Dismissed

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

NGT4 Dec 2025Appeal No. 606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed the appeal seeking quashing of an Environmental Clearance. The court held that a minor increase in building height without violation of other parameters, alongside partial project possession, did not warrant quashing, viewing the variation as condonable given the absence of intent to violate laws.

What did the court decide?

Disallowed the prayer to quash and set aside the Environmental Clearance dated 20.08.2025.

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment… — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.4

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.606 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.828 OF 2025 (WZ) & I.A. NO.859 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble

…..Appellant

Versus

MOEF&CC & 6 Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 04.12.2025

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Viraj Pawar, Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

I.A. NO.828 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶16

This I.A. has been filed by the applicant/appellant with the prayer that the additional documents, which have been filed with this I.A., may be taken on record.

¶17

Since these documents have been filed by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as per the earlier direction passed by this Tribunal, we allow this I.A. and direct the Registry to take on record the same.

¶18

I.A. NO.828 OF 2025 (WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶19

I.A. NO.859 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶20

This I.A. has been filed by the applicant/appellant with the prayer that he may be permitted to bring on record the EC dated 06.07.2021 (1^st

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

EC granted to the Project Proponent for the project in question); Office Memorandums dated 08.06.2022 and 10.09.2025 issued by the MoEF&CC; and CCR report of the Project Proponent.

¶23

Since these documents have been filed by learned counsel for the applicant/appellant as per the earlier direction passed by this Tribunal, we allow this I.A. and direct the Registry to take on record the same.

¶24

I.A. NO.859 OF 2025 (WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶25

APPEAL NO.606 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the appellant with the prayer to quash and set aside the Environmental Clearance dated 20.08.2025 granted to Respondent No.7- M/s. Majestique Empire LLP for the project titled “MAJESTIQUE MARBELLA”, situated at Survey Nos.42/1 & 42/2, Village Kharadi, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, solely on the ground that in the 3^rd and final EC dated 20.08.2025, the Project Proponent reduced the total BUA from 86,005.77 sq. mtrs. to 83,820.31 sq. mtrs. to raise the height of the building by 0.74 mtrs. for several Wings of the building, which is a violation in terms of the OM dated 10.09.2025, which provides in para no.4 at sub-clause (5) as follows:-

¶27

“Accordingly, matter has been examined and it has been decided that any change in configuration/planning/design of the appraised building Project for which EC was granted shall not require amendment in EC, provided there is no increase in: (i) Built Up Area as defined in the EIA Notification (ii) Total excavation of earth (iii) Height of the building, and (iv) Water consumption/ Sewage generation/ Waste generation; so as not to require any changes in the already approved Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Environmental Management Plan (EMP). Further there shall be no reduction in the exterior open

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

spaces/green belts and no change in the designated use of the building.”

¶30

Having relied upon the above provision, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the increase of height was already done by the Project Proponent prior to the grant of EC dated 20.08.2025, which is evident from the Action Taken Report dated 19.08.2025 of the MPCB, which is annexed at page nos.134 to 135 of the paper book, in which at page no.135, present status is shown as below:-

¶31

“ 1. Building D, E & F. Building D has configuration B+LG+UG+17 Floors & Building E & F has configuration B+LG+UG+Stilt+17 Floors. Possession given.

¶32

2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------etc.”

¶33

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that since the possession of Buildings D, E & F was already given, it will be deemed that the constructions of the said buildings were completed prior to the grant of the said EC and hence, the same should be treated to be ex-post-facto which needs to be quashed.

¶34

We would like to quote here the full facts of the present status of the Action Taken Report dated 19.08.2025 of the MPCB, as below:-

¶35

“ 1. Building D, E & F. Building D has configuration B+LG+UG+17 Floors & Building E & F has configuration B+LG+UG+Stilt+17 Floors. Possession given.

¶36

2. Present status of Building A, B & C as Building A as on B+LG+UG+Stilt+13 Floors RCC and brick work completed. Building B & C as on B+LG+UG+17 Floors RCC and Brick work completed.

¶37

3. PP has provided 395 CMD Cap. MBBR STP for the treatment of domestic effluent Treated effluent utilized for flushing and gardening purposes. During visit STP was found in operation.

¶38

Page 3 of 4

¶39

4. PP has installed 350 kg/day Cap. OWC for the treatment of wet waste. Generated dry waste after segregation handed over to authorized vendor.

¶40

5. PP has installed 1 No. DG Set 500 KVA capacity with 2 mtr height of stack.”

¶41

A perusal of the above status would indicate that the construction of the other buildings are yet to be completed, for which the process is going on. Therefore, it cannot be held that the entire project has been completed and possession of the same is handed over, hence the said increase of height of few buildings would be treated to be a violation. Merely because few building may have exceeded the height prescribed, does not mean that EC is ex-post-facto and the same needs to be quashed and set aside.

¶42

We are of the view that this kind of minor variation may be condonable, as there does not seem to be any intent on the part of the Project Proponent to violate the environmental laws.

¶43

In view of above, we dismiss this appeal accordingly.

¶44

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶45

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶46

December 04, 2025 APPEAL NO.606 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.828 OF 2025 (WZ) & I.A. NO.859 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶47

Page 4 of 4

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble v. Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Mabel Hayes Inc. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Chetan Kumar Navintray Vyas vs Union of India

Ms Sukdeep Poultry Farm vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Lalitkumar Namdeo Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra

Firdos S Cambatta vs State of Gujarat through the Collector Ahmedabad

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.