
Background of the Case
In a significant legal proceeding before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Advocate Aditya Pratap presented strong arguments regarding violations of environmental norms in a redevelopment project. The case revolved around the expansion of a residential project in Mumbai, raising questions about compliance with environmental clearance (EC) protocols, urban carrying capacity, and procedural adherence.
The redevelopment plan aimed to provide better housing for original residents under a sanctioned scheme. The developer sought to utilize additional Floor Space Index (FSI) to construct a larger complex. The project intended to provide housing for cooperative housing society members, with surplus flats being sold on the open market. Construction commenced in 2010 under an initial redevelopment plan.
The project involved increasing the built-up area from approximately 32,395.17 square meters to over 40,480.88 square meters. The project proponents sought an “amendment” to their earlier environmental clearance (EC) rather than following the mandatory procedure for “expansion” under the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification of 2006. This decision became the crux of the case, raising concerns about adherence to environmental laws.
Key Facts of the Case:
- Initial EC and Expansion:
The State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) granted EC on May 2, 2013, for a built-up area of 32,395.17 square meters. Later, the developer applied for an “amendment” to expand the project’s built-up area to 40,480.88 square meters, which was approved on March 13, 2014. The expansion represented an increase of about 25% in the total built-up area, raising concerns regarding environmental impact. - Questions on Compliance:
The developer’s approach to seeking an amendment rather than following the procedural expansion under EIA raised issues about proper compliance with environmental laws. The expansion included increasing the number of floors, additional flats for sale, and other changes to building configurations, all of which increased the environmental footprint.
Advocate Aditya Pratap’s Key Arguments:
Advocate Aditya Pratap argued that the expansion should have undergone a fresh environmental appraisal, not treated as a mere amendment. According to the EIA Notification 2006, such an expansion requires:
- Submission of fresh Form I and Form IA.
- A detailed appraisal by the State Level Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC).
- Public consultations to address local concerns.
He emphasized that the failure to undergo these steps violated the statutory environmental protocols, setting a concerning precedent for other redevelopment projects.
Environmental Concerns Highlighted by Advocate Pratap:
- Waste Generation and Sewage Discharge:
The expansion would likely exacerbate waste generation, sewage discharge, and water usage in an already overburdened urban area. Without an environmental impact assessment (EIA), it was difficult to evaluate the local area’s capacity to sustain the additional construction. - Increased Traffic and Air Pollution:
The expansion would contribute to increased population density and traffic congestion, worsening air quality and leading to untreated wastewater from the project threatening local water bodies. - Lack of Environmental Mitigation Measures:
Advocate Pratap pointed out that the project failed to account for measures to offset the environmental damage, including waste management and pollution control systems. - Sustainable Development and Precautionary Principle:
He stressed the importance of sustainable development and the precautionary principle in environmental governance. The failure to consider the cumulative impact of the redevelopment project on the environment was a major flaw in the approval process. - Public Consultation Absence:
One of the key arguments made by Advocate Pratap was the lack of public consultation. The absence of local stakeholders in the decision-making process denied residents the opportunity to voice concerns about the project’s impact on their environment.

About the Author
Aditya Pratap is a practicing lawyer and founder of Aditya Pratap Law Offices based in Mumbai. An alumnus of NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, he has over 11 years of experience and has handled numerous cases of public and private significance. For more insights, you can visit his website: adityapratp.in. Watch him in TV interviews.