Credai Pune Metro Thr Its Secretary vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Mr.Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate with Mr.Pralhad Paranjpe, Mr.Aditya Mhashe, Mr.Ativ Patel and Mr.Viraj Raiyani i/b M/S AVP Partners for the Petitioner.

¶15

Mr.O.A.Chandurkar,Addl.Govt.Pleader with Mrs.R.A.Salunkhe, A.G.P. for the State/Respondent No.1.

¶16

Ms.Jaya Bagwe for the Respondent Nos.2 and 4.

¶17

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & BHARATI DANGRE, J. DATED : 03^rd FEBRUARY, 2025

¶18

ORDER (Per Bharati Dangre, J.):-

¶19

CREDAI Pune Metro, an Association of Builders and Promoters of Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad area, has approached this Court, seeking a writ of mandamus or any other writ/order/direction to the Respondent No.2-State Environment Impact Assessment Authority ( “SEIAA” ) to

¶20

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶21

2/4 41 WP-501-25.odt

¶22

decide the proposals received by it for Environmental Clearance ( “EC” ) in Pimpri Chinchwad area, by considering the Comprehensive Environmental Pollution Index ( “CEPI” ) scores as updated by the Respondent No.4-Maharashtra Pollution Control Board ( “MPCB” ) vide its e-mail dated 02/09/2024.

¶23

According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.2-SEIAA in its 279^th meeting held on 13/08/2024, has deferred the proposal of large number of members of the Petitioner for the areas falling within Pimpri Chinchwad area and it is alleged that it was on account of an incorrect interpretation of the judgment of the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, which had directed strict enforcement of the Notification dated 14/09/2006 by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (“ MOEF & CC ”), which involved the projects falling within distinct categories, one of which was in relation to severely and/or critically polluted areas.

¶24

As per the Petitioner, while deferring the proposal of the members of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.3 had failed to note that as per the CEPI score, the area of Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation did not fall within the ‘severely or critically polluted areas’, as Central Pollution Control Board ( “CPCB” ) by its e-mail dated 02/09/2024 has indicated that its CEPI score was less than the threshold limits.

¶25

Today, learned senior counsel Mr.Ravi Kadam, representing the Petitioner, sought for a simplicitor direction to decide upon the pending proposal of the Petitioner, by

¶26

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶27

3/4 41 WP-501-25.odt

¶28

considering the CEPI scores, as published by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board for Pimpri Chinchwad area as per email dated 02/09/2024, in a time-bound manner.

¶29

Learned counsel Ms.Jaya Bagwe, representing the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, has placed before us a latest Notification issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change dated 29/01/2025 with reference to the earlier Notification dated 14/09/2006 imposing certain restrictions and prohibitions and requiring prior environmental clearance for undertaking any new project in any part of India or the expansion or modernisation of any existing industry, which was superseded by Notification of 14/09/2006, inter alia, imposing certain restrictions and prohibitions on building and construction projects and township and area development projects covered under item 8(a) and (b) of the Schedule thereof and requiring prior environment clearance for undertaking any such activities.

¶30

Referring to the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal on 09/08/2024 directing the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change to comply with the provisions related to the applicability of the general conditions in respect of item Nos.8(a) and (b) of the Schedule to the EIA Notification or issue clarificatory Notification in this regard, on receipt of objections and suggestions received, the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) and clause (v) of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986, made the amendments in the

¶31

M.M.Salgaonkar

¶32

4/4 41 WP-501-25.odt

¶33

Notification dated 14/09/2006, by prescribing the conditions in relation to building and constructions projects as well as townships and area development projects.

¶34

The copy of the Notification dated 29/01/2025 is placed before us by Ms.Bagwe and it is taken on record.

¶35

Ms.Bagwe, representing Respondent No.4, make a specific statement that the proposals of the members of the Petitioner now deserve consideration in the wake of the new Notification.

¶36

Accepting the aforesaid statement, we expect Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 to act in furtherance of the Notification dated 29/01/2025 and take an appropriate decision upon the proposal of the members of the Petitioner pertaining to the development activities to be carried out in Pimpri Chinchwad area, which contemplate environmental clearance, by keeping the new Notification in forefront.

¶37

We expect the decision to be taken on the said proposals within a period of eight (8) weeks from today.

¶38

With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶39

In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition, Interim Application does not survive and stands disposed of.

¶40

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶41

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶42

M.M.Salgaonkar

Credai Pune Metro Thr Its Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Credai Pune Metro Thr Its Secretary v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tradearch Market Platform Pvt. Ltd. vs Indo Baltic Pte Ltd.

Rajendra S. Desai vs Deputy Registrar

Ansari Erectors vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Mission Director State Water and Sanitation and Ors.

Vidyut Mandal Maji Apprentice and Ors. vs Managing Director Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. and Ors.

Saleel Ramakant Kulkarni vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Government Pleader and Ors.

Adani Electricity Mumbai Infra Ltd. vs Union of India and Ors.