FIR against Berkeley Realtech, Godrej developers for cheating
The case stems from a complaint by the additional superintendent of police (SP) Karan Singh Rana of the CBI, anti-corruption bureau, Chandigarh, alleging violations under Section 420 (cheating) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a case against M/s Berkeley Realtech Ltd (now M/s RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd.), M/s Godrej Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (M/s Godrej Properties Ltd.), and unknown officials of Chandigarh administration for alleged cheating and criminal conspiracy in connection with environmental and wildlife clearances.
The case stems from a complaint by the additional superintendent of police (SP) Karan Singh Rana of the CBI, anti-corruption bureau, Chandigarh, alleging violations under Section 420 (cheating) read with Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Preliminary inquiry was initiated on May 17, 2023, after a complaint was lodged by Bhim Sain Garg, under-secretary, Punjab Raj Bhawan. The complainant alleged that there had been manipulations in the minutes of a State Board of Wildlife meeting held on June 27, 2022, under the chairmanship of the Punjab governor and UT administrator.
The inquiry revealed that M/s Berkeley Realtech Ltd. had submitted a proposal on August 12, 2014, seeking wildlife clearance for its “Berkeley Square” project located at Plot No. 24, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. At the time, the eco-sensitive zones for Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and City Bird Sanctuary, Sector 21, Chandigarh, were not officially notified, and hence the entire 10 km radius around these sanctuaries was deemed an eco-sensitive zone in accordance with the Supreme Court’s judgment.
A field visit by the deputy conservator of forests (wildlife), Chandigarh, on September 18, 2015, revealed that the project was approximately 5.20 km from Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and 3.20 km from the City Bird Sanctuary. More importantly, it was discovered that the project was fully completed despite not having the required environmental and wildlife clearances from the National Board for Wildlife.
As a result, the Chandigarh Pollution Control Committee filed a complaint before the court of the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) in 2015. The case is still pending before the Punjab and Haryana high court, which has granted a stay.
It was established that M/s Berkeley Realtech Ltd had completed substantial construction of its commercial project in 2014 without obtaining the mandatory environmental clearance and wildlife clearance from the state environment impact assessment authority and the wildlife board. Although the clearance was eventually granted on January 23, 2015, it explicitly stated that clearance was subject to obtaining prior approvals from forestry and wildlife authorities—a condition that the project proponent did not fulfil while completing the project.
Documentation further indicates that while processing the occupation certificate application on November 24, 2015, concerns were raised regarding the project’s area exceeding 20,000 sq. m, a threshold that mandates clearance under the environment impact assessment notification, 2006. Correspondence between the estate office and the department of environment, Chandigarh, confirms that the absence of proper clearances was recognised before granting the occupation certificate.
Inquiry has revealed that even though the said clearance was in the file of estate office, no efforts to clarify the matter of conditional environment clearance i.e. requirement of prior wildlife clearance were made by estate office.
“Not obtaining the wildlife clearance was an overt act on the part of project proponents, which was not raised by the estate office and instead the estate office had gone ahead with the grant of occupation certificate, thereby giving undue benefit to the project proponent. This clearly suggests that project proponent of Berkeley Square in collusion with unknown officials of estate office had obtained occupation certificate without obtaining the requisite wildlife clearance prior to the start of project as mentioned in the environment clearance itself,” stated CBI probe.
Similarly, the investigation found that M/s Godrej Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. was granted environmental clearance in 2009 by the Ministry of Environment & Forests (MoEF). However, the clearance was conditional upon a Supreme Court decision in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India (Writ Petition 460/2004). Despite this, the company failed to obtain the required wildlife clearance.
Further inquiry revealed that the company applied for an occupancy certificate for its Godrej Eternia project at Plot No. 70, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, on November 19, 2013. The occupation certificate was subsequently granted by the estate office on June 9, 2015, even though the environment clearance issued on February 26, 2009, did not include wildlife clearance. This indicates collusion between the project proponents and unknown estate office officials in securing the certificate through misrepresentation.
Upon discovering the violations, the estate office revoked the occupation certificate of Godrej Eternia on July 17, 2024, and that of Berkeley Square on July 24, 2024, due to the submission of invalid environment clearances.
When contacted, Ranjeev Dahuja, director, Berkeley Automobile Limited, said, “We are shocked by the recent FIR filed by the CBI concerning wildlife regulations. We would like to clarify that we have always been fully compliant with all legal requirements and have adhered to the necessary procedures as per the law. Our project received the required environmental clearance, and all relevant wildlife-related applications were duly submitted. Furthermore, our occupancy certificate was granted on April 29, 2016, which was much later than the 2015 draft notification by the Chandigarh wildlife department, which had already submitted the revised range proposal (from 10 km to 2.5 km) to the Ministry of Environment. The matter has been raised in the past, and we have already approached the court regarding the same.”
