M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA on 26 November 2021

284

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 11 S.C.R.

M/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD.

A

v.

UNION OF INDIA

(Civil Appeal No. 595 of 2021)

BNOVEMBER 26, 2021

[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ]

Environmental Laws: Environmental clearance (EC) forbuilding project – On facts, Project Proponent-construction projectmade substantial compliance by obtaining the EC from the competentClocal authority – Subsequent changes in EC regimes – Effect of –Validity of the grant of EC to Project Proponent, challenged to –NGT held that further construction cannot be made withoutenvironment impact assessment, but protected the constructionsalready made by the appellant-Project Proponent on the basis ofDthe EC issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation asper the notification – On appeal, held: Project Proponent canlegitimately expect a certain degree of stability in the manner inwhich environmental regime is set and how the applications areprocessed – Public interest might possibly diminish the degree oflegitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be found –EProject Proponent is not expected to anticipate the changes in ECregimes, especially as a result of judicial interventions, and keeprevisiting the sanctioned clearances by the competent authority oreven raze down validly constructed structures – Neither can it beexpected to knock the doors of an authority, not empowered at theFrelevant time, to process its applications – On facts, the appellantacted on the EC and made substantial investments – They adheredto the applicable legal framework during the concerned period, assuch cannot be pushed to a precipice and be made to fall – Doingso would be inequitable – Moreover, third-party interests have alsocome up –Thus, the order passed by NGT protecting the completedGconstruction is endorsed and four constructed buildings are to betreated to be under a valid EC with all legal consequences –However, for any further construction proposed they must securefresh clearance as required – Doctrine of legitimate expectation.

H

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1.1 When the Project Proponent initially wanted toapply for the EC it had obtained the requisite layout sanction forapplying to the SEIAA. As such, it was operating well within theapplicable procedure, prior to the amendment. After grant of suchsanction, while the construction was underway, the amendmentcame about on 9.12.2016 whereby, the local authority such as theMunicipal Corporation was made the competent authority to grantEC. In the changed circumstances, the Project Proponentnecessarily had to apply to the PCMC as during the interregnumbefore the NGT’s judgment on 8.12.2017, SEIAA was not thecompetent authority to consider application for EC. The ProjectProponent was therefore, complying with the regime set out bythe amended notification. It is apposite to note that the Committeeappointed by the NGT, in its report dated 11.8.2020 had clearlyindicated that when the Project Proponent had received the ECon 28.11.2017, the competent authority to issue the EC was theEnvironmental Cell of the PCMC. Thus, it is the discernibleunderstanding as part of the NGT’s own expert Committee thatthe Project Proponent had obtained the EC from the competentauthority of the relevant time-the PCMC. [Para 15][292-C-F]

1.2 Moreover, only after the earlier judgment of the NGTon 8.12.2017 in the OA No. 677/2016, the State of Maharashtraissued a clarification on 29.1.2018 directing that the Municipalauthorities should not process pending applications. But neitherthe decision of the NGT nor of the Maharashtra Governmentcategorically gave any guidance as to the implication on the ECobtained by the Project Proponent, on the strength of which, asubstantial measure of construction was already made. It is alsonecessary to note that in the subsequent notification issued on14.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 by the MoEFCC, the power to grantEC continued to vest in the local authority such as the PCMC,with the only change being that it is the municipality itself andnot its Environmental Cell which is empowered to grant the EC.The said notifications of the MoEFCC is stayed by the Delhi HighCourt on 26.11.2018 in the WP(C) No. 12517/2018. [Para 16][292-G-H; 293-A-B]

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A1.3 The Committee constituted by the NGT to report onthe building project did not underscore any major deviation butinstead found that the Project Proponent had made substantialcompliance by obtaining the EC from the competent localauthority. Moreover the OA, neither before the NGT or thisCourt, ever contended that appraisal done by the PCMC’sBEnvironmental Cell was defective or any different from one doneby SEIAA. Both processes are also similarly structured. Thismay be the reason why the NGT in the impugned judgment itselfprotected the already made construction. However, the ProjectProponent was restrained from making any further constructionCwithout obtaining clearance from the statutory EC and adheringto the environmental norms. [Para 17][293-C-E]

1.4 The NGT rightly protected the already erected buildingsand this protection in our view, should not be impacted by theearlier judgment of the NGT on 8.12.2017 in the OA No. 677/D2016 whereby certain portions of the MoEFCC’s 9.12.2016notification were invalidated and direction was issued to theMinistry to revisit the said notification. Importantly, neither theNGT’s invalidation order nor the subsequent clarifications by theState of Maharashtra, have suggested any adverse action againstthe pre-existing structures. As the expert body exclusivelyEoccupying the environmental field, the NGT has assessed thefactual circumstances to consciously lean towards protecting thealready constructed structures. Nothing more need be added onthis aspect. It is also not necessary in this appeal to venture intothe question of the retrospective implication of the invalidationFof certain parts of the 2016 Notification for other projectproponents, which may have gained their ECs in the interregnum.[Para 19][293-G-H; 294-A-B]

1.5 In situations of this nature, the Doctrine of LegitimateExpectation is attracted. The principle of the rule of law such as,GRegularity, Predictability and Certainty in Government’s dealingswith the Public, must operate in the present matter. The ProjectProponent can legitimately expect a certain degree of stability inthe manner in which environmental regime is set and how theapplications are processed. The actions of the authorities are H

expected to adhere to the prevalent norms only, without theelement of uncertainty for the executed project. The morecompelling public interest might possibly diminish the degree oflegitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be found.In the instant matter, appellant has acted on the EC and madesubstantial investments. They cannot be pushed to a precipiceand be made to fall. Doing so would be inequitable particularlywhen, the appellant has scrupulously adhered to the applicablelegal framework during the concerned period. Moreover, third-party interests have also cropped up in the interregnum. [Para20, 24][294-B-D; 295-G-H; 296-A-B]

1.6 A Project Proponent is not expected to anticipate thechanges in EC regimes, especially as a result of judicialinterventions, and keep revisiting the sanctioned clearances bythe competent authority or even raze down validly constructedstructures. Neither can it be expected to knock the doors of anauthority, not empowered at the relevant time, to process itsapplications. Such a scenario would render the process akin to aSisyphean task, eternally inconclusive and never ending. [Para25][296-B-C]

1.7 As seen, the NGT in the impugned judgment hasprotected the completed construction and, on this aspect, it isdeemed appropriate to endorse the same. The four constructedbuildings are resultantly to be treated to be under a valid ECwith all legal consequences. It is, however, made clear that if anyfurther construction is proposed by the appellant with thesanctioned layout, the same should not be done on the strengthof the EC granted on 28.11.2017 by the PCMC. In other words,if the Project Proponent wishes to construct the remainingbuildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competentauthority, as per the currently applicable framework. [Para26][296-D-E]

Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. v. Union ofIndia (2010) 5 SCC 388; Food Corporation of India v.M/s Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries (1993) 1 SCC71 – referred to.

AB

C

D

EF

G

AAttorney General of Hong Kong v. NgYuen Shiu (1983)2 AC 629 : (1983) 2 WLR 735 – referred to.

Judicial Review by De Smith – referred to.

Case Law Reference

B(2010) 5 SCC 388

referred toPara 14referred toPara 22

(1993) 1 SCC 71

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 595 of2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.01.2021 of the NationalCGreen Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 83/2019(WZ).With Civil Appeal No. 5768 of 2021

Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Ninad Laud, Saurabh Kulkarni, Ivo.DD’Costa, Ms. Anshula Vijay Kumar Grover, Nitin Lonkar, Mrs. SonaliSuryawanshi, Shankey Agrawal, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. RuchiKohli, Sughosh Subramaniam, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mukesh Verma,Shashank Singh, Rahul Chitnis, Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, GeoEJoseph, Anish R. Shah, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Ms. Qurratulain, Brij KishorSah, Ms. Damini Hajela, Aditya S. Jadhav, Nitin Lonkar, Mrs. SonaliSuryawanshi, Shankey Agarwal, Advs. for the respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FHRISHIKESH ROY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel appearingfor the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 595/2021. Mr. Lonkar Nitinrepresenting the Original Applicant before the National Green Tribunal.Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearsfor the Ministry of Environment & Forest. The Government ofGMaharashtra and the State Pollution Control Board are represented byMr. Rahul Chitnis and Mr. Mukesh Verma, learned counsel respectively.

2. These two appeals are filed under Section 22 of the NationalGreen Tribunal Act, 2010 (for short “the NGT Act”) assailing the judgmentand final order dated 18.1.2021 in the OA No. 83/2019. Under theH

impugned judgment, the NGT held that further constructioncannot bemade withoutenvironment impact assessment, but protected theconstructions already made by the appellant, M/s Sai Baba Sales Pvt.Ltd. (“Project Proponent”) on the basis of the Environmental Clearance(“EC” for short) issued by the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation(“PCMC” for short) as per the notification dated 9.12.2016. The OriginalApplicant, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the decision of the NGT toprotect the standing construction and limiting the impact of the impugnedjudgment on further construction to be made by the project proponent.

3. The main issue that arises for consideration in these matters iswhether the Project Proponent herein possesses a validly grantedEnvironmental Clearance (EC) under the Environmental ImpactAssessment (EIA) notification dated 14.9.2006. The 2006 EIA notificationprovided that the projects above 20,000 sq. meter and below 1,50,000sq. meter should obtain an EC from the State Environment ImpactAssessment Authority (SEIAA) of the Ministry of Environment, Forestand Climate Change (MoEFCC).

4. For deciding the issue, the necessary facts in brief are that theProject Proponent initially conceived a project of 15,040 sq. mtrs. (belowthe EC threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs.) and it approached the PCMCfor a lay out order which was a prerequisite, to obtain an EC from theSEIAA of the MoEFCC. The application was processed and the BuildingPermission Department of the PCMC granted the commencementcertificate to the Project Proponent for an area of 15,040 sq. mtrs. andapproved the plan under the sanction letter dated 14.5.2013. With suchpermission, the Project Proponent could construct the permitted structures,and since the built up area was less than the threshold limit of 20000 sq.mtrs., the EC permission was not needed for the intended construction.

5. The Project Proponent builder then applied and was grantedadditional FSI as it intended to expand the project to one with built uparea of 49,012 sq. mtrs. and for this they approached the PCMC for alay out order, which as noted earlier was essential to obtain an EC fromthe SEIAA of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change(MoEFCC). The required approval was issued by the Corporation on28.11.2016.

6. Under the Ministry’s notification dated 9.12.2016, the EIA regimewas altered to indicate that the EC could be obtained from the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AEnvironmental Cell of a local authority, such as the PCMC. The State ofMaharashtra opted for the new regime and adopted the environmentalcondition stipulated in the MoEFCC notification dated 9.12.2016. Thiswas followed by the communication of the MoEFCC on 7.7.2017 whichclarified that separate environmental clearance is not required for projectsupto 1,50,000 sq. mtrs. built up area in respect of municipal corporationsBin Pune and Konkan division.

7. The Project Proponent then filed an application for EC underthe 2016 notification which was considered by the Environmental Cellof the PCMC which appraised the project, as contemplated in thenotification dated 9.12.2016. The necessary permission for constructionCto the builder was issued on 28.11.2017, stipulating the environmentalconditions for buildings and constructions and this permission wasaccorded as per the amended regime under the notification dated9.12.2016 of the MoEFCC and consequential one dated 13.4.2017 ofthe Maharashtra Government.D8. While the matter stood thus, the NGT while considering thechallenge by certain applicants to the exemption from EC, in a batchmatter, quashed certain portions of the MoEFCC notification dated9.12.2016. The NGT in the analogous judgment dated 8.12.2017 in theOA No. 677/2016 (Society for Protection of Environment andEBiodiversity Vs. Union of India) and other cases, directed the MoEFCCto revisit its notification dated 9.12.2016 and to take appropriate steps toamend/rectify certain clauses in the Ministry’s notification, in terms ofthe NGT’s judgment.

9. Nearly two years after the Project Proponent securedFconstruction permission on 8.12.2017 from the PCMC, the OA No.83/2019 was filed by the Pune resident (respondent No. 10) with theallegation that the Project Proponent had made construction withoutobtaining any EC. In this proceeding the NGT constituted a three MemberCommittee comprising the SEIAA – Maharashtra, the State PCB andthe Municipal Commissioner, Pune. The Committee, after spot verification,Gin its Report dated 18.8.2020 noted that construction of total built uparea of 22930.17 sq. mtrs. is already completed for Building Nos. A, E,B, D and the Club House. Thereafter, the NGT considered the submissionof the original applicant, who contended that while the authority to grantEC is SEIAA as per the EIA notification dated 14.9.2006, the EC for theHproject in question was granted by the PCMC. The NGT in its order on 17.11.2020, in the first round, opined that the constructions were irregularand remedial measures were directed for the project in question.

10. The above order of the NGT was challenged before this Courtand the Project Proponent’s CA No. 3893/2020 was allowed on11.12.2020 whereby, the NGT’s order was set aside and the matter wasremitted back to the NGT to afford hearing to the appellants and to passa fresh order.

11. The case of the Project Proponent as can be seen from thepleadings was that he had initially commenced construction on 14.5.2013with a sanction plan of 15040.05 sq. mtrs., which, being lesser than thethreshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs, did not require a prior EC. Thereafter,for the proposed expansion of the project, for total constructed area of49,012 sq. mtrs., the Project Proponent approached the concernedauthority on 7.11.2016 for issuance of “Proposed DevelopmentCertificate”, which is a prerequisite to apply for EC, and the saidcertificate was granted on 28.11.2016 for the purpose of obtaining theEC from the SEIAA. But at that stage, by virtue of the MoEFCCnotification dated 9.12.2016, the concerned local authority was designatedas the sanctioning authority for projects between 20,000 sq. mtrs. and50,000 sq. mtrs. and accordingly under the changed regime the ProjectProponent applied to PCMC on 10.7.2017 and was sanctioned EC bythe competent local authority, on 28.11.2017.

12. It is the further contention of the Project Proponent that whenthe NGT on 8.12.2017 had invalidated certain portions of the 2016notification, it did not issue any order nullifying those ECs which weregranted by the local authority under the altered regime.

13. The original applicant on the other hand, contended that whenthe NGT struck down certain provisions of the MoEFCC’s 2016notification, the 28.11.2017 EC granted by the Municipal Corporation,would not legitimize the construction and therefore the Project Proponentshould be prevented from proceeding with the construction and also bepenalized for the unauthorized construction.

14. The NGT then observed that because of the invalidation ofcertain clauses in the 2016 notification, the EC obtained from the PCMCis unacceptable and accordingly rendered a finding that the ProjectProponent had failed to obtain the valid EC. The maintainability challengeof the OA on the ground of limitation was however rejected by observing AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athat the cause of action arose only in 2017 when the builder allegedlyexceeded the threshold limit of 20,000 sq. mtrs. Accordingly, the authoritieswere directed to take coercive action against the Project Proponent forconstruction done after 8.12.2017, when the NGT’s judgment wasrendered in the OA No. 677/2016. However, even with such findinghaving regard to the regime that existed at the relevant time and advertingBto the ratio in Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. Vs. Union ofIndia,[1] the NGT held that the construction already raised should beprotected. However, further construction should be permitted only aftersecuring the EC from the competent authority, under the current regime.

15. The picture which emerges from the above discussion is thatCwhen the Project Proponent initially wanted to apply for the EC it hadobtained the requisite layout sanction for applying to the SEIAA. Assuch, it was operating well within the applicable procedure, prior to theamendment. After grant of such sanction, while theconstruction wasunderway, the amendment came about on 9.12.2016 whereby, the localDauthority such as the Municipal Corporation was made the competentauthority to grant EC. In the changed circumstances, the ProjectProponent necessarily had to apply to the PCMC as during theinterregnum before the NGT’s judgment on 8.12.2017, SEIAA was notthe competent authority to consider application for EC. The ProjectProponent was therefore, complying with the regime set out by theEamended notification. It is apposite to note that the Committee appointedby the NGT, in its report dated 11.8.2020 had clearly indicated that whenthe Project Proponent had received the EC on 28.11.2017, the competentauthority to issue the EC was the Environmental Cell of the PCMC.Thus, it is the discernible understanding as part of the NGT’s own expertFCommittee that the Project Proponent had obtained the EC from thecompetent authority of the relevant time i.e. the PCMC. Interestingly,the constituted Committee also included a member of the SEIAA.

16. Moreover, only after the earlier judgment of the NGT on8.12.2017 in the OA No. 677/2016, the State of Maharashtra issued aGclarification on 29.1.2018 directing that the Municipal authorities shouldnot process pending applications. But neither the decision of the NGTnor of the Maharashtra Government categorically gave any guidance asto the implication on the EC obtained by the Project Proponent, on thestrength of which, a substantial measure of construction was already 1 (2010) 5 SCC 388H

made. It is also necessary to note that in the subsequent notificationissued on 14.11.2018 and 15.11.2018 by the MoEFCC, the power togrant EC continued to vest in the local authority such as the PCMC,with the only change being that it is the municipality itself and not itsEnvironmental Cell which is empowered to grant the EC. For the sakeof completion, it may be recorded that the said notifications of theMoEFCC is stayed by the Delhi High Court on 26.11.2018 in the WP(C)No. 12517/2018.

17. It is important to bear in mind that the Committee constitutedby the NGT to report on the building project did not underscore anymajor deviation but instead found that the Project Proponent had madesubstantial compliance by obtaining the EC from the competent localauthority. Moreover the OA, neither before the NGT or this Court, evercontended that appraisal done by the PCMC’s Environmental Cell wasdefective or any different from one done by SEIAA. Both processesare also similarly structured. This may be the reason why the NGT inthe impugned judgment itself protected the already made construction.However, the Project Proponent was restrained from making any furtherconstruction without obtaining clearance from the statutory EC andadhering to the environmental norms.

18. The project of the appellant comprises six buildings of whichthree were constructed in full, and the super structure of the fourthbuilding is completed and only the internal works remains to be done. Inthe fourth building, 40 out of the 64 apartments have already been sold.In this context, it would be appropriate to advert to the submission ofMs. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned ASG who had clearly stated that atthe relevant time, the competent authority to grant EC is the PCMC andnot the SEIAA and therefore the internal works for the fourth constructedbuilding, can be allowed to be completed.

19. Considering the above circumstances, the NGT rightlyprotected the already erected buildings and this protection in our view,should not be impacted by the earlier judgment of the NGT on 8.12.2017in the OA No. 677/2016 whereby certain portions of the MoEFCC’s9.12.2016 notification were invalidated and direction was issued to theMinistry to revisit the said notification. Importantly, neither the NGT’sinvalidation order nor the subsequent clarifications by the State ofMaharashtra, have suggested any adverse action against the pre-existingstructures. As the expert body exclusively occupying the environmental AB

C

D

EF

GH

Afield, the NGT has assessed the factual circumstances to consciouslylean towards protecting the already constructed structures. Nothing moreneed be added on this aspect. It is also not necessary in this appeal toventure into the question of the retrospective implication of the invalidationof certain parts of the 2016 Notification for other project proponents,which may have gained their ECs in the interregnum.B

20. In situations of this nature, the Doctrine of LegitimateExpectation is attracted. The principle of the rule of law as explained inDe Smith’s Judicial Review, such as, Regularity, Predictability andCertainty in Government’s dealings with the Public, must operate in thepresent matter. The Project Proponent can legitimately expect a certainCdegree of stability in the manner in which environmental regime is setand how the applications are processed. The actions of the authoritiesare expected to adhere to the prevalent norms only, without the elementof uncertainty for the executed project.

21. In the above context we may benefit by referring to the seminalDcase of Attorney General of Hong Kong v. Ng Yuen Shiu[2], whereLord Fraser speaking for the Privy Council, appositely observed thus, “… when a public authority has promised to follow a certainprocedure, it is in the interest of good administration that it shouldact fairly and should implement its promise, so long asEimplementation does not interfere with its statutory duty.”

22. This Court in Sethi Auto Service Station vs DelhiDevelopment Authority & Ors[3], speaking through Justice D.K. Jain,has cited other opinions and elucidated on the concept of legitimateexpectation, in the following manner,F

“24. The House of Lords in Council of Civil Service Unions &Ors. Vs. Minister for the Civil Service, a locus classicus on thesubject, wherein for the first time an attempt was made to give acomprehensive definition to the principle of legitimate expectation.Enunciating the basic principles relating to legitimateGexpectation, Lord Diplock observed that for a legitimateexpectation to arise, the decision of the administrativeauthority must affect such person either 2 (1983) 2 AC 629 : (1983) 2 WLR 735H3 (2009) 1 SCC 180

(a) ********************A

(b) by depriving him of some benefit or advantage whicheither: (i) he has in the past been permitted by the decisionmaker to enjoy and which he can legitimately expect to bepermitted to continue to do until some rational ground forwithdrawing it has been communicated to him and he hasbeen given an opportunity to comment thereon or (ii) hehas received assurance from the decisionmaker that they will notbe withdrawn without first giving him an opportunity of advancingreasons for contending that they should be withdrawn.” (emphasissupplied)

B

C

23. The Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation is further explainedin Food Corporation of India Vs. M/s Kamdhenu Cattle FeedIndustries[4]where for a Three-Judge Bench of this Court Justice J.S.Verma observed thus: -

“The mere reasonable or legitimate expectation of a citizen, insuch a situation, may not by itself be a distinct enforceable right,but failure to consider and give due weight to it may render thedecision arbitrary, and this is how the requirement of dueconsideration of a legitimate expectation forms part of the principleof non-arbitrariness, a necessary concomitant of the rule of law.Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring dueconsideration in a fair decision-making process. Whether theexpectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate in the contextis a question of fact in each case. Whenever the question arises,it is to be determined not according to the claimant’s perceptionbut in larger public interest wherein other more importantconsiderations may outweigh what would otherwise have beenthe legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision ofthe public authority reached in this manner would satisfy therequirement of non-arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny.The doctrine of legitimate expectation gets assimilated in the ruleof law and operates in our legal system in this manner and to thisextent.”

DE

F

G

24. The more compelling public interest might possibly diminishthe degree of legitimate expectation for a party but a balance has to be 4 (1993) 1 SCC 71

H

Afound. In the present matter the appellant has acted on the EC andmade substantial investments. They cannot be pushed to a precipice andbe made to fall. Doing so would be inequitable particularly when, theappellant has scrupulously adhered to the applicable legal frameworkduring the concerned period. Moreover, third-party interests have alsocropped up in the interregnum.

B

25. A Project Proponent is not expected to anticipate the changesin EC regimes, especially as a result of judicial interventions, and keeprevisiting the sanctioned clearances by the competent authority or evenraze down validly constructed structures. Neither can it be expected toknock the doors of an authority, not empowered at the relevant time, toCprocess its applications. Such a scenario would render the process akinto a Sisyphean task, eternally inconclusive and never ending.

26. As seen, the NGT in the impugned judgment has protectedthe completed construction and, on this aspect, we deem it appropriateto endorse the same, by accepting the submission of the appellant’sDCounsel and the learned ASG. The four constructed buildings areresultantly to be treated to be under a valid EC with all legal consequences.It is, however, made clear that if any further construction is proposed bythe appellant with the sanctioned layout, the same should not be done onthe strength of the EC granted on 28.11.2017 by the PCMC. In otherEwords, if the Project Proponent wishes to construct the remainingbuildings, they must secure fresh clearance from the competent authority,as per the currently applicable framework. It is ordered accordingly.

27. With the above order, the appeals are disposed of without anyorder on cost.

F

Nidhi Jain

Appeals disposed of.

G

H