Disposed

Bhau Madan Mehta v. Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation Msidc

NGT10 Sept 2025IA No. 163/2025 in Original Application No. 55/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT Western Zone Bench examined further affidavit submissions regarding tree felling during road widening. The court noted penalties were levied for fallen trees and branch cutting. Finding adequate penalty levied and future permission commitments made, the bench disposed of the original application.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application and the pending Interim Application were disposed of without any aditional order as adequate penalty had been levied.

Bhau Madan Mehta vs Maharashtra State Infrastructure… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.6

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. No.163 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Babu Madan Mehta & 3 Ors.

¶7

…..Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation & 4 Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 10.09.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Lalit Suryakant Khamkar, Advocate Respondents : Ms. Monica Bhandari, Advocate i/b. M.V. Kini Law Firm for R-1/MSIDC Mr. Deepak M. Gupta, Advocate for R-3 & 4/Forest Deptt. Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate along-with Mr. Savyasachi Bhardwaj, Advocate for R-5/Envt. Deptt.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated

¶16

03.06.2025 and 08.07.2025.

¶17

In compliance with our previous order dated 08.07.2025, learned counsel Mr. Deepak M. Gupta, appearing for Respondent No.3- Range Forest Officer and Respondent No.4- Deputy Conservator of Forest, has filed additional affidavit dated 02.09.2025, wherein it is especially submitted that during road widening work of Wai to Surur on 21.04.2025, one tree of Ficus benghalensis fell down (toppled) due to removal of soil on the boundary of Village Kenjal-Surur and another tree of Banyan fell down

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

due to the same reason near Mansi Hotel, Kavathe on 25.04.2025. The work of road widening was undertaken by N. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (not party herein). Both the fallen trees were replanted by N. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., which is revealed from the report dated 20.06.2025 of Forester, Wai.

¶20

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 has clarified that initially when the said trees were felled, they were replanted by the said Agency and now stand as replanted trees.

¶21

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent Nos.3 & 4 that N. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. was held liable for punishment under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 (Amended 1989). Accordingly, the Answering Respondent imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- per fallen tree, totaling to Rs. 2,000/- on the said Agency by order dated 23.06.2025. The said Agency has already deposited the said fine vide Receipt dated 24.06.2025.

¶22

It is further submitted in this additional affidavit by Respondent Nos.3 & 4 that the said Agency has also caused damage to total 86 trees by cutting the branches of those trees on both side of said road. Out of that 86 trees, 62 trees were Scheduled Trees as per the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964. After enquiry conducted by the Answering Respondent, a fine of Rs. 1,000/- per Scheduled Tree was realized for total 62 trees totaling to Rs. 62,000/- from the N. P. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

¶23

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1- MSIDC has filed reply affidavit dated 09.09.2025, wherein our attention is drawn to following paras:-

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

“51. The Answering Respondent submits that the project design consciously minimizes tree cutting. It is further submitted that valuation and permissions from the competent Forest Authority are being obtained prior to any such activity.

¶26

52. Furthermore, it is submitted that a detailed tree inventory along with girth measurement have been conducted. It is submitted that the Answering Respondent shall endeavour to preserve the trees of heritage and/or historical,, wherever feasible. Only the bare minimum number of trees, if at all, will be cut or transplanted, in accordance with permissions and applicable laws.

¶27

54. The Answering Respondent reaffirms its unwavering commitment to minimize tree felling and, as far as practicable, to avoid cutting or transplanting trees along the project highway so as to preserve ecological balance. The project authorities have consciously resolved to undertake road improvement predominantly within the existing Right of Way (ROW), thereby significantly reducing ecological disturbance…..”

¶28

It is apparent from the above paragraphs that Respondent No.1 has tried to minimize the tree cutting while broadening the road and it is undertaken by them that as and when any tree is required to be cut, Respondent No.1 will seek prior permission for that.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that tree cutting is still going on, but he has not extended any proof thereof. Therefore, we are of the view that whatever has come on record, indicates that adequate penalty has been levied from the defaulters as per the provisions of law and in future, it is also undertaken by Respondent No.1 that no tree would be cut without prior permission having been obtained from the concerned Authorities.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

In view of above, we are of the view that nothing remains to be decided in the present Original Application and dispose of the same accordingly.

¶32

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

¶33

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶34

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶35

September 10, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. No.163 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶36

P.Kr

¶37

Page 4 of 4

Bhau Madan Mehta v. Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation Msidc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhau Madan Mehta v. Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation Msidc

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

Sukhbir Singh vs Union of India

Sukhbir Singh vs Union of India

Sukhbir Singh vs Union of India

Sukhbir Singh vs Union of India

Vijay Chandel vs

Selvaraju Duraisamy vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Go Green Foundation Trust vs Union of India

Go Green Foundation Trust vs Union of India

Deepak v Rao vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation

Shailendrasinh R Jadeja vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2025 in Original Application No. 40/2023 of Yogesh Mundhara vs 1. M/S Super Dream Real Estate Private Limited

Bhau Madan Mehta vs Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation Msidc

Ronak Desai vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Prakash M Tank (Partner of M/S Tulsi Quarry Works) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat