Disposed

Charan Bhatt v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT4 Jul 2025IA No. 192/2025 in Original Application No. 201/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed objections regarding closure orders issued against Ready-Mix Concrete plants. The tribunal directed the Pollution Control Board to hold a fresh hearing to determine if closure is necessary, noting the area's wetland status is yet conclusively finalised by the Wetland Authority.

What did the court decide?

I.A. no.192/2025 allowed; MPCB directed to hold fresh hearing within two weeks to decide on closure order.

Charan Bhatt vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.8

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2023 (WZ) I.A. NO.74 OF 2024 (WZ) I.A. NO.227 OF 2024 (WZ) & I.A. NO.192 OF 2025 (WZ)

Charan Bhatt

…..Applicant

Versus

Wetland Division, MoEF&CC & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 04.07.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Applicant in-person. Respondents : Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-3 & 4 Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-6/CPCB & R-8 Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-7/MPCB & R-15/MCZMA Mr. Shambhu Zha, Advocate for R-10 Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along-with Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocate for R-16 to 23.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

By our previous order dated 20.01.2025, we had directed newly impleaded Respondent Nos.16 to 23 to file objection against the Joint Committee Report, if any, within two weeks, pursuant to which common reply affidavit dated 05.06.2025 has been filed by them, wherein it is submitted that the Joint Committee did not make any communication to the answering Respondents to be present on 04.04.2024 while conducting the site visit, hence no opportunity of hearing was given to them. Although in the report, Joint Committee has not recommended any action to be

¶16

Page 1 of 7

¶17

taken against the answering Respondents, Respondent No.7- MPCB has gone beyond the terms of reference and proceeded to issue a closure order dated 30^th December 2024 against them.

¶18

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent Nos.16 to 23 that Respondent No.7 has not verified that the land at Sasunavghar is a wetland or not. Various development permissions have been granted to the answering Respondents because of the said land being not a wetland, even Respondent No.7 has granted the Consent to Operate to them. The answering Respondents have executed Leave and Licence Agreement in respect of the lands bearing Survey No.108/1/2 and 113/3 (part), Village Sasunavghar, Taluka Vasai, District Palghar. They have also received Consent to Operate for operating Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) plant dated 15^th May 2024 from Respondent No.7, which is valid and subsisting till 2029 and 2030. Answering Respondents are being stopped from conducting business, despite having all permissions. The Joint Committee nowhere observes that the answering Respondent are polluting the environment. Hence, it is prayed that answering Respondents should be discharged from the proceedings.

¶19

Against the above response of Respondent Nos.16 to 23, applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit dated 03.07.2025, wherein it is submitted that the Joint Committee, which was constituted by this Tribunal, has submitted its report based on direct site inspection, visual observations, verification through ISRO-SAC Wetland Atlas satellite data, and groundlevel assessment, confirming ongoing and serious environmental violations, including illegal debris dumping, unauthorised constructions, obstruction of natural water bodies, destruction of mangrove habitats, and large-scale ecological degradation along the said stretch in Sasunavghar. The Committee's findings are further corroborated by the report submitted

¶20

Page 2 of 7

¶21

by the Office of the District Collector, Palghar. But we do not find any such report placed on record translated into English. Hence, we are not considering the same.

¶22

It is further mentioned in this objection by the applicant that in compliance with the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by this Tribunal in the present Original Application, the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) has taken action against Respondent Nos.16 to 23, by issuing closure directions, whose Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) plants were found to be operating within the wetland stretch. This satellite-confirmed wetland area is also annexed to the present O.A., based on the Wetland Atlas prepared by ISRO SAC. The construction and operation of these RMC plants constructed within a designated wetland area amounts to a direct violation of the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017 and also the binding directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶23

It is further mentioned in this objection by the applicant that Respondent Nos.16 to 23 have obtained Consent to Establish from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) for setting up Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) plants under various environmental norms and MPCB guidelines. However, these RMC plants have not obtained any statutory permissions from the concerned local planning authorities for undertaking construction or development, as required under the Development Control Regulations (DCR), Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR), or the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. Further, the Consent Letter issued by MPCB explicitly states that the consent shall not be treated to be an exemption from obtaining necessary No Objection Certificates (NOCs) or approvals from the Government Agencies or local bodies. Despite this, the said RMC

¶24

Page 3 of 7

¶25

plants have failed to obtain mandatory development permissions from the Urban Local Body, i.e., Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation (VVCMC).

¶26

It is further mentioned in this objection by the applicant that despite the said area being classified as a Coastal Wetland- Natural - Intertidal Mudflat in the ISRO-SAC Wetland Atlas, the concerned authorities have not yet prepared or published any Wetland Brief Document under the Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2017. These RMC plants in the wetland stretch are in-direct violation of the binding Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M.K. Balakrishnan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. , wherein the Court explicitly held that all wetlands identified in the Wetland Atlas must be granted full protection in accordance with law, and that no activity in derogation of the Wetlands Rules shall be permitted. Therefore, it is prayed by the applicant that an order may be passed to ensure restoration of the damaged wetland and Respondent Nos.16 to 23 may be directed to voluntarily dismantle and remove the illegal RMC plants established within the wetland area.

¶27

Learned counsel for Respondent Nos.16 to 23 has also provided us a copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.304 of 2018 (Anand Arya vs. Union of India & Ors.) , wherein vide order dated 11.12.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had fixed three months’ time to complete ground truthing as well as the demarcation of wetland boundaries of each of the Wetland which have been identified for their State by Space Application Centre Atlas (SAC Atlas), 2021. Since thereafter, the matter is yet to be listed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, although the said three months’ period has already lapsed.

¶28

Page 4 of 7

¶29

In compliance with our previous order, Applicant has filed an amended memo of parties through e-mail dated 03.07.2025 only and not by way of e-filing. Therefore, we direct the applicant to e-file the same, although we take the same on record.

¶30

An I.A. No.192/2025 (WZ) has been filed by the 3^rd party/ Intervener- M/s. OM JVM Infrastructure Projects Pvt. Ltd. seeking its impleadment in the present Original Application, in order to seek clarification from the Tribunal regarding the order dated 23.10.2024 passed in Original Application No.201/2023(WZ), as its RMC Plant has also been directed to be closed by the MPCB in compliance with the said order of the Tribunal.

¶31

It is submitted in this I.A. that without the area being finally decided as Wetland by the concerned Authority, the MPCB’s closure order indicates that the same was treated by it to be a Wetland and hence the said order was passed and no NOC was taken from the Wetland Authority.

¶32

We have heard the argument of Original Applicant on this I.A., who submits that he has no objection to this I.A. being allowed, hence we allow I.A. No.192/2025 (WZ) and direct the Original Applicant to implead the said party as Respondent No.24 in the present Original Application and thereafter, place on record an amended memo of parties within a week.

¶33

I.A. No.192/2025 (WZ) stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

From the side of Respondent No.7- MPCB, an affidavit dated 17.01.2025 has been filed and a copy of the same is said to have been served upon the applicant, wherein it is submitted that on the basis of Joint Committee Report dated 22/10/2024, several non-compliances were observed by the officials of Respondent No.7-MPCB on the part of RMC

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

Plants during their visit on 13/11/2024 and thereafter, these RMC Plants were directed to be closed.

¶37

It is further mentioned in this affidavit by Respondent No.7 that in the interest of natural justice, Respondent No.7-MPCB has also extended personal hearing to the owners of these RMC Plants on 14/01/2025. During the course of hearing, it was decided that RMC plant owners shall submit NOC from the Wetland Authority regarding as to whether their Plants fall in wetland stretch. It was further decided that RMC Plants shall comply with the Guidelines dated 27/11/2024 for Ready Mix Plant for siting criteria of RMC Plants in MMR area.

¶38

After having heard the argument of applicant as well as that of learned counsel for Respondent No.7- MPCB and learned counsel for Respondent Nos.16 to 23, we are of the view that the main grievance of the owners of RMC Plants are that without giving an opportunity of hearing to them, closure order was passed by Respondent No.7, which is also candidly admitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.7. It is also stressed by learned counsel for Respondent Nos.16 to 23 that the area, where these RMC Plants are located, has been treated by the MPCB to be a Wetland, which is yet to be ascertained because nowhere in the Joint Committee Report, it is conclusively decided that the said area is a Wetland.

¶39

Above argument of learned counsel for Respondent Nos.16 to 23 has been vehemently opposed by the applicant by saying that Wetland Atlas shows that entire Village at Sasunavghar falls within Coastal WetlandNatural-Intertidal Mudflat. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said area is not Wetland. But we deem it appropriate that conclusive report/reply must come on record from the side of Wetland Authority as well, which is

¶40

Page 6 of 7

¶41

Respondent No.8 herein, which is being represented today by learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni and he assures us that the reply affidavit would be filed within four weeks. We grant him the said time by way of last opportunity.

¶42

Before proceeding further to pass any final order in this matter with respect to the RMC Plants, we deem it appropriate to direct Respondent No.7- MPCB to give hearing to the owners of the RMC Plants as well as the applicant within a period of two weeks from the date of uploading of this order and decide afresh as to whether the Closure Order is required to be passed against the RMC Plants or not? All the compliances, which were to be done by the RMC Plant owners, must be placed before the MPCB at the time of hearing. Respondent No.7 shall submit their report in this regard within one week thereafter.

¶43

Put up this matter for further consideration on 12.08.2025.

¶44

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶45

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶46

July 04, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.201 OF 2023 (WZ) I.A. NO.74 OF 2024 (WZ) I.A. NO.227 OF 2024 (WZ) & I.A. NO.192 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr

¶47

Page 7 of 7

Charan Bhatt v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charan Bhatt v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Mahendra Singh vs State of Haryana

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

Residents Welfare Association vs Horticulture Department of Municipal Corporation Delhi West Zone

News Item Titled Six Killed in Explosion at Firecracker Unit Near Nagpur Appearing in the Hindu Dated 13.06.2024 vs Petroleum & Explosives Safety Organisation (Peso) through Its Administrative Head

Mr. Tanaji Ruikar vs M/S Narsinha Stone Crusher & Crush Sand

Aryavart Foundation vs M/S Lote Parshuram Environment Protection Co-Operative Society Ltd.

Shri Ravindra Laxman Barhate vs Pune Muncipal Corporation

Lalitkumar Namdeo Chaudhari vs the Chief Secretary Maharashtra State