EIA Report Doesn't Show Construction Against Rules: Bombay High Court Refuses To Quash BDD Chawls Redevelopment Scheme

“The environmental clearance given by the Competent Authorities, does not demonstrate that the construction activity is against the provisions of any rules and regulations in force. The contention of the Petitioners cannot be accepted.”

Division bench of acting Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice Santosh Chapalgaonkar disposed of a PIL challenging the redevelopment schemes of the century-old chawls claiming that the redevelopment will jeopardize the health of the residents.

The chawls have over 16000 160 sq. ft. tenements with common toilets. Under the proposed redevelopment, the residents will get 500 square feet self-contained 2BHK apartments, free of cost.

In December 2016, Development Control Regulation (DCR) 33(9)(B) was introduced providing for redevelopment of the chawls which are in dilapidated conditions.

According to the petitioners, rehabilitation buildings are grouped closely together with limited access to light and air. Substantial portions of the land will be used to build additional sale buildings which are much higher and have virtually unrestricted access to light and air. This will enable Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to make a huge profit of Rs. 15000 crores at the cost of life, health, and well-being of the original occupants.

Petitioners cited a report regarding correlation between restricted access to light and air in redevelopment projects and the occurrence of tuberculosis. The present residents of the chawls are regular tenants and not slum dwellers/trespassers and depriving them of adequate light and air would violate Article 21 of the Constitution, it was argued.

The court said that it is not an expert in planning and designing of houses. It can only consider whether the constructions to be done are in consonance with the development control regulations and rules. “…it has not been demonstrated by the Petitioners as to how the redevelopment project of the rehabilitation buildings is not in tune with the provisions of the DCR provisions”, the court said.

The court noted that the Environmental Impact Assessment and Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment reports, prepared by experts, demonstrate that light and ventilation within the rehabilitation buildings were satisfactory and comply with the norms.

“The Petitioners may be knowledgeable in that field however, it would be a case of word against word. This Court would not substitute its view for the view of expert, more particularly, there is nothing on record to even remotely suggest that the plans sanctioned and the redevelopment being carried out is against the provisions of DCPR 2034 or against the provisions contained in Regulations of DCR 33 (9) (B) r/w Appendix III B.”

The socio-economic environmental study carried out by the state provides that during the construction, ambient air control, exhaust from DG set, noise level, water analysis, and sewage analysis shall be regularly done, the court noted. The court however, emphasized that the construction has to be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of DCPR 2034.

The court said that the reports about the tuberculosis cases may be on the basis of locality where the survey was carried out. “…however on the basis of the same it would not be possible to conclude that in the present case the construction activity undertaken is flawed.”

Case no. – Public Interest Litigation No. 43 of 2019

Case Title – Shirish B. Patel and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation - 2023 LiveLaw (Bom) 26

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment