Disposed

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra

NGT8 Dec 2025IA No. 830/2025 in Original Application No. 61/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal rejected the request to stop construction activities, accepting evidence that noise and air levels were within limits. The court directed the MPCB to monitor the site and levy environmental compensation if violations existed, while directing the PMC to establish pollution mitigation protocols.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; MPCB directed to visit within a week and monitor quarterly; PMC directed to submit pollution mitigation protocol within three months.

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society vs State of… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.7

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.61 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.830 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Supreme Pallacio Co-operative Housing Society

¶7

…..Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 08.12.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Maitreya Ghorpade, Advocate along-with Ms. Manasi Thakare, Advocate.

¶14

Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/Envt. Deptt. Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-2/MPCB Mr. Shubham Rathod, Advocate h/f Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate for R-3/PMC Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along-with Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocate for R-4/PP

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

19.06.2025, 21.07.2025, 26.09.2025 and 05.12.2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for Respondent No.4 – M/s Advik Real Estate LLP/Project Proponent has filed reply affidavit dated 05.12.2025. The same is taken on record. A copy of the same is said to have been served upon the applicant yesterday.

¶19

Learned counsel for Respondent No.3- PMC has filed additional reply affidavit dated 04.12.2025, wherein it is specifically submitted in

¶20

Page 1 of 6

¶21

para no.7 that Respondent No.4- Project Proponent has taken all necessary precautions/ measure. Therefore, the Stop Work Notice dated 14.06.2024 on 07.08.2024 had been revoked. It is further mentioned in para no.9 that the Answering Respondent has carried out latest site visit of the site in question on 17.11.2025, i.e. after filing of the present Original Application, and has observed that excavation work was completed and construction of basement work was in progress.

¶22

In view of above, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has submitted that the alleged noise and dust pollution are no longer in existence, as the core work is already over. The applicant has not challenged a single permission granted to the Project Proponent and yet he is trying through the present Original Application to get the construction activities stopped, despite the fact that the Project Proponent has all the permissions/approvals.

¶23

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has taken us through the record of the facts all over again. In the reply affidavit of Respondent No.2- MPCB, he has drawn our attention to Continuous Noise Level Monitoring Report on working day and Continuous Noise Level Monitoring Report on non-working day, which are given in tabular form, which are annexed at page nos.207-208 of the paper book, and states that the same is marginally on higher side, but whatever higher level was found to be there, should not be attributed solely to Respondent No.4’s industry because there are other industries also at the site in question, in which construction activities are going on, but he did not elaborate as to in which industries, construction activities are going on.

¶24

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has submitted that pursuant to the above report of the MPCB showing therein the level of

¶25

Page 2 of 6

¶26

noise to be on higher side, Respondent No.3 had issued Proposed Directions dated 09.09.2025 under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 to Respondent No.4, which is annexed at page nos.231 to 232 of the paper book, which was replied too on 24.09.2025, a copy of which is annexed at page nos.459 to 462 of the paper book. Therefore, it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that this response was never considered by the MPCB nor was the reply to the same given, as the same is said to be still pending consideration before them.

¶27

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has drawn our attention to their reply affidavit dated 14.11.2025, in which at page no.304 in para no.36, it is clearly mentioned that the work of excavation has been concluded and heavy machinery has now been dismantled.

¶28

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has drawn our attention to the Six Monthly Compliance Report dated 15.05.2025 submitted for the period from January 2025 to June 2025 to the Chief Conservator of Forest, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, Nagpur, which is annexed at page nos.373 to 385 of the paper book, wherein at page no.389, condition no.(XVIII) relates to Ambient noise levels. Thereafter, he has shown us page no.412 of the paper book, which is a Test Report dated 20.05.2025, in which it is shown that Test of Samples is done on 14.05.2025 at 11:00 am and result of the ambient air quality is found to be within the limits. Similarly, he has shown us page no.413 of the paper book, in which it is shown that Test of Samples is done on the same date at 11:10 am and result of the ambient air quality is found to be within the permissible limits.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has shown us page no.415 of the paper book, which is a Test Report dated 20.05.2025, in which it is shown that Test of Samples is done on 14.05.2025 am. and result of the ambient noise level is found to be within the permissible limits.

¶31

Thereafter, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 has drawn our attention to the additional reply affidavit dated 04.12.2025 of Respondent No.3- PMC, in which in para no.7, following is recorded:-

¶32

“7. I say and submit that on 20/06/2024 the Respondent No. 4- Project Proponent has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- penalty. Accordingly, on 16/07/2024 Answering Respondent has visited the site in question and has observed as below:-

¶33

i. An acoustic system has been installed to prevent noise pollution.

¶34

ii. A green net has been installed along the boundary wall to prevent air pollution.

¶35

iii. As per the rules of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board construction work is being carried out between 9.00 am to 7.00 pm.

¶36

iv. The area is being excavated with a breaker without using blasting.

¶37

v. Care has been taken to spray water on the tractor to prevent dust from flying.

¶38

vi. Transporting of Construction and Demolition waste is carried out in the truck, the road is being cleaned daily to prevent any accident due to soil falling on the public road.

¶39

In view of above observation, Respondent No. 4- Project Proponent has taken the necessary precautions/ measure. Therefore, in pursuance of observation Answering Respondent has withdrawn the Stop Work Notice dated 14/06/2024 on 07/08/2024.”

¶40

Page 4 of 6

¶41

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is submitted by learned counsel for Respondent No.4 that these facts were not considered earlier because the counsel, who was available earlier, has argued only on the I.A. on that date and he could not submit full facts before this Tribunal. We concede this point that the above-mentioned documentary evidences regarding ambient air and noise level quality were not placed before us on that date.

¶42

Looking to the above test reports, which are shown by learned counsel for Respondent No.4, in which ambient air and noise level quality are found to be within the permissible limits and particularly, it is being said that excavation work is completed and only construction of basement work is going on, we are of the view that at this stage, there is hardly any chance of air and noise pollution happening again. Therefore, the construction activities should not be stopped.

¶43

Learned counsel for the applicant is opposing the above argument of learned counsel for Respondent No.4 vehemently, by saying that entire argument was heard by this Tribunal on the previous date and thereafter only, the said order was passed, which need not be modified.

¶44

In regard to the above, we may make it clear here that we had not passed an order to stop the construction activities in its entirety, but we had directed in that order that till the next date, we direct that Respondent No.2 – MPCB shall ensure that Respondent No.4 – Project Proponent does not proceed with the construction activities till they adopt and provide all the necessary measures to bring the dust and noise pollution within the prescribed standards/parameters for construction at the site in question. We still hold the same, but we direct that the MPCB shall visit the site in question within a week and again evaluate as to

¶45

Page 5 of 6

¶46

whether any additional measures are required to be taken to keep the dust and noise level within the prescribed limit. If there are any additional steps required to be taken, direction regarding it may be issued forthwith to be adopted by Respondent No.4.

¶47

We further direct the MPCB to continue to monitor the situation on quarterly basis, so that violations, if any, may not recur on the part of Respondent No.4. A report in this regard shall be submitted by the MPCB to the Registry of this Tribunal on quarterly basis.

¶48

We further direct the MPCB to decide as to whether for the past violations, if any, an amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) is to be levied from Respondent No.4. If yes, calculate the same after providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶49

We further direct Respondent No.3- PMC to lay down the standard protocol for construction activities to mitigate the air and noise pollution during the construction activities and this exercise shall be done within three months from the date of uploading of this order.

¶50

In view of above directions, we dispose of this Original Application accordingly.

¶51

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

¶52

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶53

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶54

December 08, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.61 of 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.830/2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶55

Page 6 of 6

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society v. State of Maharashtra

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

Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 29 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

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.

Rajan v vs State of Kerala

Mantu Soni vs Jharkhand Pollution Control Board

Mohid Shah vs Ms Avicenna Stones and Minerals Private Limited through Its Director

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs State of Tamil Nadu

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

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

Suresh M Pujari vs Lonavala Municipal Council

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra

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