# MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD v. FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS

- **Citation:** [2019] 4 S.C.R. 995
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2019-03-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No.5016 of 2016
- **Bench:** A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, M.R. Shah
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mantri-techzone-pvt-ltd-v-forward-foundation-and-ors-33732
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 22
- Wetlands (Conservation of Management) Rules, 2010 - Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Applicants filed application
before National Green Tribunal (NGT) contending that ecologically
sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (KIADB) to respondents nos.9 & 10 for setting
up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential
Complex, hotel and Multi-level Car Parks - It was further contended
that the Revenue Map in respect of properties referred in the Land
Lease Agreements had multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains)
- It was alleged that the said Project was encroaching on two
Rajakaluves - It was also alleged that respondents had obtained
NOC by concealing material facts and commenced construction over
the ecologically sensitive area of the lake catchment area and valley,
with utter disregard to the statutory compliances - Tribunal
constituted the committee to inspect the projects in question and
submit the report - Further, Tribunal directed Respondent No.9 to
pay penalty of Rs.117.35 crores and Respondent No. 10 to pay
penalty of Rs. 22.5 crores for environmental and ecological
restoration - In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants
contended that original application was not maintainable as it did
not satisfy requirements of s.14(1) and 14(3) of the Act and it was
barred by limitation as it was not filed within six months from date
on which cause of action arose - Held: The Jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is provided u/ss. 14, 15 and 16 of the Act - s.14 provides
the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right
relating to environment) is involved - However, such question should
arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule
I - Also, s.15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and
jurisdiction r/w. s.20 of the Act - Whenever the environment and
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 995
995
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the tribunal can
apply s.20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the
environment - The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power
bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly - An
interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be
given a broader reading - Further, an interpretation that is in favour
of conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal should be preferred rather
than one taking away jurisdiction - Insofar as limitation is
concerned, the original application filed was not an application u/
s. 14 of the Act, it was a petition u/s. 15 of the Act and thus it could
be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for such
compensation on relief first arose - Also, the findings arrived at by
the Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were available
on record but also on the pleadings that were made by the parties
buttressed by the Committee's report and the inspection note of the
Expert Members - Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty
imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents valid and
sustainable.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.22 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - s.100 - Held:s. 22 provides for an appeal to the
Supreme Court on the grounds specified in s.100 of the CPC - U/
s.100 CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case
involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the
Appellate Court - The scope of appeal u/s. 22, therefore, is restricted
to substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the
Tribunal.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.22 - Appellants sought
a factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation of
factual matrix by Supreme Court u/s.22 of the NGT Act - Held: It is
settled that merely because the remedy of appeal is provided ag

## Text

_Characters 0–39,825 of 92,951. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39825 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
995
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD.
v.
 FORWARD FOUNDATION AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.5016 of 2016)
MARCH 05, 2019
[A.K. SIKRI, S. ABDUL NAZEER AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s. 14, 15, 16, 18 and 22
- Wetlands (Conservation of Management) Rules, 2010 - Karnataka
Town and Country Planning Act, 1961 - Applicants filed application
before National Green Tribunal (NGT) contending that ecologically
sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (KIADB) to respondents nos.9 & 10 for setting
up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential
Complex, hotel and Multi-level Car Parks - It was further contended
that the Revenue Map in respect of properties referred in the Land
Lease Agreements had multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water Drains)
- It was alleged that the said Project was encroaching on two
Rajakaluves - It was also alleged that respondents had obtained
NOC by concealing material facts and commenced construction over
the ecologically sensitive area of the lake catchment area and valley,
with utter disregard to the statutory compliances - Tribunal
constituted the committee to inspect the projects in question and
submit the report - Further, Tribunal directed Respondent No.9 to
pay penalty of Rs.117.35 crores and Respondent No. 10 to pay
penalty of Rs. 22.5 crores for environmental and ecological
restoration - In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants
contended that original application was not maintainable as it did
not satisfy requirements of s.14(1) and 14(3) of the Act and it was
barred by limitation as it was not filed within six months from date
on which cause of action arose - Held: The Jurisdiction of the
Tribunal is provided u/ss. 14, 15 and 16 of the Act - s.14 provides
the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a substantial question
relating to environment (including enforcement of any legal right
relating to environment) is involved - However, such question should
arise out of implementation of the enactments specified in Schedule
I - Also, s.15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power and
jurisdiction r/w. s.20 of the Act - Whenever the environment and
 [2019] 4 S.C.R. 995
995
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
996
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
ecology are being compromised and jeopardized, the tribunal can
apply s.20 for taking restorative measures in the interest of the
environment - The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power
bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly - An
interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must be
given a broader reading - Further, an interpretation that is in favour
of conferring jurisdiction to the Tribunal should be preferred rather
than one taking away jurisdiction - Insofar as limitation is
concerned, the original application filed was not an application u/
s. 14 of the Act, it was a petition u/s. 15 of the Act and thus it could
be filed within 5 years from the date on which the cause for such
compensation on relief first arose - Also, the findings arrived at by
the Tribunal are not only based on the documents that were available
on record but also on the pleadings that were made by the parties
buttressed by the Committee's report and the inspection note of the
Expert Members - Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty
imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents valid and
sustainable.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.22 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - s.100 - Held:s. 22 provides for an appeal to the
Supreme Court on the grounds specified in s.100 of the CPC - U/
s.100 CPC, an appeal can be filed only on the ground that the case
involves a substantial question of law as may be framed by the
Appellate Court - The scope of appeal u/s. 22, therefore, is restricted
to substantial question of law arising from the judgment of the
Tribunal.
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - s.22 - Appellants sought
a factual review through the methodology of re-appreciation of
factual matrix by Supreme Court u/s.22 of the NGT Act - Held: It is
settled that merely because the remedy of appeal is provided against
the decision of the Tribunal on a substantial question of law alone,
that does not ipso facto permit the appellants to agitate their appeal
to seek re-appreciation of the factual matrix of the entire matter -
The appellants cannot seek to re-argue their entire case to seek
wholesale re-appreciation of evidence and the factual matrix that
has been considered by the Tribunal is ex facie impermissible u/s.
22 - There cannot be fresh appreciation or re-appreciation of facts
and evidence in a statutory appeal under this provision.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
997
National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - ss. 14 and 15 - Held:
s.15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction, independent of s.14
thereof - Further, s.14(3) juxtaposed with s.15(3) of the Act, are
separate provisions for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal
with distinct periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that
jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. s. 14 and
s.15 of the Act) independently - The limitation provided in s.14 is a
period of 6 months from the date on which the cause of action first
arose and whereas in s.15 it is 5 years - Therefore, the legislative
intent is clear to keep s.14 and s.15 as self-contained jurisdictions.
Dismissing C.A.No.5016 of 2016 and C.A.No.8002-8003
of 2016, the Court
HELD: 1. The first question raised by the appellants is in
relation to the maintainability of the application before the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has been established under a
constitutional mandate provided in Schedule VII List I Entry 13
of the Constitution of India, to implement the decision taken at
the United Nations Conferenceon Environment and Development.
The Tribunal is a specialized judicial body for effective and
expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection
and conservation of forests and other natural resources including
enforcement of any legal right relating to environment. The right
to healthy environment has been construed as a part of the right
to life under Article 21 by way of judicial pronouncements.
Therefore, the Tribunal has special jurisdiction for enforcement
of environmental rights. [Paras 39 and 40] [1025-D-F]
2. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is provided under
Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.
Section 14 provides the jurisdiction over all civil cases where a
substantial question relating to environment (including
enforcement of any legal right relating to environment) is involved.
However, such question should arise out of implementation of
the enactments specified in Schedule I. [Para 41] [1025-F-G]
3. The Tribunal has also jurisdiction under Section 15(1)(a)
of the Act to provide relief and compensation to the victims of
pollution and other environmental damage arising under the
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
998
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
enactments specified in Schedule I. Further, under Section
15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) the Tribunal can provide for restitution of
property damaged and for restitution of the environment for such
area or areas as the Tribunal may think fit. It is noteworthy that
Section 15(1)(b) & (c) have not been made relatable to Schedule
I enactments of the Act. Rightly so, this grants a glimpse into
the wide range of powers that the Tribunal has been cloaked with
respect to restoration of the environment. [Para 42] [1025-H;
1026-A-B]
4. Section 15(1)(c) of the Act is an entire island of power
and jurisdiction read with Section 20 of the Act. The principles
of sustainable development, precautionary principle and polluter
pays, propounded by this Court by way of multiple judicial
pronouncements, have now been embedded as a bedrock of
environmental jurisprudence under the NGT Act. Therefore,
wherever the environment and ecology are being compromised
and jeopardized, the Tribunal can apply Section 20 for taking
restorative measures in the interest of the environment.
[Para 43] [1026-C-D]
5. The NGT Act being a beneficial legislation, the power
bestowed upon the Tribunal would not be read narrowly. An
interpretation which furthers the interests of environment must
be given a broader reading. The existence of the Tribunal without
its broad restorative powers under Section 15(1)(c) read with
Section 20 of the Act, would render it ineffective and toothless,
and shall betray the legislative intent in setting up a specialized
Tribunal specifically to address environmental concerns. The
Tribunal, specially constituted with Judicial Members as well as
with Experts in the field of environment, has a legal obligation to
provide for preventive and restorative measures in the interest
of the environment. [Para 44] [1026-D-F]
6. Section 15 of the Act provides power & jurisdiction,
independent of Section 14 thereof. Further, Section 14(3)
juxtaposed with Section 15(3) of the Act, are separate provisions
for filing distinct applications before the Tribunal with distinct
periods of limitation, thereby amply demonstrating that
jurisdiction of the Tribunal flows from these Sections (i.e. Sections
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
999
14 and 15 of the Act) independently. The limitation provided in
Section 14 is a period of 6 months from the date on which the
cause of action first arose and whereas in Section 15 it is 5 years.
Therefore, the legislative intent is clear to keep Section 14 and
15 as self contained jurisdictions. [Para 45] [1026-F-H]
7. Further, Section 18 of the Act recognizes the right to file
applications each under Sections 14 as well as 15. Therefore, it
cannot be argued that Section 14 provides jurisdiction to the
Tribunal while Section 15 merely supplements the same with
powers. As stated supra. the typical nature of the Tribunal, its
breadth of powers as provided under the statutory provisions of
the Act as well as the Scheduled enactments, cumulatively, leaves
no manner of doubt that the only tenable interpretation to these
provisions would be to read the provisions broadly in favour of
cloaking the Tribunal with effective authority. An interpretation
that is in favour of conferring jurisdiction should be preferred
rather than one taking away jurisdiction. [Para 46] [1027-A-C]
8. Section 33 of the Act provides an overriding effect to
the provisions of the Act over anything inconsistent contained
in any other law or in any instrument having effect by virtue of
law other than this Act. This gives the Tribunal overriding powers
over anything inconsistent contained in the KIAD Act, Planning
Act, Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ("KMC Act");
and the Revised Master Plan of Bengaluru, 2015 ("RMP"). A
Central legislation enacted under Entry 13 of List I Schedule VII
of the Constitution of India will have the overriding effect over
State legislations. The corollary is that the Tribunal while
providing for restoration of environment in an area, can specify
buffer zones around specific lakes & water bodies in contradiction
with zoning regulations under these statutes or the RMP.
[Para 47] [1027-C-E]
9. The second question raised by the appellants is that the
petition is barred by time. According to appellants, environmental
clearance was granted to the respondent No. 9 on 17.02.2012 for
which notice was published in the leading newspaper on
12.03.2012 and 14.03.2012. Modified building plan was approved
on 30.08.2012, which was followed up to 10.08.2014. Similar
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1000
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
events had taken place in regard to the project of respondent
No. 10 who had been granted environmental clearance on
30.09.2013. The application had to be filed within a period of six
months from the date on which cause of action for such dispute
has first arisen in terms of Section 14 of the NGT Act. Admittedly,
the present application has been filed in March, 2014 and
according to them, it is much beyond the prescribed period of
limitation. Also, there is no application for condonation of delay
accompanying the main application. Therefore, the Tribunal will
not have jurisdiction to condone the delay. [Para 48] [1027-F-H]
10. The OA No. 222 of 2014 filed before the Tribunal was
not an application simpliciter under Section 14 of the Act. It was
an application where a specific prayer has been made with
reference to Lake Development Authority's ("LDA") Report
dated 12.06.2013 and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change ("MoEF") Monitoring Committee Report dated
14.08.2013 for restoration of ecologically sensitive land and for
maintaining the sensitive in its natural condition so that the
ecological balance of the area is not disturbed. It is clear from
the documentary evidence supported by data, that the project
proponents have committed breaches and the implementation of
the project is bound to have serious adverse impact on the ecology,
hydrology and the environment in the catchment area of Bellandur
Lake. The environmental degradation as established from the
documents would give rise to an independent cause of action.
Therefore, this was a petition under Section 15 of the Act and
thus it could be filed within 5 years from the date on which the
cause for such compensation or relief first arose.
[Para 49] [1028-A-D]
11. In fact, in the original application before the Tribunal
there was no mention of the provision under which it was being
filed. It is well settled principle of law that non-mention of or
erroneous mention of the provision of law would not be of any
relevance, if the Court had the requisite jurisdiction to pass an
order. It would be a mere irregularity and would not vitiate the
application or the judicial order of the Tribunal. [Para 50]
[1028-D-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1001
12. The Tribunal has pointed out on the basis of the
Committee report of August 2015, that the appellant had
encroached 3 acres 10 guntas of Bellandur Lake and a boundary
wall has been raised around the said land. The Tribunal has also
found that the project proponents have violated the Master Plan.
They have not obtained the mandatory clearance from the
Sensitive Zone Committee constituted by the Government of
Karnataka. It is also clear from the materials on record that
there are several other violations by the project proponents. The
Tribunal has discussed all these issues. It is also clear from the
materials on record that there is a definite possibility of
environment, ecology, lakes, and wetland being adversely affected
by these projects. [Para 52] [1028-G-H; 1029-A-B]
13. The findings arrived at by the Tribunal are not only
based on the documents that were available on record but also
on the pleadings that were made by the parties buttressed by the
Committee's report and the inspection note of the Expert
Members. Therefore, the directions passed and the penalty
imposed by the Tribunal on both project proponents are valid
and sustainable and do not suffer from any perversity.
[Para 54] [1030-F-G]
Kishsore Lal v. Chairman, Employees' State Insurance
Corpn.(2007) 4 SCC 579 : [2007] 6 SCR 139 ;
Sir Chunilal V. Mehta and Sons, Ltd. v. Century Spinning
and Manufacturing [1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 549
- relied on.
Case Law Reference
[1962] 3 Suppl. SCR 549
relied on
Para 37
[2007] 6 SCR 139
relied on
Para 44
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5016
of 2016
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.05.2016 of the National
Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No.
222 of 2014
 With
Civil Appeal Nos. 8002-8003, 12326, 9227, 10995, 10993, 10994,
10992, 12157, 12152, 12156, 12158, 12160, 12159 of 2016, 4923-4924,
1343, 14966 of 2017, 2246 of 2018.
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
Udaya Holla, Adv. General, Shashi Kiran Shetty, Maninder Singh,
Dharuv Mehta, Mukul Rohatgi, Neeraj Kishan Kaul, R. Venkataramani,
Sajan Poovayya, Ms. Kiran Suri, Basavaprabhu S. Patil, Sr. Advs.,
Mahesh Thakur, Ms. Anuparna Bordoloi, Savyasachi Sahai, Ms. Vipasha
Singh, Gaurav Goel, V. N. Raghupathy, M/S. Devasa & Co., Devashish
Bharuka, Justine George, Prabhas Bajaj, Ms. Kanika S., Ravi Bharuka,
Ms. Sarushree, Satish Kumar, Gaurav Agrawal, George Thomas, Anurag
Gharote, A. S. Bhasme, Abid Ali Beeran P, Nishanth Patil, Rohit Prasad,
Ananth Suresh, S. K. Kulkarni, M. Gireesh Kumar, Ankur S. Kulkarni,
Shekhar G. Devasa, Bhuvanendra K.V., S. Mahesh, Manish Tiwari, Luv
Kumar, Praveen Vignesh, M/S. Devasa & Co., Priyadarshi Banerjee,
Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Saransh Jain, Meka V. Ramakrishna,
Madhavam Sharma, Ms. Sriparna Dutta Choudhury, Udayaditya
Banerjee, Mahesh Agrwal, Ankur Saigal, Sarans Jain, Ms. Tanvi
Manchanda, Nithin P., Ms. Priyanka M.P., E. C. Agrawala, Devashish
Bharuka, S.J. Amith, Ms. Rithika Gambir, A. Shwarya Kumar,
Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, Parikshit P. Angadi, Chinmay Deshpande, Geet
Ahuja, Parikshit Angadi, Anup Kumar, O. P. Bhadani, Rajesh Mahale,
Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, Dharm Singh, Sandeep Grover, Ms. Pankhuri
Bhardwaj, Pai Amit, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S. ABDUL NAZEER, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred
under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (for brevity
'NGT Act') challenging the judgment and order dated 07.05.2015 and
04.05.2016 respectively passed by the Principal Bench of the National
Green Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 5016 of 2016 and 80028003 of 2016 are respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the Original Application
No. 222 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Nos. 9 and
10'). The said Application was filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein
(hereinafter referred to as 'the applicants'). Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in
these appeals are the State of Karnataka and other authorities. They
were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in the application. Respondent
Nos. 12 and 13 herein were subsequently impleaded in the application
(for short 'the impleaded respondents').
3. The State of Karnataka has filed Civil Appeal Nos. 4923-4924
of 2017, challenging the general condition and direction No.(1) contained
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
in the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016. The other appeals have
been filed by different entities, who were not parties before the Tribunal
challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 04.05.2016 insofar as it directs
a buffer/green zone of 75 meters in respect of lakes, 50 meters in respect
of primary Rajakaluves, 35 meters in case of secondary Rajakaluves
and 25 meters in case of tertiary Rajakaluves with retrospective effect.
According to them, they are adversely affected by the aforesaid condition
in the impugned order.
4. The applicants filed O.A. No.222 of 2014 by contending that
ecologically sensitive land was allotted by the Karnataka Industrial Area
Development Board (for short 'the KIADB') to respondent Nos. 9 and
10 vide Notifications dated 23.04.2004 and 07.05.2004 respectively for
setting up of Software Technology Park, Commercial and Residential
complex, hotel and Multi Level Car Parks. The Master Plan formulated
by the Bangalore Development Authority (for short the 'BDA'), identifies
the allotted land as 'Residential Sensitive', though the same land was
identified in the Draft Master Plan as 'Protected Zone'. It was further
contended that the Revenue Map in respect of properties as referred in
the Land Lease Agreements has multiple Rajakaluves (Storm Water
Drains). The development projects in question sit right on the catchment
and wetland area which feeds the Rajakaluves, which in turn drains rain
water into Bellandur Lake. The project will thus encroach two Rajakaluves
of 1.38 acres and 1.23 acres each.
5. The Satellite Digital Images of the area from the year 2000 to
2012 show encroachment upon these Rajakaluves, as well as the manner
in which they are covered by the construction. The State Level Expert
Appraisal Committee (for short 'SEAC'), which was to assist the State
Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (for short 'SEIAA'),
held its meetings on various dates to examine the project. It had required
the appellant No.9 to submit a revised NOC from the Bangalore Water
Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'BWSSB') for the project in
question. It was also observed that the project lies between the Bellandur
Lake and the Agara Lake. Respondent No.9 was also directed to take
protective measures to spare the buffer zone around Rajakaluves and
also to commit that no construction would be carried out in the buffer
zone. In the meeting of 11.11.2011, it was recorded that the project
proposes car parking facility for 14,438 cars in that environmentally
sensitive area.
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
6. It was alleged that NOC was issued covering an area of 17,404
sq. mtrs. whereas the built up area, as noted by SEAC, is 13,50,454.98
sq. mtrs. Respondent No.9 obtained NOC from BWSSB by concealing
material facts and by misrepresenting that NOC is required only for
residential units which form a very minuscule part of the total project.
Respondent No.9 had approached the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board (for short 'the KSPCB') for obtaining clearance, which was
granted on 04.09.2012 subject to the fulfillment of the conditions stated
in the consent order which included leaving the buffer zone all along the
valley and towards the lake. It is further contended that the grant of
consent by the KSPCB to respondent No.9 also contained a condition
with regard to obtaining Environmental Clearance from the Competent
Authority and no construction was to commence until such clearance
was granted.
7. Applicants further contended that respondent No.9 violated the
conditions and commenced construction of the project. There was also
violation of the stipulations stated in the approval of SEAC in relation to
buffer zone and construction over Rajakaluves. The construction had
been commenced over the ecologically sensitive area of the lake
catchment area and valley, with utter disregard to the statutory
compliances. Referring to these blatant irregularities, the applicant
submitted that the conversion of land from 'Protected Zone' to
'Residential Sensitive Area' is violative of the law. The project is right in
the midst of a fragile wetland area which ought not to have been disturbed
by the development activity. The fragile environment of the catchment
area has been exposed to grave and irreparable damage. It has severely
disturbed and damaged the Rajakaluves. Respondent Nos. 9 and 10
started to level the land by filling it with debris, thus causing damage to
the drains. The conditions with regard to no-disturbance to the Storm
Water Drains, natural valleys and buffer area in and around the
Rajakaluves have been violated. It has in turn, affected the ground water
table and bore wells which are the only source of water for thousands of
households. Fishing and agriculture which depends on Bellandur Lake
are also severely affected. The construction over the wetland between
the two lakes is in violation of Wetlands (Conservation of Management)
Rules, 2010 (for short 'Rules of 2010').
8. It was submitted that SEIAA in its meeting dated 29.09.2012,
decided to close the file pertaining to respondent No. 10 due to non-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1005
submission of requisite information and the application thereof was
rejected in November, 2012. Despite the rejection, respondent No.10
commenced construction on the project in full swing.
9. The applicants also relied upon the findings of the Joint
Legislative Committee, constituted under the Chairmanship of Shri A.T.
Ramaswamy in the month of July 2005, which stated that there were
262 water bodies in the Bangalore city in 1961 which drastically came
down because of trespass and encroachments. It was also affirmed that
about 840 kms. of Rajakaluves have been encroached upon in several
places and have become sewage channels. The applicants also relied on
the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr.
Justice N.K. Patil suggesting immediate remedial action in order to
remove encroachments on the lake area and the Rajakaluves and
preservation of the lakes in and around Bangalore city. It was further
contended that other Expert Committees, including Lakshman Rau Expert
Committee had also submitted proposals for preservation, restoration or
otherwise of the existing tanks in Bangalore Metropolitan Area which
recommended to maintain good water surface in Bellandur tank and to
ensure that the water in the tank is not polluted. The Central Government
in August 2013 had issued an advisory on conservation and restoration
of water bodies in the urban areas. The applicants claim to have obtained
monitoring report of the project by respondent No.5, Ministry of
Environment and Forests, through RTI on 21.08.2013. The report dated
14.08.2013 revealed that the project proponents are in clear breach of
their undertaking to carry out all precautionary measures to ensure that
the Bellandur lake is not affected by the construction and operational
phase of the project. This approach is particularly with regard to the
major alteration in natural sloping pattern of the project site and natural
hydrology of the area.
10. The Lake Development Authority (for short 'the LDA'), after
inspection in the catchment area of the Bellandur Lake submitted its
report dated 12.06.2013 which confirms that the project will have
disastrous impact, including deleterious effect on the Bellandur Lake.
This report was brought to the notice of KIADB. The LDA has also
opined that the land should be classified and maintained as sensitive
area. The KIADB called upon respondent No. 9 to comply with the
rules of Ecology and Environment Department and to obtain necessary
approval from KSPCB and LDA. Despite all this, respondent Nos. 9
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1006
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
and 10 have continued with their illegal constructions and have caused
damage to the ecology and the environment by irreparably jeopardizing
the ecological balance in this sensitive area. The applicants rely upon
the Revised Master Plan, 2013 issued by BDA which specifically provides
that 30 meters buffer zone is to be created around the lakes and 50
meters buffer zone to be created on either side of the Rajakaluves. It
was also pleaded that respondent No. 9 had obtained the NOC from
BWSSB only with regard to residential units and not for the entire project
and that the Environmental Clearance obtained by respondent No.9 is
based upon the partial NOC issued by BWSSB which itself is a
misrepresentation. It was contended that the projects are bound to create
water scarcity as the requirement of the project of respondent No. 9
alone is approximately 4.5 million liters per day, i.e. 135 million liters per
month, which is more than what the BWSSB supplies to the entire
Agaram Ward. The construction of respective projects by respondent
Nos.9 and 10 respectively, besides having commenced without permission
from the authorities and being in violation of the conditions imposed for
grant of permission/consent, is bound to damage the environment, resulting
in change in the topography of the area, posing potential threat of
extinction of the Bellandur lake, causing traffic congestion, shortening
and wiping out the wetlands, extinction of Rajakaluves and causing serious
and potential threat of flooding and massive scarcity of water in the city
of Bangalore, particularly the areas located near the water bodies.
11. Respondent No.9 in its objections contended that it was
incorporated with the objective of establishing an Information Technology
Park and R & D Centre with facilities such as residential complexes,
parks, education centres and other allied infrastructure within a single
compound. It had submitted the proposal to establish such Information
Technology Park and other facilities to the State Government and
requested for allotment of land for the project. Its proposal was considered
in 78th High Level Committee meeting held on 21.06.2000 and after
examining the proposal, it was approved by the Government on
06.07.2000. Before the State High Level Committee, it had informed
that its requirement was 110 acres of land, 25 MW of power from the
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short the
'KPTCL'), and four lakh litres of water per day from BWSSB. The
lands for the project were initially notified vide Notification dated
10.02.2004. Subsequently, the lands were allotted vide letter dated
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
28.06.2007 for which Lease-cum-Sale Agreement was signed on
30.06.2007. Considering the overall development of the State of
Bangalore, this respondent proposed a Mixed Use Development Project
consisting of an Information Technology Park, residential apartments,
retail, hotel and office buildings with a total built up area of 13,50,454.98
sq mtrs. The Project was conceived as a zero waste discharge project.
The project is located one and a half kms. away from the southern-side
of the Bellandur Lake. Towards the North, adjacent to the Project, lies
vast stretches of lands belonging to the Defence and towards the East,
lies the Project of respondent No. 10 and another developer is also
developing a project on the western side. It has obtained sanction plan
on 04.07.2007 which was renewed from time to time.
12. Respondent No. 9 claims that it has obtained NOC from Airport
Authority of India on 09.04.2010. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd, vide its
communication dated 16.04.2010, granted clearance for the project
construction. BWSSB, vide its communication dated 26.04.2011 issued
NOC for portion of the proposed construction to be built. The Bangalore
Electricity Supply Company Ltd. also granted NOC for arranging power
supply to the proposed residential and commercial building in its favour.
Environmental Clearance was granted by SEIAA vide communication
dated 17.04.2012. The Director General of Police has issued NOC and
KSPCB vide order dated 04.09.2012 accorded its consent for construction
of the said project subject to the conditions stated therein. It was further
stated that after grant of the Environmental Clearance on 17.09.2012,
the same was published in the leading newspapers "Kannada Prabha"
and "The Indian Express" on 12.03.2012 and 14.03.2014 respectively.
13. It submitted a modified the building plan which was approved
by KIADB vide its letter dated 30.08.2012, which was valid up to
10.08.2014. It started the construction of the project in November 2012,
taking all precautions as per terms and conditions of the orders issued by
the competent authorities. It was also submitted that it has raised the
constructions in accordance with the plans and conditions of the
Environmental Clearance and consent orders and that it has not violated
any of the conditions and has not caused any adverse impact on the
ecology and environment of the area. It has denied the contention that
its construction activity has blocked the Rajakaluves and has adversely
affected the lake. It has already spent a sum of Rs 306.73 crores on the
project towards procurement of men and materials, machinery,
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
infrastructure, medical and sanitary facilities, etc. and that it has availed
financial assistance from various banks and financial institutions towards
the construction and execution of the project and that various contracts
have been signed with the third parties. It is specifically pleaded that the
petition is barred by time and suffers from defects and laches.
14. Respondent No.10 pleaded that the applicants raised
multifarious proceedings against it which is an abuse of the process of
law and mala fide. It had submitted a revised proposal in respect of its
project in question and to obtain fresh clearance on 31.08.2007 with an
investment of Rs. 179.22 crores. The State High Level Committee had
cleared the project which was communicated to it on 25.01.2008. Its
properties are located in between Bellandur Lake and Agara Lake but
there are no primary storm water drains and secondary storm water
drains that exist in its properties. It has clearances from various
authorities, including Environmental Clearance and consent for
establishment.
15. KIADB stated that after possession of the land was handed
over to respondent Nos. 9 and 10, one year time was granted for the
implementation of the project which was extended from time to time.
The building drawings were approved on 04.07.2007, and the modified
building drawings were approved on 26.04.2011 and 30.08.2012 with
specific conditions. In its meeting held on 16.07.2013, it was resolved to
inform respondent No. 9 to fully comply with the Ecology and
Environment Rules and to obtain approvals from the LDA and KSPCB.
LDA vide its letter dated 24.09.2013, had informed KIADB that the
construction activity in the catchment area in the Bellandur Lake could
drastically impact the Lake with deleterious effects and asked it to stop
construction activity of respondent Nos. 9 and 10. However, the validity
of the building drawings was again extended up to 10.08.2014. The
Lokayukta on 17.12.2013 had written a letter in respect of complaint
filed by the South East Forum for Sustainable Development where it
had been averred that the decision had been taken by the Board on
21.12.2013 to keep in abeyance the approval accorded and even the revalidations of plans. This was also informed to respondent No.9. The
Board took a decision which was communicated to respondent No.9 on
02.01.2014, wherein it asked the respondent No.9 to stop all construction
activities on the allotted lands. The said communication was challenged
by respondent No. 9 and on the stop-work notice, stay was granted by
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
the High Court of Karnataka. The stop-work notice dated 23.12.2013
issued by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (for short 'BBMP')
was also stayed vide order dated 21.01.2014. The proposal submitted
by respondent Nos. 9 and 10 had been approved by the State Government.
The land allotted to respondent Nos. 9 and 10 does not consist of any
Rajakaluves.
16. The LDA took a stand that it was not at all aware of the
project initiated by KIADB. It came to know about the entire project
only when certain newspaper reports surfaced during the month of June,
2013 and till that time it was in the dark. After the complaints, it inspected
the Bellandur Lake and the Agara Lake on 12.06.2013 and prepared an
inspection report. In the report, it was noticed that large scale construction
activities were going on in the catchment area of Bellandur Lake and
that there was a change in the land use, which in turn has directly affected
the catchment of Bellandur Lake. The wetland area of Agara Lake had
also shrunk, which originally formed the irrigation area for the adjoining
agricultural lands. Therefore, it had questioned the decision of KIADB
vide letter dated 06.07.2013 and even requested it to stop the construction
activity and to re-classify the land as non-SEZ area. It was thereafter
on 31.08.2013, that respondent No. 9 wrote a letter for according approval
for the proposed development projects. However, vide its letter dated
23.09.2013, LDA informed KIADB that it had no authority to grant or
deny construction projects, but it also communicated its objections to
KIADB mentioning that construction activity would be in contravention
of the directions of the Supreme Court. Despite these warnings, KIADB
granted approval to the extension of the building drawings of the project
in favour of the project proponents with certain conditions, like ensuring
that all natural valleys, valley zone, irrigation tanks and existing roads
leading to villages in the said land should not be disturbed. Further, the
natural sloping pattern of the project site was not to be altered and the
lakes and other water bodies within and/or at the vicinity of the project
area should be protected and conserved. Despite the objections, the
plans were approved and approvals were extended from time to time. It
has taken a categorical stand that the projects as approved by the KIADB
would have adverse impact on Bellandur and Agara Lakes.
17. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed
the following questions for consideration and determination:
 MANTRI TECHZONE PVT. LTD. v. FORWARD FOUNDATION
[S. ABDUL NAZEER, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1010
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 4 S.C.R.
 1. Whether the application filed by the applicants and supported
by respondent Nos. 11 and 12, is barred by time and thus, not
maintainable?
2. Whether the petition as framed and reliefs claimed therein,
disclose a cause of action over which this Tribunal has
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under the
provisions of the NGT Act, 2010?
3. Whether the present application is barred by the principle of res
judicata and/or constructive res judicata?
4. Whether the application filed by the applicants should not be
entertained or it is not maintainable before the Tribunal, in view
of the pendency of the Writ Petitions 36567-74 of 2013, before
the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka? and
5. What relief, if any, are the applicants entitled to? Should or not
the Tribunal, in the interest of environment and ecology issue
any directions and if so, to what effect?
18. The Tribunal by its order dated 07.05.2015 at Annexure A-2,
disposed of the applications with the following directions:
1) We decline to pass any direction or order to stop further progress
and/or demolition of the project or any part thereof at this stage.
However, we constitute the following Committee to inspect the
projects in question and submit a report to the Tribunal inter alia
but specifically on the issues stated hereinafter:
a) Advisor in the Ministry of Environment and Forest dealing with
the subject of wetlands.
b) CEO of the Lake Development Authority, Karnataka State.
c) Chief Town Planner of BBMP, Bangalore.
d) Chairman of SEAC which recommended the grant of
Environmental Clearance to the projects in question.
e) Sr. Scientist (Ecology) from the Indian Institute of Sciences,
Bangalore.
f) Dr. Siddharth Kaul, former Advisor to MoEF.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1011
g) A Senior Officer from the National Institute of Hydrology,
Roorkee.
2) Member Secretary of the Karnataka State Pollution Control
Board shall act as the Convener of the Committee and would submit the
final report to the Tribunal.
3) The Committee shall inspect not only the sites where the projects
in question are located but even other areas of Bangalore which the
Committee in its wisdom may consider appropriate, in order to examine
the interconnectivity of lakes and impact of such activities upon the water
bodies with particular reference to lakes.
4) The Committee shall submit whether the projects in question
have encroached upon or are constructed on the wetlands and
Rajakaluves. If so, are there any adverse environmental and ecological
impact of these projects on the lake, particularly Bellandur Lake and
Agara Lake, as well the Rajakaluves. The report should specify, if any
Rajakaluves have been covered by the construction activities of
respondent Nos.