NGT Stays Order to Attach Gaursons Promoters Office, Puts Case Against MD on Hold

• NGT keeps attachment of Gaursons Promoters office in abeyance

• Criminal proceedings against managing director stayed temporarily

• Tribunal to hear the matter again on January 12

NOIDA: In a significant relief to real estate developer Gaurs Group, the National Green Tribunal (NGT stays order to attach Gaursons Promoters office) and has also put on hold the initiation of criminal proceedings against the company’s managing director. The interim relief comes after Gaursons Promoters Private Limited moved the tribunal seeking modification or recall of its earlier directive.

The order was passed by an NGT bench comprising Judicial Member Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Expert Member Dr Afroz Ahmad. The tribunal has kept the contentious portions of its December 16 order in abeyance until the next hearing, scheduled for January 12.

Background of the Case

The issue arose during the hearing of an execution application filed by a resident of Greater Noida, who alleged non-compliance with earlier directions issued by the tribunal. Acting on the plea, the NGT had earlier ordered the conditional attachment of Gaursons Promoters’ head office in Ghaziabad and directed initiation of criminal proceedings against the company’s managing director.

Challenging this order, the developer filed an interlocutory application, arguing that the alleged non-compliance was neither deliberate nor wilful and that the harsh directions warranted reconsideration.

Senior advocate A R Takkar, appearing for Gaursons Promoters, informed the tribunal that the disputed portions of the December 16 order have now been stayed. He confirmed that the matter will be taken up again for detailed hearing on January 12.

Developer’s Clarification

Following the NGT’s interim relief, Gaurs Group issued a clarification stating that it has consistently complied with statutory norms and directions issued by judicial and regulatory authorities, including the National Green Tribunal.

According to the developer, the adverse proceedings were triggered due to an inadvertent lapse by an employee, who failed to appear before the tribunal with a required compliance report. The company said this omission was unintentional and had already been brought to the notice of the tribunal.

“The company has always acted in good faith and in compliance with all legal and environmental requirements. The recent issue stemmed from a procedural oversight, not from disregard of tribunal orders,” the statement said.

Dispute Linked to Gaur City 2 Project

The dispute relates to 14th Avenue in Gaur City 2, a residential project developed by the group in Greater Noida. As per the developer, the project was constructed strictly in accordance with sanctioned plans and included a dedicated garbage collection centre as mandated by norms.

However, the location of the waste collection facility later became a point of contention, with some residents opposing its placement. One of the residents subsequently approached the NGT, alleging environmental concerns and non-compliance.

Relocation Efforts and Authority Delays

Gaurs Group said that during the pendency of the proceedings, and in line with NGT directions, it identified alternative sites for relocating the garbage collection centre. Proposals for relocation were submitted to the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) for approval.

The developer, however, claimed that despite repeated follow-ups, the authority did not grant the necessary approvals. This, it said, stalled the relocation process.

“The delay in finalising the relocation was solely due to continuous delays by the concerned authority in approving the proposed sites,” the company stated, adding that it remains willing to comply with any further directions issued by the tribunal.

What Lies Ahead

With the NGT staying the order to attach Gaursons Promoters office, the immediate pressure on the developer has eased. However, the case is far from over. The tribunal’s next hearing on January 12 is expected to be crucial in determining whether the earlier directions will be modified, recalled, or reinstated.

Legal experts say the outcome could set an important precedent on how procedural lapses and compliance-related disputes involving real estate developers are handled by environmental courts.