CBI FIR Against Godrej Properties: Alleged Collusion, Missing Wildlife Clearance and the Occupation Certificate That Was Later Revoked

On 30 January 2025, the Central Bureau of Investigation’s Anti-Corruption Branch in Chandigarh registered a regular criminal case, RC0052025A0003. The FIR invokes Section 420 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The named accused include M/s Berkeley Realtech Ltd. (now M/s RSA Motors Pvt. Ltd.), M/s Godrej Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (referred to interchangeably as M/s Godrej Properties Ltd.), and unknown public servants of the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The case was registered after a Preliminary Enquiry (PE0052023A0003 / PE03(A)2023) and on the basis of a written complaint dated 28 January 2025 submitted by Additional Superintendent of Police Karan Singh Rana.

This is not a private complaint or a newspaper allegation. It is a formal CBI FIR that follows an internal enquiry and is now under investigation by Inspector Vikas Sharma. The document itself records that the material collected during the Preliminary Enquiry “prima-facie discloses” the commission of the offences. At the same time, an FIR is not a conviction. It is the formal starting point of a criminal investigation. What follows is a detailed examination of what the FIR and its annexed complaint actually allege, with particular focus on the Godrej Eternia project at Plot No. 70, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, and a critical assessment of the strengths, gaps and implications of the case as presented.

The Project at the Centre: Godrej Eternia

According to the CBI’s own narrative, the project in question is a commercial/retail building known as Godrej Eternia, located at Plot No. 70, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh. It comprises two wings, a double basement, a stilt floor, a ground floor and five upper floors. Environmental Clearance for the project was granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forests on 26 February 2009 vide letter No. 21-360/2008-IA.III. Critically, the CBI enquiry itself records that this 2009 EC did not expressly stipulate the condition of obtaining prior Wildlife Clearance from the National Board for Wildlife. It did, however, contain a condition that the clearance was subject to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 460 of 2004 — Goa Foundation v. Union of India.

This single factual detail creates one of the central legal tensions in the case. The CBI’s theory is that the combination of the Supreme Court order, the Ministry of Environment and Forests Office Memorandum dated 2 December 2009, the then-prevailing 10-kilometre deemed eco-sensitive zone around national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, and the physical location of the project made prior Wildlife Clearance from the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife mandatory. The defence, if and when it is fully articulated, will almost certainly emphasise that the 2009 EC itself did not contain an express prior-NBWL condition and that the regulatory landscape was complex and evolving.

The Wildlife Sanctuary Proximity and the 2014 Inspection

On 22 December 2014, a field inspection was conducted by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Wildlife), Chandigarh, along with staff and agency officials. The inspection reportedly found that the project site was approximately 6.60 kilometres from the Sukhna Wildlife Sanctuary and 4.00 kilometres from the City Bird Sanctuary, Sector 21. At the time of the inspection, the Eco-Sensitive Zones around these sanctuaries had not yet been formally notified. Consequently, under the Supreme Court’s directions in the Goa Foundation case and the MoEF Office Memorandum of 2 December 2009, the 10-kilometre radius was being treated as the deemed eco-sensitive zone.

The same inspection recorded that 100 per cent of the project construction had already been completed. This finding is one of the strongest factual pillars of the CBI’s case. According to the enquiry, Godrej Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. had submitted a proposal for Wildlife Clearance only on 7 November 2014 — after the bulk of construction was already finished. The CBI states that no Wildlife Clearance was ultimately obtained from the National Board for Wildlife.

The Occupation Certificate: The Alleged Point of Collusion

The FIR does not stop at the environmental non-compliance. It moves into the domain of alleged criminal conspiracy and corruption through the grant of the Occupation Certificate. The CBI records that Godrej applied for the Occupation Certificate on 19 November 2013. The Estate Office issued the OC on 9 June 2015. At that stage, according to the CBI, no Wildlife Clearance had been obtained.

The enquiry characterises this sequence as collusion: the project proponents “have also colluded with the unknown officials of Estate Office to obtain OC without obtaining wildlife clearance.” Parallel language is used in the Berkeley Square portion of the complaint, where the CBI notes that the Estate Office had the conditional Environmental Clearance on its file yet proceeded to grant the OC, thereby conferring “undue benefit” on the project proponent. The same reasoning is extended to Godrej.

This is the pivot that converts a potential regulatory or environmental violation into a criminal case under the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The CBI’s theory is that public servants abused their position and that private parties participated in a conspiracy to secure an official document (the OC) that should not have been issued.

Subsequent Administrative and Regulatory Actions

Two later developments are given significant weight in the FIR. On 14 May 2024, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change issued a show-cause notice under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to M/s Godrej Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. for non-compliance with the Environmental Clearance. Shortly thereafter, the Estate Officer of Chandigarh, by orders dated 17 July 2024 and 24 July 2024, revoked the Occupation Certificates of both the Godrej Eternia project (Plot No. 70) and the Berkeley Square project. The stated ground was misrepresentation by submitting invalid Environmental Clearances without obtaining prior Wildlife Clearance.

These 2024 actions are powerful from a prosecutorial perspective because they show that the same regulatory and administrative machinery that had earlier granted the OC later treated it as defective. They do not, however, automatically prove that in 2013–2015 there existed a dishonest agreement between identifiable Godrej officers and identifiable Estate Office officials. Administrative invalidity and criminal intent are distinct legal concepts.

Critical Analysis of the Prosecution Theory

The CBI’s strongest narrative can be reconstructed as follows: the project lay within the applicable sanctuary-sensitive zone; prior Wildlife Clearance was mandatory under the prevailing legal regime; construction was completed without that clearance; the company applied for and obtained an Occupation Certificate despite the absence of the clearance; the Estate Office possessed or should have possessed knowledge of the regulatory requirement; the OC was nevertheless issued; the OC was later revoked; and these circumstances collectively indicate collusion and undue benefit.

Against this must be set the genuine gaps and vulnerabilities visible on the face of the document itself.

First, the 2009 Environmental Clearance did not expressly require prior NBWL clearance. The CBI bridges this gap by relying on the Supreme Court order and the 2009 Office Memorandum. Whether that bridge is legally sufficient will be a contested question of law and fact.

Second, the FIR’s formal occurrence period is stated as October 2010 to April 2013. The detailed Godrej chronology in the annexed complaint includes events in 2013, 2014 and 2015. This discrepancy does not necessarily invalidate the FIR, but it requires explanation.

Third, and most critically for the conspiracy and corruption charges, the document does not identify any specific public servant, any specific communication, any meeting, any instruction, any promise, any payment, or any particular false representation made by a named individual on behalf of Godrej. The word “colluded” is used, but the evidence of the agreement itself is not set out in the FIR. That evidence, if it exists, must emerge during investigation.

Fourth, corporate criminal liability does not automatically attach to every director. The complaint seeks registration against the company “through its directors.” Establishing individual liability will require proof of the identity of the directors and officers during the relevant years, their knowledge, their participation in the applications, and their specific role in any alleged misrepresentation. The events span roughly 2009 to 2015; the FIR was registered in 2025. Director history, authorised signatories and contemporaneous documents will be decisive.

Fifth, the concept of “invalid EC” in the 2024 revocation orders appears to refer to an EC that was legally insufficient because a separate clearance was missing, rather than a forged or fabricated document. The FIR itself acknowledges that a genuine Environmental Clearance dated 26 February 2009 existed. This distinction between a defective clearance and a fraudulent document is material to the ingredients of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

The Two Tracks of the Case

The matter operates on two distinct but overlapping tracks. The first is regulatory and environmental: the applicability of the EIA Notification 2006, the MoEF Office Memoranda, the Supreme Court directions on eco-sensitive zones, the requirement of Wildlife Clearance, and the subsequent show-cause notice under the Environment (Protection) Act. The second is criminal: alleged deception in the process of obtaining the Occupation Certificate, alleged agreement between private parties and public servants, and alleged criminal misconduct by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Proving the first track does not automatically prove the second. The investigation will have to demonstrate not merely that a clearance was missing, but that there was dishonest intention, a specific false representation or suppression, knowledge on the part of the relevant officials, and an agreement amounting to conspiracy. The Estate Office file — the OC application of 19 November 2013, internal notings, correspondence with the Environment Department, inspection reports, and the final approval — will be central to that determination.

Broader Implications and the Parallel Berkeley Case

The FIR is not confined to Godrej. It simultaneously alleges a parallel set of facts against the Berkeley Square project at Plot No. 24 (referred to in one place in the revocation context as Plot No. 245). The CBI presents a pattern: two commercial projects in the Industrial Area of Chandigarh, both allegedly completed within the then-deemed eco-sensitive zone without Wildlife Clearance, both granted Occupation Certificates by the same Estate Office, and both later subjected to revocation. The existence of a pattern can strengthen an inference of systemic failure or, depending on the evidence, of coordinated conduct. It can equally support an alternative explanation of administrative or regulatory confusion within the Estate Office rather than a criminal conspiracy with private builders. The evidence will decide which characterisation is sustainable.

Conclusion

The CBI FIR RC0052025A0003 is a serious document. It is the product of a Preliminary Enquiry, it names Godrej Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. / Godrej Properties Ltd. as an accused company, it alleges collusion with unknown public servants in the grant of an Occupation Certificate, and it is supported by subsequent administrative actions in 2024 that treated the earlier OC as defective. The factual findings regarding the 2014 inspection, the completion of construction before Wildlife Clearance, the distances from the sanctuaries, and the timeline of the OC process are specific and capable of independent verification.

At the same time, the document leaves open fundamental questions that any fair investigation and any subsequent trial must confront: the precise legal effect of the 2009 Environmental Clearance, the exact nature of any misrepresentation made to the Estate Office, the identity and knowledge of the public servants involved, the existence of an actual agreement amounting to conspiracy, and the individual criminal liability of any particular director or officer. An FIR establishes a case for investigation. It does not establish guilt.

The paper trail identified in the FIR — the 2009 EC, the 2013 OC application, the 2014 Wildlife Clearance proposal and inspection report, the 2015 Occupation Certificate, the 2024 MoEF show-cause notice, the 2024 revocation orders, and the complete Estate Office and environmental files — now becomes the essential material for determining whether this is a regulatory violation that was later discovered, or a case of deliberate deception and collusion between a major real-estate company and public officials. That determination will rest on evidence, not on the registration of the FIR alone.