Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4882,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Environment&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4882,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 4791
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Environment&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4882,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Environment&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4882,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 4791
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Environment&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f5f262f13a4-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4882,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;Environment&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 4791,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 4882,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 4791
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;Environment&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &amp;ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Tuesday&amp;rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&amp;rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&amp;ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&amp;rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&amp;rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&amp;rsquo;s Movement.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In a statement responding to the ministry&amp;rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &amp;ldquo;The MoEF&amp;rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&amp;rdquo; the company statement said.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&amp;rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&amp;rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &amp;ldquo;has accepted&amp;rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &amp;ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&amp;rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &amp;ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &amp;ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &amp;ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&amp;rdquo;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&amp;rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 4791,
		'title' => 'MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 4882,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 4791,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa',
	'metaKeywords' => 'Environment',
	'metaDesc' => 'Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...',
	'disp' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 4791,
	'title' => 'MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Economic Times, 15 December, 2010, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/MoEF-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-Lavasa/articleshow/7102474.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'moef-refuses-to-lift-stay-on-lavasa-4882',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 4882,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 4791
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa'
$metaKeywords = 'Environment'
$metaDesc = 'Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put...'
$disp = '<div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa &ldquo;co-operated and files all necessary documents.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Tuesday&rsquo;s order came in response to the Bombay High Court&rsquo;s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">&ldquo;Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today&rsquo;s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,&rdquo; said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People&rsquo;s Movement.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In a statement responding to the ministry&rsquo;s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. &ldquo;The MoEF&rsquo;s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,&rdquo; the company statement said.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People&rsquo;s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry&rsquo;s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry &ldquo;has accepted&rdquo; that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to &ldquo;carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.&rdquo; The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that &ldquo;we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, &ldquo;this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, &ldquo;The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa&rsquo;s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.&nbsp;</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify">In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.</div><div style="text-align: justify"><br /></div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

MoEF refuses to lift stay on Lavasa

Twenty-four hours ahead of the hearing in the Bombay High Court, the environment ministry has upheld its order asking Lavasa Corporation Limited to stop all work in its hill township project near Pune.  Work at the 25,000-acre planned city was put on hold by a showcause order issued on November 25. The ministry had said that final order on the showcause will be issued by December 31, provided Lavasa “co-operated and files all necessary documents.”  Tuesday’s order came in response to the Bombay High Court’s December 7 directive asking the ministry to give Lavasa Corporation, a subsidiary of the Hindustan Construction Company , the National Alliance of People’s Movement and BG Ahuja, a hearing. The court had also asked that the ministry to clarify whether or not work at the site should be stopped pending the final decision. The court directed the ministry to pass the order on this issue by December 16.  “Criminal liabilities under section 15 of the Environment Protection Act 1986 and other legislations have still not been determined. Today’s MoEF order does establish a prima facie case with reference to such criminal liabilities,” said YP Singh, legal counsel for National Alliance of People’s Movement.  In a statement responding to the ministry’s interim order, Lavasa took on the same aggressive line that has marked its earlier response. “The MoEF’s interim order is made without objective verification and physical site assessment which subverts the basic tenancy of natural justice. It simply repeats the unsubstantiated and generic claims made by Medha Patkar through NAPM, even verbatim in some cases. We are anguished because despite having repeatedly requested MoEF for measurable and objective norms that guide developmental activities, their order is shrouded by statements of NAPM, which are bereft of facts or credible data,” the company statement said.  At the hearing in the ministry on December 9, submissions were made by representatives of Lavasa, the National Alliance for People’s Movements, and Mr BG Ahuja. In making its decision, the ministry also took into consideration additional material that had been submitted. Based on the hearing and the perusal of additional material, it concluded that the project lacked several clearances, and the project was leading to large-scale environmental degradation.  The ministry found that the Maharashtra government issued environmental clearance for an area of 2000 hectares in March 2004. The collector of Pune approved a plan in August 2006 for an area of 585 hectares, of which 47.3 hectares was above the 1000 metre of mean sea-level. The ministry’s order also said that the project had failed to show compliance with the Environmental Impact Assessment Notification of 1994, the amendment of July 2004 and the subsequent substantive notification of September 2006.  The company has responded to these observations in its statement. It noted that the environment ministry “has accepted” that it was granted permission by the Maharashtra government to “carry out development work in a 2,000-hectare area.” The company statement issued late on Tuesday stated that “we have been carrying out development work within the framework of the said permission. We have maintained and submitted to MoEF that Lavasa is exempt from 1994 and 2004 EIA notifications under entry 18.”  The ministry has outlined large scale environmental degradation due to the project which includes pollution on account of stone crushing, erosion of bio-diversity, and construction along water reservoir impacting water quality and the cutting of hill slopes affecting their stability. Lavasa has responded saying, “this is a gross misrepresentation. The issues raised are so generic that they are then applicable from small slum developments to large cities.”  Reiterating the points made in the December 9 hearing before environment ministry officials, the company said, “The Lavasa master plan has won international awards for sustainable development. The Hill Station Regulations have stipulated objective measures for environmental protection which have been fully adhered to by Lavasa.”  The writ petition filed by Lavasa has been kept pending by the court and the hearing has been adjourned to December 16. Lavasa’s counsel has already made a voluntary statement that no construction will be carried out until this date. Lavasa had filed a writ petition in Bombay High Court challenging the show-cause notice served by ministry asking the company to stop all construction activity at the project.  In its response to the showcause notice, the company had slammed the environment ministry questioning its authority to issue the notice and timing of this notice.