Facts and Background:
The Petitioner, Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association of India (CREDAI), is the highest-ranking private real estate developer in Jharkhand and a member of the state's real estate developers. Furthermore, the Government of India released a notification dated 14-09-2006 that formulated the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), 2006, stating that it is mandatory to obtain the Environment Clearance (EC) before beginning construction on the projects covered by the said notification. The Government of India indicated that the alleged infringement under EIA, 2006 can be dealt with by immediate arrest and bringing the enterprise into compliance via a notification dated 14-03-2017. To ensure adequate environmental protections, a process of cases under EIA, 2006 was established. This will result in fewer violations of the EIA Act of 2006. The aforementioned notification opened a six-month window for projects that failed to receive EC before construction. On March 14, 2017, a petition was filed in the Madras High Court questioning the notice. Following that, the notice was canceled by an order dated October 13, 2017. R.K Singh approached the state of Jharkhand and filed an application for non-implementation of the EIA notification, 2006. The application was created as a one-of-a-kind. The Learned Court issued several orders to stop the violations.
Mr. Abhishek Manu Shingvi, the Learned Counsel, submitted that neither the petitioner nor its representatives were a participant in the ongoing proceedings before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), and that Respondent No.3's conduct in leading the Petitioner's members to obstruct construction activities with no possibility of hearing violates the principles of natural justice. Counsel also stated that the halting of construction activities due to the Covid-19 pandemic harmed those who had lost their jobs. According to the data, 3 lakh construction staff, 15 lakh dependent members, and 200 MSME industries have been severely impacted. It was also suggested that Article 226 be invoked in this case to ascertain the injustice that has occurred as a result of the decisions made by the relevant authority. Judicial Review aims to avoid cases involving abuse of power.
Learned Counsel contended that the Petitioner never sought assistance or told the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) that the members were experiencing difficulties, and that construction began without prior EC. Furthermore, it was submitted that this form of the case falls under the violation category and that Jharkhand should take action for the same SEIAA by opening a new window opened by the Government of India. The aforementioned party members are attempting to cover up their mistakes about work without obtaining mandatory EC by claiming that SEIAA, Jharkhand does not exist.
It was discovered that the Jharkhand government has only concentrated on the NGT and has halted further construction. When the court examined the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents 2 and 3, no arguments have been raised as to what measures they have taken to comply with the other aspect of the order. The Court is not happy with the fact that the Government of Jharkhand has already proceeded for six months before the NGT order dated 09-09-2020. Furthermore, since that order, the NGT has not given any directions to the SEIAA, Jharkhand, and has not focused on the EC applications of the Petitioner's representatives.
Despite the above proceedings, the Learned Court has not granted the Petitioner the relief sought in the current writ petition. Furthermore, the Petitioner should appear before the NGT in Delhi for further clarity on the order dated 09-09-2020.