20-05-2011 - State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority ...

xiii)
xiv)
xv)
xvi)
Regional Office of MoEF, the respective Zonal Office of CPCB and the SPCB.
The criteria pollutant levels namely; PM 2.5 , PM 10 , SO 2 , NO x , CO, Pb, Ozone
(ambient air) shall be monitored and displayed at a convenient location
near the main gate of the company in the public domain.
The project proponent shall comply with the conditions imposed by the
Housing & Urban Development in the permission for change of land use
(CLU) granted vide No. 18/50/2003-1Hg-II/11256 dated 11.12.2003.
The State Environment Impact Assessment Authority reserves the right to
add additional safeguards/ measures subsequently, if found necessary, and
to take action including revoking of the environmental clearance under the
provisions of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, to ensure effective
implementation of the suggested safeguards/ measures in a time bound
and satisfactory manner.
Any appeal against this environmental clearance shall lie with the National
Environment Appellate Authority, if preferred, within a period of 30 days as
prescribed under section 11 of the National Environment Appellate Act,
1987.
This environmental clearance will be valid for a period of five years from
the date of its issue or till the completion of the project, whichever is
earlier.
Item No. SEIAA/31.04 Application for obtaining environmental
clearance for “Paramount Mall & Multiplex” to
be developed by M/s Paramount Buildtech Pvt.
Ltd., at Landran Road, Mohali
The SEIAA observed that:
1. The project proponent has applied for obtaining environmental clearance as
required under EIA Notification for developing “Paramount Mall & Multiplex”
in the revenue estate of Landran Road, Mohali. The project of promoter is
covered under category 8 (a) of the Schedule appended to EIA notification
dated 14/9/2006.
2. The case was considered in the 10 th meeting of SEAC held on 09.08.2008
and the project proponent was requested to attend the said meeting, but
no representative of the promoter attended the meeting despite the fact
that the project proponent was requested vide letter no.29589 dated
1.8.2008 to attend the said meeting. Thus, the SEAC decided to defer the
case. Accordingly, the project proponent was requested vide letter no.
37137 dated 7/10/2008 to clarify whether the project proponent want to
pursue the case or not, but the project proponent had failed to respond in
this regard.
11