Project Without Environmental Clearance or Breaking EC Conditions

If a project that needs an environmental clearance (EC) has started work without one, or is ignoring the conditions written into its EC, it is acting in breach of the EIA Notification 2006 and the Environment (Protection) Act. Residents can complain to the MoEFCC regional office or the SEIAA and the State Pollution Control Board, and if nothing happens, file an original application in the National Green Tribunal under section 14 of the NGT Act within six months. The tribunal can stop work, order inspections and impose environmental compensation. Project owners who receive a violation notice have options too, but delay makes every one of them worse.

This page covers two linked problems: projects that never got the clearance they needed, and projects that got one but treat its conditions as optional. It is written for neighbours, villagers and RWAs who want the work stopped or corrected, and for builders and industries who have been told they are in violation. If an EC has been granted and you think it should never have been, that is an appeal with a 30-day deadline, explained on our page on how to challenge an environmental clearance in the NGT.

For help with obtaining or correcting a clearance from the start, see our environmental clearance services.

The essentials

Does this project actually need an environmental clearance?

Start here, because many complaints fail on this point. The EIA Notification 2006 has a schedule of projects that need prior EC: mining, thermal power, large industries such as cement, chemicals, fertilisers, distilleries and pharmaceutical bulk drugs, ports, highways, airports, large building and construction projects, and townships. Building projects of 20,000 sq m built-up area and above need EC, generally from the SEIAA; townships and area development projects of 1,50,000 sq m and above fall in a higher category.

Plenty of polluting activity does not need an EC at all. A small dyeing unit, a brick kiln or a DG set in a market is regulated through consents from the state board and the relevant rules, not the EIA Notification. If you complain about a missing EC for a unit that never needed one, the authority will close your complaint and you will have lost months.

To find out whether an EC exists, search the regulator's website and the national clearance portal by project name or proponent, check the SEIAA's list of approvals, and look at the sanctioned building plan, which often refers to the EC. If you find nothing, file an RTI with the SEIAA or the MoEFCC regional office asking whether an EC was applied for or granted. Our guide on when a building project needs environmental clearance covers the construction thresholds in more detail.

What counts as an EC violation?

The clearest violation is starting without EC. The notification requires prior clearance before any construction work or preparation of land, other than securing the land. Excavating a basement, levelling a mining area, cutting trees for site clearance or laying foundations while the application is still pending all count. A project that says it has "applied for EC" is not cleared.

The second category is operating beyond the EC. Producing more than the capacity in the clearance, adding new products, extending the built-up area, or extending a mine beyond the approved area each needs prior approval. Our guide on expanding a project without EC amendment deals with this in depth.

The third category is ignoring the conditions. EC letters contain specific and general conditions: the green belt, rainwater harvesting, the STP and reuse of treated water, limits on groundwater drawal, dust controls, ambient air and water monitoring, solid waste handling, and six-monthly compliance reports. A breach of any of them is a violation, though the regulator's response is usually in proportion to the harm. Detailed guidance on condition breaches is in our guide on EC conditions not followed.

A fourth, often missed, category is working on an EC that has lapsed. ECs have a validity period that depends on the type of project. A project that has not started or completed within that period and has not obtained an extension is effectively without a clearance.

Types of violation and who deals with them

The law in plain words

Where should neighbours and villagers complain first?

Write to the authority that grants or would grant the EC. For category A projects, that is the MoEFCC, and complaints about compliance go to its regional office for the state. For category B projects, including most building projects, it is the SEIAA. Send a copy to the State Pollution Control Board, because the board controls consents and has closure powers of its own. Keep the complaint factual: the project name, the location, what you have seen, the dates, and the documents you rely on.

For building projects, also write to the development authority or municipal body that sanctioned the plan. It controls building permission and completion, and a missing EC is a reason to question both. For mining, write to the district mining officer and the DM, who control leases and transit passes.

Give the authorities a fair chance, usually four to eight weeks, and follow up in writing. Then move. The NGT does not insist that you exhaust every complaint first, and if work is progressing fast, the harm can become irreversible while files move between offices. A copy of your unanswered complaints is useful evidence that the regulators did not act.

How to stop a project that is working without EC or breaking conditions

How do you prove a project started before its EC?

Timing is everything. You need to show that land preparation or construction happened on dates before the EC was granted, or work happened outside what the EC allows. Satellite imagery available for different dates is often the most persuasive evidence, because it is independent and dated. Combine it with your own dated photographs, local newspaper reports and complaints made at the time.

For capacity and area violations, the documents are usually with the regulators. The consent to operate states the permitted production; the EC states the approved capacity or built-up area; the sanctioned building plan shows the floor area. Production figures can show up in annual returns, environmental statements filed with the state board, and the proponent's own compliance reports. Ask for all of them under RTI.

For condition breaches, the proponent's six-monthly compliance reports are a good starting point. Many simply repeat "complied" against every condition. A green belt that is reported as planted but is visibly bare land, or groundwater drawal reported within limits while new borewells appear on site, makes a strong contrast. Our guide on photos, lab reports and RTI replies as NGT evidence explains how to present this material so it is taken seriously.

What does the NGT usually do in an EC violation case?

In most cases the tribunal first wants verified facts. It commonly forms a joint committee, often of the state board, a representative of the MoEFCC regional office or SEIAA and the District Magistrate, to inspect the site and report within a few weeks. The report becomes the centre of the case, so it matters what you put before the committee and how you respond to its findings. See our guide on objecting to a joint committee report.

If the report confirms the violation, typical directions include stopping further work until the legal position is regularised or the EC conditions are met, restoring damaged areas, completing the green belt or STP within a fixed time, and paying environmental compensation. Boards and the CPCB use a formula-based method for compensation; our guide on what environmental compensation means explains the factors involved.

Demolition is ordered less often than people expect, and closure tends to be reserved for serious or repeated violations or where the harm cannot be controlled. That is not a reason for residents to give up. Even where the project survives, firm conditions, monitoring and compensation change how it operates.

You have received a violation notice: what should a builder or industry do?

Treat it as serious from day one. A show-cause notice from the SEIAA, the MoEFCC regional office or the state board usually sets a short time to reply, and silence is often followed by directions to stop work or closure under section 5 of the EP Act. Reply in substance, with documents: when the EC was applied for, what work was done and when, what has been done to comply since, and a time-bound plan for the rest.

Do not make claims you cannot support. Saying that excavation was only "soil testing" when satellite images show a full basement will damage your credibility for the rest of the case. If work began before the EC, say so and focus on remediation and the legal route available now. That route has changed several times. The question of whether a project that started without EC can be regularised has been before the Supreme Court repeatedly; our guide on post-facto environmental clearance explains why you need current advice before choosing a strategy.

Get your compliance paperwork in order quickly. Missing six-monthly reports are an easy point for a regulator or an opponent in the NGT. Our EC compliance report service and environmental penalty defence work cover both the filings and the response to penalty proceedings.

What to gather

What we do in EC violation matters

• Checking the facts first. We confirm whether the project needed an EC, whether it has one and what it permits, before anyone files anything.
• Building the evidence. We draft RTI applications, help assemble a dated record of the work and match it against the EC and consents. In violation cases Advocate B.K. Singh has handled, a simple timeline placing satellite images beside the EC date has often done more than pages of argument.
• Complaints that get read. We draft complaints to the regional office, SEIAA, board and local authority that set out the violation, the law and the action sought.
• NGT applications. We file section 14 applications with interim prayers, and section 15 claims where people have suffered damage.
• Defending proponents. We reply to show-cause notices, appear in violation proceedings and in the NGT, and help plan compliance and remediation.
• Follow-through. We track compliance with the tribunal's directions and file execution applications if they are ignored.

Common mistakes on both sides

Residents often wait for the building to be finished before acting, believing they must first prove harm. The violation is complete the day work begins without EC, and the six-month clock under section 14 runs from when the cause of action first arose. The NGT has in many cases treated an ongoing breach as a continuing cause of action, but relying on that is risky. Our guide on continuing cause of action in NGT cases explains where the line usually falls.

Another common error is mixing an EC complaint with every other grievance against the builder, such as delayed possession or parking. Those belong before RERA or a consumer commission. Keep the environmental case focused.

On the other side, proponents tend to think that once an application is pending, work can proceed quietly. It cannot. They also underestimate how much a regulator or tribunal relies on the proponent's own reports. A report claiming full compliance that turns out to be false is far more damaging than an honest report of partial compliance with a plan.

Further reading

For the specific question of what happens when an existing unit or building grows beyond its clearance, read our guide on expansion without EC amendment. If your concern is the SEIAA's role and procedure, our SEIAA services page explains how state-level clearances are handled.