Disposed

Harmony Co-Op Housing Society v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

NGT15 Jul 2025IA No. 87/2020 in Original Application No. 41/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicants sought cancellation of a cremation ground project constructed without environmental permission. The Tribunal disposed of the application upon obtaining assurance from the respondent corporation to implement joint committee guidelines prospectively for emission control and buffer zones.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of based on respondent's assurance to implement joint committee guidelines prospectively.

Harmony Co-Op Housing Society vs Pimpri Chinchwad… — 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.41 OF 2020 (WZ) I.A. No.87 OF 2020 (WZ)

¶6

Harmony Co-Op. Housing Society & 4 Ors.

¶7

…..Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & 6 Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 15.07.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicants : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-1/PCMC Ms. Akshata Patwari, Advocate i/b. Mr. Ajay Gadegaonkar, Advocate for R-2/PMRDA Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-4/MPCB Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-5/Envt. Deptt. Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate along-with Mr. Shubham Rathod, Advocate for R-6/MoEF&CC Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-7/WRD.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders, especially orders dated 16.05.2023, 11.12.2023, 30.01.2024, 05.08.2024, 15.10.2024, 10.01.2025, 01.04.2025 and 19.06.2025.

¶16

In the present Original Application, the issue of construction of cremation ground at Survey No.32-A at Village Ravet, Pune has been raised, which is said to have been constructed by Respondent No.1- PCMC in violation of the environmental norms and also without due permission from the Competent Authority. Hence, it is prayed by the applicants that

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

directions may be issued to Respondent No.1- PCMC and Respondent No.2- PMRDA to forthwith stop and cancel the project of “Cremation Ground” on the proposed site at the above-mentioned Survey Number, as the same is being run at the site in question without obtaining prior permission from Respondent No.4- MPCB, Respondent No.5- State Environment Department, Respondent No.6- MoEF&CC and Respondent No.7The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Division, Irrigation Department.

¶19

By our previous order dated 05.08.2024, we had directed the Joint Committee comprising NEERI along-with PCMC and MPCB to hold a joint meeting within a period one month and provide an opportunity of hearing to the local residents as well, who will be the affected party and suggest the measures, which could be adopted by the PCMC for ensuring that no pollution happens or its minimization. In compliance with the said order, the Joint Committee has submitted its report dated May 2025, which is annexed at page nos.315 to 358 of the paper book.

¶20

By our previous order dated 19.06.2025, we had provided an opportunity to the applicants to raise objection by way of an affidavit against the above Joint Committee Report. But today, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is ready to argue orally without filing the objection against the same.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that Respondent No.4- MPCB in their reply affidavit dated 10.11.2020 has admitted that the Society of the applicants, i.e. Harmony co-op Housing Society, is located at a distance of about 100 feet from the proposed site of crematorium facility, though the same is being controverted by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 by saying that in the introductory part of the

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

Joint Committee Report, the distance of the said Society is recorded to be 70 m from the place (needs to be verified) of crematorium and that the 63% work (civil work) thereof has already been completed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants has read out the relevant portion of the Joint Committee Report before us, which is to the following effect:-

¶25

“Key observations during the visit are as follows:

¶26

PCMC informed that there is only one furnace & one standby, which has one scrubber to reduce the air pollution.

¶27

PCMC team along with their architect discussed the proposed unit and neighboring areas around the proposed sites, they also discussed various facilities like Green belt, other facilities etc. at the site.

¶28

CSIR-NEERI team informed that following data may be submitted by PCMC to prepare the air impact assessment report.

¶29

Electric Furnace, process design details

¶30

APC system chimney details (Stack), Blower, Furnace

¶31

Location details & Layout Plan

¶32

After the receipt of all requested information the air impact assessment study for emission would be carried out.

¶33

Team also discussed that MPCB should conduct baseline AAQ monitoring in the proposed site as well as nearby residential areas.

¶34

PCMC has taken the team to visit another working electric crematoria near Keshav Nagar for its operation and any, APC, the chimney & associated facilities installed in it.

¶35

The team also discussed about safe distance, buffer zone from crematoria to residential area with MPCB along with the proposed emission standards MPCB informed that about 150 mg/m3 may be applicable for the electric furnace after control.

¶36

Page 3 of 6

¶37

The team also discussed about the proposal of having a safe zone or buffer zone, safe distance from the proposed crematoria to nearest habitation.”

¶38

Having read out the above para, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the CSIR-NEERI team informed that the data with respect to Electric Furnace, process design details; APC system chimney details (Stack), Blower, Furnace; and location details & Layout Plan, may be submitted by the PCMC to prepare the air impact assessment report. But without including these data, as the same were awaited, this report has been submitted. It is further highlighted by learned counsel for the applicants that PCMC has taken a team to visit another working electric crematoria near Keshav Nagar, in which the chimney & air pollution control systems are installed. But without the same having been ascertained, this report has been submitted.

¶39

However, we find that CSIR-NEERI has used the emission factor for electric crematoria, as from internationally published references, for impact assessment and based on the emission load of individual pollutants, dispersion modelling was conducted using a CPCB-approved methodology. Results are at annexed at page nos.332-337 of the paper book.

¶40

It is further highlighted by learned counsel for the applicants that the team also discussed the safe distance, buffer zone from crematoria to residential area with the MPCB along-with the proposed emission standards and the MPCB informed that about 150 mg/m³ may be applicable for the electric furnace after putting in place the air control system. The team also discussed about the proposal of having a safe zone or buffer zone and safe distance from the proposed crematoria to nearest

¶41

Page 4 of 6

¶42

habitation. But without the same having been ascertained, this report has been submitted.

¶43

Thereafter, our attention is drawn by learned counsel for the applicants to page no.344 of the paper book, which is a part of the said report, in which under the head- Findings and Recommendations, it is recorded with respect to the Air Pollution Control System “It is recommended that clean fuel viz., electric or CNG- based cremation systems be prioritized to minimize particulate emissions and harmful gases”. With respect to Buffer Zone, it is recorded “ Adequate green buffering of 50-60m as receptor control mechanism (including minimum width of 10–15 meters of dense green plantation) along with high raised 10-15m barrier walls/trees around the crematorium facing residential areas is advised to absorb emissions and reduce dispersion into the surrounding residential areas” .

¶44

Having highlighted above recommendations, it is urged by learned counsel for the applicants that as per these recommendations, minimum Buffer Zone is prescribed to be between 50-60 m. But in the case in hand, as per the admission of the MPCB, it is approximately 100 feet, which comes to around 30 mtrs. So, it is not in compliance with CSIR-NEERI guidelines.

¶45

At this stage, it is urged by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 that the above guidelines may be directed to be implemented prospectively and not retrospectively. Moreover, as far as the distance mentioned to be 100 feet, it is not specifically made clear as to whether it is from the boundary wall of the said Society up to the stack in the crematorium or boundary of the crematorium plot. So, we may take the exact distance of the said Society in question to be 70 mtrs. from the crematorium, as recommended by the Joint Committee, which certainly is found to be more

¶46

Page 5 of 6

¶47

than the recommended Buffer Zone. Rest of the recommendations relate to what is required to be done for emission control, air quality monitoring, waste management etc. during operation phase of the crematorium.

¶48

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1- PCMC has agreed to accept the guidelines of the Joint Committee and has given assurance that all the said guidelines would be implemented from here onwards for the Crematorium in question.

¶49

In view of the above assurance of learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and having considered the facts, which have already been mentioned above by us, we are of the view that nothing remains to be decided in the present Original Application and accordingly, dispose of the present Original Application.

¶50

Pending I.A. also stands disposed of.

¶51

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶52

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶53

July 15, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.41 OF 2020 (WZ) I.A. No.87 OF 2020 (WZ)

¶54

P.Kr

¶55

Page 6 of 6

Harmony Co-Op Housing Society v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harmony Co-Op Housing Society v. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hasmukhbhai Bahecharbhai Parmar vs Bharuch District Collector C/O Mr. Gaurang Makwana (Ias)

Naresh Vashisth vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Ms Chawla Engineering Works vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Anr.

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Parthiban J vs 1. the District Collector

Dr. Pyarelal V.V vs State of Kerala

Kanahi Ram Patel vs Union of India

Devendra Chourasiya vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Mr Sanjay Gade vs Shree Ganesh Construction

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Hasmukhbhai Bahecharbhai Parmar vs Bharuch District Collector C/O Mr. Gaurang Makwana (Ias)

Harmony Co-Op Housing Society vs Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation

Ellora Heritage LLP vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ellora Heritage LLP vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change