- (1.) The only issue involved in this application is whether nonconsideration of a judgment delivered by a three-Judge Bench in Re: Construction of Park at Noida Near Okhla Bird Sanctuary & Ors., 2011 1 SCC 744, hereinafter referred to as 'NOIDA Park case', has led to wrong conclusions by this Court with regard to the interpretation of built up area in terms of Item No. 8 of the Schedule of the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification dated 14.09.2006. The relevant portion of the notification reads as follows: JUDGEMENT_25_LAWS(SC)9_2019_1.html
(2.) While interpreting this clause, one of us (Deepak Gupta, J.) held as follows:
(3.) The contention raised on behalf of the applicant is that since the three-Judge Bench had in Para 84 of the judgment in the NOIDA Park case observed that the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 calls for a close second look by the authorities concerned especially in respect of the projects/activities falling within the ambit of Items 8(a) and 8(b) of the Schedule to the Notification which need to be described with greater precision and clarity and the definition of built up area with facilities open to the sky needs to be freed from its present ambiguity and vagueness, the two-Judge Bench which delivered the judgment was bound by this judgment of three-Judge Bench and could not have held that the Notification dated 14.09.2006 clearly shows that all constructed area which is covered and not open to the sky, has to be treated as built up area.;