NOIDA: The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has suspended its prior directive to attach the headquarters of Gaursons Promoters Private Limited and initiate criminal proceedings against the company’s managing director, granting temporary relief to the real estate developer.
This ruling was made by a bench featuring judicial member Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert member Dr. Afroz Ahmad, following the company’s request to modify or overturn the tribunal’s Dec 16 directive. This directive had been issued during the hearing of an execution application presented by a Greater Noida resident, claiming non-compliance with earlier tribunal orders.
Senior advocate A R Takkar, representing the developer, mentioned that the case is scheduled for a hearing on Jan 12. He noted that the section of the Dec 16 order regarding the conditional attachment of the Ghaziabad head office and the initiation of criminal proceedings against the managing director has been put on hold until the next session.
In a clarification made after the ruling, Gaurs Group asserted that it has always adhered to statutory requirements and directives from judicial and regulatory bodies, including the NGT. The company stated that the recent issues arose from an unintended oversight by an employee who failed to present a compliance report before the tribunal. This lapse has already been brought to the attention of the bench.
The dispute centers around the 14th Avenue project in Gaur City 2. According to the developer, the project was developed in compliance with approved plans, which included a designated garbage collection center. However, some residents later contested the location of this facility, prompting one to seek intervention from the NGT.
Gaurs Group stated that during the ongoing proceedings and in line with tribunal instructions, it identified alternative sites for relocating the garbage collection center and submitted the necessary proposals to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) for approval. Despite numerous follow-ups, the approvals were delayed, hindering the relocation. “The holdup in finalizing the relocation was solely due to the continuous delays by the concerned authority in approving the final location,” the company clarified in its statement.
