RAJESH SHANKAR,J. - (1.) The judgment is being pronounced today through virtual mode.
(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for following reliefs:- i. For issuance of direction upon the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF and CC), Government of India (respondent no.1) to open a window for processing the applications for grant of Environment Clearances (EC) in the cases of violations of Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act, 1986") and Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. ii. For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 1 to issue necessary direction to the respondent no. 4-State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Jharkhand to take up the matters of the members of the petitioner for processing of applications made for Environment Clearance and process the same within a period of one week. iii. For quashing the notices (Annexure-1 series to the writ petition) issued by the instrumentalities of Urban Development and Housing Department (respondent no.3) on different dates for stoppage of all construction activities in the projects listed therein. iv. For issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 4 to decide the proposal for grant of Environment Clearance already filed, within a period of one month and for the fresh proposal, within a period of 90 days.
(3.) The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Confederation of Real Estate Developers' Association of India (CREDAI) is the apex body of private real estate developers and the petitioner-CREDAI, Jharkhand is its member comprising of the real estate developers of the State of Jharkhand. The respondent no.1 vide notification dated 14.09.2006 formulated the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (EIA Notification, 2006) which mandates for requirement of obtaining prior Environmental Clearance from the concerned regulatory authority to initiate construction activities for the projects falling under the Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006. On 14.03.2017, the respondent no. 1 issued notification to deal with the cases of alleged violation of the environmental laws by ensuring immediate arrest of environmental damage and bringing the enterprises in compliance regime rather than letting it go unregulated and unchecked. As such by this notification, a process was established by the respondent no. 1 for appraisal of cases of violation as well as for prescribing adequate environmental safeguards so that it would deter violation of provisions of EIA Notification, 2006 and damage to environment may adequately be compensated by restoring the anteoriginal state. The said notification opened a window for a period of six months for the projects which failed to obtain a prior EC in accordance with the EIA Notification, 2006. A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the validity of notification dated 14.03.2017 was filed before the High Court of Madras and the implementation of the said notification was stayed and finally vide order dated 13.10.2017, the said stay was vacated by upholding the validity of the notification dated 14.03.2017. Thereafter, the respondent no.1, vide notification dated 08.03.2018, amended the earlier notification dated 14.03.2017 and delegated the power to the States for appraisal of category 'B' proposals which are under violation of EIA Notification, 2006. The respondent no.1 issued another notification dated 15.03.2018 for implementation of the notification dated 08.03.2018. One R.K Singh approached the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Delhi by making an application before it, assailing non-implementation of EIA Notification, 2006 in the State of Jharkhand in respect of building construction and the said application was registered as Original Application No. 45/2019/EZ. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 09.09.2020, issued several directions to the State of Jharkhand including order to forthwith stop all the ongoing construction activities undertaken without obtaining prior EC. Pursuant to the order of the NGT, the members of the petitioner have been served notices issued by the respondent no.3 directing them to stop the construction activities forthwith. Hence, the present writ petition.;