SC clears regulatory logjam, paving way for revival of 493 stalled housing projects in Mumbai, Pune
ADVERTISEMENT The ruling paves the way for construction to resume on 493 stalled developments largely in the affordable and mid-income categories, helping momentum in two of the country's most active housing markets.
The apex court, in its judgment on Vanashakti vs Union of India, reaffirmed that the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) and State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) are the appropriate authorities for granting project-level environmental approvals in Maharashtra. The decision settles a jurisdictional conflict triggered by certain central government notifications issued in 2014 and 2016.
'This is a monumental relief for Maharashtra's real estate sector,' said Domnic Romell, president, CREDAI-MCHI, which had approached the court on the matter. 'We initiated this petition to bring clarity to an increasingly ambiguous clearance process, and the Supreme Court has now provided much-needed certainty.'The verdict addresses long-standing uncertainty around environmental clearances that had delayed project approvals and disrupted construction timelines. With clarity now restored, developers are expected to resume work on these projects, unlocking over 70,000 housing units and offering long-awaited relief to affected homebuyers.
'The judgment will not only revive the 493 stalled projects and fasten the delayed supply but also restores homebuyer confidence, introduces liquidity into the market, and restores economic activity across allied industries. Above all, it also underlines a progressive vision where environmental compliance is not diluted but seamlessly combined with development goals,' said Chintan Sheth, CMD, Sheth Realty.
ADVERTISEMENT According to him, the balanced approach between sustainability and speed will set an example for future urban growth, allowing on-time deliveries while upholding responsibility towards the environment.The Supreme Court struck down Clause 14(a) and Appendix 16 of these notifications, which had proposed the creation of Environmental Cells under local planning authorities to issue clearances. Developers had flagged this framework as inconsistent with the existing SEIAA-SEAC process, raising concerns about delays, overlaps, and confusion.
ADVERTISEMENT The court also dismissed the notion of differential treatment for industrial sheds and educational buildings under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, reinforcing the need for uniformity in environmental regulation across all project types.With the regulatory framework now clarified, developers are expected to move quickly to secure approvals and resume stalled work, particularly in high-demand locations across MMR and Pune. The ruling is seen as a timely intervention that will ease supply-side pressures and restore confidence among homebuyers and stakeholders in the state's key urban centres.
ADVERTISEMENT
(You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
6 hours ago
- Time of India
Will respond legally if Noida moves for takeover or termination: DND operator
Noida: With nearly a decade gone since Allahabad high court scrapped toll collection at DND Flyway, its operator NTBCL on Saturday put a series of FAQs and its perspective on them in a public letter to stakeholders along with latest financial results. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The FAQs related to legal and administrative questions about the Flyway that arose from the scrapping of the toll, an order that was later upheld by Supreme Court. NTBCL said Supreme Court, while doing so, did not terminate its concession agreement with Noida Authority and that it remains bound by the contract and will respond legally if Noida seeks termination or takeover of the project. It also said it had been maintaining DND Flyway, which lakhs of commuters use to travel between Noida and south Delhi daily, without a toll and would spend another Rs 5 crore on its maintenance. On Oct 26, 2016, Allahabad HC barred NTBCL from collecting toll, delivering its judgment in a petition filed by an RWA federation. The company approached Supreme Court, which on Dec 20, 2024, upheld HC's judgment. The stopping of toll, NTBCL said in its letter to shareholders, resulted from a "skewed assessment" based entirely on one aspect of a Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report and "undermines the confidence of investors in long-gestation infrastructure projects." "The CAG mandate was to look into the independent auditor's report and ascertain if the company has made project returns in accordance with the terms of concession agreement. However, we understand that while implementing the mandate – especially to determine the unrecovered project cost and returns – instead of using actual costs, expenses and income – certain assumed or adjusted figures were used and the shortfall in returns or recovery was then calculated based on these figures," it said. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now NTBCL said that while the review petition was dismissed by SC, it has options to file further remedial petitions, including a clarificatory petition, to make its case. Under one question – "If toll was stopped, does not that automatically end the concession period?" – NTBCL said that tolling is only one part of the concession that has been "ended by the court in the public interest". "However, the concession period is governed by separate clauses of the concession agreement. There is no direction at all from the courts to terminate the agreement," it added. Asked about NTBCL's reference to termination of the concession agreement, a senior Noida Authority officer said, "We are exploring all legal options in this matter."
Time of India
17 hours ago
- Time of India
HC: Land pooling policy may hit fertile land & social milieu, notified in haste
1 2 Chandigarh: While staying Punjab's Land Pooling Policy 2025, the Punjab and Haryana high court has held that the land sought to be acquired is among the most fertile in the state, and it is possible that "it may impact the social milieu. " In its order released on Saturday, the HC stated that the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, bars the acquisition of multi-cropped land, and such acquisition is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. The court was also of the view that no timelines have been prescribed, nor has any mechanism been provided to address the grievances of the affected persons. "We are prima facie also of the view that the policy appears to have been notified in haste and all concerns, including social impact assessment, environmental impact assessment, timelines, and redressal grievance mechanism, should have been addressed at the very outset in the policy, before its notification," the HC observed while staying the policy until Sep 10. A division bench comprising Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda passed these orders while hearing a petition filed by Gurdeep Singh, 72, a resident of Ludhiana district. He sought directions to quash the notification dated June 4, 2025, along with the Land Pooling Policy 2025, being ultra vires and an act of colourable legislation, violating fundamental rights. Speaking for the bench, Justice Grewal observed that the state proposes to take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land in the entire Punjab for carrying out its proposed development work, without conducting any Social Impact Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment study. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The Best-Paying Degrees of 2025 Are Not What You Think Best Paying Degrees | Search Ads Learn More Undo Although a stand is taken that the assessment would be carried out later when they have definite information about the number of landowners who have opted for the scheme, it has been held by the Supreme Court in several cases that before permitting urban development, the state ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment. The judge also observed that payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the landowners, but there is no provision for the rehabilitation of those landless labourers, artisans, and others who are dependent on the land. "It has also been submitted before this Court that the state's statutory bodies shall themselves develop the land, but no budgetary provisions appear to have been made, nor has anything been put forth before this Court to indicate that the state has adequate resources to finance the development project under the policy," the HC observed. In its nine-page order, the bench also mentioned that the court has come across several instances wherein the owners surrendered their land to the state development authority under the earlier land pooling policy, but the developed plots have not been allotted even after 10 years. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area. Get the latest lifestyle updates on Times of India, along with Raksha Bandhan wishes , messages and quotes !
The Hindu
17 hours ago
- The Hindu
Electricity, a ‘public good', must not be vulnerable to ‘undue political posturing', says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has expressed a lack of confidence on whether Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are living up to the independence and autonomy afforded to them under the law. ERCs have the exclusive authority of tariff determination, play a pivotal role in the promotion of competition, and in ensuring reliable power supply across the country. The court said electricity is a 'public good' and a 'material resource', and is especially vulnerable to 'undue political posturing'. The ERCs were meant to serve as a bastion under the Electricity Act of 2003 to ensure that electricity was sold and distributed for the common good, unruffled by the politics of the day, and uninfluenced by the market forces of demand and supply. In an 82-page judgment, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta has, however, questioned the very 'functional autonomy' of the ERCs, while drawing attention to the 'manage and manoeuvre' tactics employed to arrive at tariffs by creating regulatory assets 'over and above all permissible limits' prescribed by the electricity laws. A regulatory asset is adopted as a measure by the Regulatory Commissions when the gap between the revenue required by a power distribution company to meet its costs and expenditure, and the actual revenue realised through immediate tariff, is so high that it would not only prejudice the consumer but lead to what is called a 'tariff shock'. The court noted that, in recent times, ERCs have allowed power distribution companies' regulatory assets to balloon for decades without liquidating them, much to the detriment of the public, who have to bear the ultimate burden of paying more for electricity. This is despite the emphasis in the Electricity Act that the tariff fixed by ERCs must progressively reflect the cost of supply of electricity, and reduce cross subsidies. 'This is where the problem lies. Though the Electricity Act envisages functional autonomy for Regulatory Commissions, and the statutory scheme is complete in all respects, the decisions taken by the Commissions, many a time, have not inspired confidence of independence and autonomy. The reasons are not difficult to conceive as there is an issue about the appointment process. The assertion of independence, however, comes through individual volition and that is where the mandate of transparency leads to accountability,' Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment, pointed out. The Act requires ERCs to work in cohesion with the State to ensure the supply of affordable power to all sections of society, across regions and terrains. 'But the adverse effect of an overbearing regulatory asset extended beyond proportion is an anathema to good governance of the Electricity Act… The regulatory asset cannot be permitted to balloon into such proportions or continue for such periods, year after year, that the governance of the sector is set in peril, affecting the rights of the utilities and at the same time jeopardising the consumer interest, who eventually end up bearing the burden,' the court noted. Issuing a series of directions, the apex court ordered that regulatory assets must not exceed the reasonable percentage as envisaged in the Electricity Rules. Existing regulatory assets must be liquidated in a maximum of seven years from April 1, 2024, and those created in future must be liquidated in three years from April 1, 2024. The court directed ERCs to provide the roadmap for liquidation of regulatory assets in future, and also undertake a strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which distribution companies have continued without recovery of their regulatory assets.
