report, violations of Environment laws by the units in question can be briefly summed up as follows: a) No prior Environmental Clearance & CTE was obtained b) The projects have been constructed without obtaining Environmental Clearance and without CTE/CTO from HSPCB. c) In terms of STP, the deficiencies observed during sampling relates to absence of flow meter at the inlet of STPs, non-maintenance of log book, the outlet of STPs are exceeding the prescribed limits of board, etc. d) Untreated effluents from STPs are being discharged either through tanker or on open land near village Nagal for percolatione) The units are non-complying with SWM Rules and no facility for collection segregation and disposal of solid waste exists. Vide order dated 13.09.2019 in OA 661 of 2018, the Tribunal noted serious violation of environmental norms by Ansal Properties, Sushant Lok Phase - I, Gurgaon, and directions for remedial action were issued.) In view of such defaults, having potential for damage to environment and public health, the State needs to focus on remedial steps against such violations by the housing projects after evolving an appropriate monitoring mechanism. In this regard, SEIAA and State PCB may conduct a survey of such projects in the State and furnish a status report.

We have also found inadequacy in monitoring mechanism of compliance of EC conditions and directed the MoEF&CC to monitor such projects with regard to compliance of conditions of EC effectively and furnish a compliance report. Monitoring is being done after years while violations are rampant (O.A. NO. 837/2018, Sandeep Mittal v. MoEF&CC).

10. Accordingly, we direct State of Haryana and the State PCB to take further remedial action by way of appropriate coercive measures including black listing of the project proponent from undertaking such projects in future till environmental norms are fully carried out, sealing and taking possession of public utility spaces in the project, sealing and taking over of vacant flats if any, requiring compliance of other remedial steps. A representative of Town and Country Planning, Haryana may also be associated. Revised compensation may be assessed and recovered on the pattern of earlier orders of this Tribunal noted above by a joint Committee MoEF&CC, CPCB and State PCB. State PCB will be the nodal agency. We determine interim compensation of Rs. 10 Crores to be deposited by the project proponent with the CPCB within one month subject to final assessment of such compensation by the Committee after giving due opportunity to the project proponent. Interim compensation is determined on the basis of size of the project, financial capacity of the project proponent and magnitude of the violations. A further action taken report may be furnished before the next date by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in by the State PCB.”

Vide order dated 05.02.2020 in O.A No. 661/2018, Praveen Kakar v. Ministry Of Environment & Forests, this Tribunal, while dealing with serious violations of environmental norms by Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited at Gurgaon and inadequate action by the authorities in the matter, inter-alia, observed:

“8. In view of the above serious violation of law, including non-payment of assessed compensation of Rs. 16.729 crore (as per report of CPCB quoted above) for discharge of untreated sewage water, apart from compensation for illegal extraction of ground water required to be paid at the rate of Rs. 40,44,000.00 per annum (as per report of CPCB quoted above), we require the Chief Secretary, Haryana to suggest the mechanism for enforcement of Rule of Law and also to prevent such illegalities in the State. The Chief Secretary may explore action against the collusion by the concerned officers of the State PCB, the Town and Country Planning Department or other State authorities for their failures mentioned above including the officers who agreed for insignificant compensation of one lac by way of plea bargaining in spite of conviction for serious offence. In this regard, action of black listing, attaching available assets of the defaulting builder may also be considered, apart from other coercive measures. Such a report be furnished by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in within one month.

9. It will be open to the State of Haryana to bring to the notice of any Authority where proceedings involving the said party may be pending the above defaults. The Chief Secretary may also explore whether the matter needs to be entrusted to CBI.

10. That apart, considering the seriousness of the breach of the environmental laws by the project proponent where even EC has not been obtained for such a mega project, the MoEF&CC besides taking action as provided in statute may also consider working out a mechanism for mitigation measures to offset the damages already caused to the environment and for taking precautionary measures for anticipated future damages.”

6. Accordingly, we direct the Chief Secretary, Haryana to urgently review the mechanism with the heads of the State PCB, Town and Country Planning and the SEIAA to enforce the rights of citizens to clean environment. Safeguards need to be incorporated and mechanism for monitoring compliances of environmental norms by all the group housing complexes needs to be strengthened on urgent basis. Safeguards may include requirement to furnish guarantees, including personal guarantees by the Directors of the project proponents, so that the State machinery is not helpless to remedy the situation after the project is complete and the project proponent has left, leaving the authorities and the inhabitants without any adequate safeguards. The remedial action may include a seizing of properties of the project proponent who are violating the law and black listing them to avoid repeated harassment to the citizens.

7. We also find that huge delay is caused by the State PCB in assessing and recovering the compensation defeating the deterrence object which can be achieved by prompt penal action. The said mechanism also needs to be streamlined.

8. Let an action taken report be furnished by the Chief Secretary, Haryana within one month by e-mail at judicial-ngt@gov.in.

9. A copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Haryana by email for compliance.

10. List for further consideration on 14.04.2020.

Aditya Jakhar v. State Of Haryana

Structured Summary of the Tribunal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Aditya Jakhar v. State Of Haryana

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience