New Delhi: The Principal Bench has found that nearly 2,000 trees may have been felled without permission from the Forest Department at a 61-acre project site. It also noted that no Environmental Clearance has been granted and rejected the developer’s novel “deemed EC” defence.
The National Green Tribunal’s Principal Bench has ordered a sweeping regulatory reckoning for the Omaxe State project in Dwarka, New Delhi, directing the Tree Officer, MoEF&CC, and the Delhi Pollution Control Committee to individually investigate and take action against the developer within eight weeks, after finding credible evidence of large-scale illegal tree felling at a site that still lacks Environmental Clearance.
The order, pronounced on April 22, 2026, by Chairperson Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Expert Member Dr. A. Senthil Vel, disposes of Original Application No. 137/2025 filed by applicant Renu Bala. It records that Respondent No. 7, a real estate developer and subsidiary of Respondent No. 8, commenced construction and tree-felling activities at a 61.43-acre site in Sector 19B, Dwarka, without obtaining the legally mandated prior Environmental Clearance or Consent to Establish under the Water and Air Acts.
The Delhi Development Authority had entered into a Concession Agreement with the developer on 18.07.2022, handing over 2,03,961.50 sq. m. of land in Sector 19B, Dwarka, on a Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Transfer basis for an integrated multi-sports arena—now commercially marketed as “The Omaxe State.” Clause 5.1.4(e) of the agreement required the developer to comply with all applicable laws and obtain necessary permits.
The project’s total built-up area of 2,55,051.42 sq. m. squarely places it within Item 8(b) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006, which covers “Townships and Area Development Projects” with a built-up area of 1,50,000 sq. m. or more, thereby requiring prior Environmental Clearance before commencement of construction or land preparation.
The developer’s principal legal argument was that it should be treated as having received a “deemed” Environmental Clearance under Clause 8(iii) of the EIA Notification, 2006. It argued that the SEAC had recommended the EC in March 2024; the regulatory authority failed to communicate a decision within the 45-day window mandated by Clause 8(i); and therefore, the applicant was entitled to “proceed as if the environmental clearance sought had been granted,” in terms of the EAC’s recommendation.
The Tribunal rejected this reasoning comprehensively, relying on the five-member bench judgment in S.P. Muthuraman v. Union of India (OA 37/2015) and Manoj Mishra v. Union of India (OA 213/2014), decided on 07.07.2015. The judgment held that the deemed clearance provision can be invoked only when all prior requirements of the EIA Notification have been strictly satisfied, including preparation of Terms of Reference, submission of a final EIA report, and an unambiguous recommendation by the SEAC or EAC.
“The concept of deeming fiction should be understood by applying the principle of strict construction. The principle of substantial compliance would have no application.”
In the present case, the EAC’s recommendation itself was conditional. It explicitly recorded that “permission for cutting of trees has not been granted by the Forest Department as of now” and treated this as a specific condition. An ADS seeking documentary compliance on this issue remained outstanding at the time of the order. The Tribunal found that no unambiguous, unconditional recommendation had crystallised; therefore, the precondition for invoking deemed clearance was not satisfied.
The developer also sought dismissal of the application at the threshold, pointing out that applicant Renu Bala had submitted an Expression of Interest on 27.12.2024 and paid ₹3 lakh to reserve a commercial unit in the very project she later challenged. The application was subsequently cancelled in March 2025 due to non-payment of the balance amount.
The Tribunal declined to dismiss the application on this ground. Observing that a “substantial issue of violation of environmental norms” had been raised, the Bench held that it would be improper to reject the OA on grounds of locus standi and proceeded to examine the matter on merits. This reaffirms the NGT’s consistent position that environmental violations are not insulated from scrutiny based on the petitioner’s personal motivations.
The record included satellite imagery suggesting tree felling prior to CEC approval. The CEC had granted approval only on 17.02.2026, subject to compliance with the Delhi Preservation of Trees Act, 1994, and the Supreme Court’s order dated 19.12.2024 in MC Mehta v. Union of India (WP(C) 4677/1985), which mandates that applications involving felling or transplantation of 50 or more trees be placed before the CEC for site inspection. The imagery raised a strong inference that tree felling had occurred well before such approval.
Directions Issued:
- The DFO/Tree Officer shall immediately conduct a spot inspection, examine satellite imagery, and ascertain the number of trees illegally felled prior to CEC approval dated 17.02.2026. Appropriate remedial and punitive action shall follow within eight weeks.
- MoEF&CC shall take an appropriate decision on the grant of Environmental Clearance in accordance with law, considering the violations noted in this order.
- DPCC shall conduct a site inspection, ascertain violations of environmental norms (including the OM dated 29.03.2022), and take necessary remedial and punitive measures within eight weeks.
- The Tree Officer and Member Secretary, DPCC, shall submit Action Taken Reports before the Registrar General of the Tribunal within three months in searchable/OCR-supported PDF format. The matter may be re-listed, if required.
The order delivers an authoritative restatement of the conditions precedent for invoking deemed Environmental Clearance under Clause 8(iii) of the EIA Notification. It affirms that a conditional EAC recommendation with pending compliance requirements cannot mature into a deemed clearance. It also underscores that the Tribunal will look beyond the petitioner’s personal circumstances where substantial environmental issues are involved.
For projects in NCT Delhi, where the SEIAA/SEAC is non-functional and matters are transferred to central authorities, the decision highlights a clear compliance risk: an EAC recommendation is not the final step. Its conditions must be fully satisfied before any clearance—deemed or otherwise—can be said to exist. Developers proceeding prematurely risk significant legal consequences.
Case Details:
Case Title: Renu Bala v. Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change & Others
Decided On: April 22, 2026
Coram: Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson & Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member
Case No.: Original Application No. 137/2025
I.A. Nos.: 567, 613 & 716 of 2025
Court: National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Applicant: Renu Bala
![NGT seeks response on Artificial Light Pollution’s impact on environment and health [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2024/12/lj_2102_NGT_Probes_Artificial_Light_Pollution’s_Impact_on_Health_and_Environment.jpg)
![Supreme Court questions NGT’s power to direct PMLA prosecution in Pollution Case [Read Order]](/secure/uploads/2025/01/lj_1504_Supreme_Court_questions_NGT’s.webp)
