Controversies surrounding the two real estate projects, the Adarsh Society building in Mumbai and the Lavasa city near Pune, bring to the fore the huge costs of poor enforcement of town planning rules and inept administration of urban development. In the case of Adarsh housing, a 31-storeyed apartment building raised in the Backbay reclamation area and meant for Kargil heroes, the Maharashtra government not only turned a blind eye to the inclusion of the patently unqualified in the beneficiary list; it also permitted the construction after short-circuiting the approval process and overlooking the mandatory environment clearance. The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF), enquiring into the complaints about the project, concluded on the basis of irrefutable facts that the building was an “egregious violation” of the Coastal Regulation Zone notification and justly refused to condone the fait accompli. By ordering demolition and not taking over the building for a public purpose or regularising the deviations by imposing a penalty, the Ministry has sent out a clear message that only severe action can deter future unauthorised constructions.
Lavasa city is a vast ensemble of buildings. Located amidst seven hills, this project, with a 60-km lake front, will accommodate 300,000 permanent residents when completed. In response to the complaints filed by NGOs about alleged irregularities in the project, the MoEF went through due process and concluded that the project was “in violation of” Environment Impact Assessment notifications, and that the construction activity was “unauthorised” as well as “environmentally damaging.” In this case, it has not ordered demolition of the unauthorised construction; it has proposed a penalty. How does one explain the different standards adopted? The large investments made (about Rs.3,000 crore), and the employment opportunities generated, by Lavasa have probably weighed in its favour. The Bombay High Court, which is hearing the objections raised by the promoters, will have the next say on the MoEF's order. Independent of the merits of the legal challenges, the Ministry's firm stance and prompt follow-up on complaints are a significant improvement on the pattern witnessed prior to Jairam Ramesh's stewardship of the MoEF. That large-scale building projects, under construction for years, elude the scrutiny of the vigilance agencies challenges credulity. It is only by making the planning institutions more transparent that misuse of discretionary powers and convenient interpretations of rules for private gain can be checked.
