Dismissed

Premnath Singh v. Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

NGT17 Sept 2025Original Application No. 111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an original application challenging the allotment of an environmental clearance to Sungwoo Hitech Pune Pvt. Ltd. The court held that enjoining Consent to Operate for excess erected area was not feasible and found the applicant's case frivolous, imposing a penalty.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed at admission stage with imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000 on the applicant.

Premnath Singh vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.4

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2025 (WZ)

Premnath Singh

…..Applicant

Versus

MPCB & 2 Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 17.09.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Advocate Respondents : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-1/MPCB Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/SEIAA Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate for R-3/PP

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The present Original Application has been moved with the facts that Respondent No.3- Sungwoo Hitech Pune Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent, whose project is located at Gat Nos.35, 36, 37, 38 & 42, Village - Mangarul, Taluka Maval, Dist. Pune, was granted ‘Consent to Establish’ on 25.10.2024 for manufacturing ‘Automotive Parts’ – 786 Nos./day. A copy of the said Consent to Establish is annexed at page nos.12 to 21 of the paper book. Thereafter, Respondent No.3 was granted ‘Environmental Clearance’ on 03.01.2025 under Category 8(a) B2 Building Construction for the total BUA of 41870.84 sq.m. The ‘project/activity’ of industry of manufacturing “Automotive Parts” by itself doesn’t need the EC as per the EIA Notification dated 14.09.2006 under Schedule-I.

¶16

Page 1 of 3

¶17

It is further mentioned that Respondent No.3- Project Proponent had erected the Pre-Engineered Building (PEB) steel structure on the ground floor with insulated roof, as per EC of 41870.84 sq.m area. Hence, the ‘Consent to Operate’ should not be given for the excess erected shed area of 3890 sq.m, unless additional Consent fees is paid with the MPCB.

¶18

Learned counsel Ms. Manasi Joshi, appearing for Respondent No.1Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB), has submitted that the ‘Consent to Operate’ has been applied for by Respondent No.3-Project Proponent, which is pending consideration and that the same would be granted in due course and that no extra fees would be required to be paid by Respondent No.3 because the said Consent to Operate is applied for manufacturing of Automotive Parts, which does not require any Consent/EC.

¶19

Learned counsel Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, appearing for Respondent No.2- State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), has also admitted that the construction of the excess area, which has been done by Respondent No.3, during the period when there was no need for obtaining EC as per the Notification dated 29.01.2025 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), copy of which is annexed at page nos.75 to 77 of the paper book.

¶20

In view of above observations, we do not find any force in the present Original Application and dispose of the same accordingly at the admission stage itself.

¶21

From the above, we also observed that the facts, which have been brought by the applicant in the present Original Application against Respondent No.3 before this Tribunal, are absolutely frivolous. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Thousands only) to the deposited by the applicant with the NGT Bar

¶24

Association (Western Zone), Pune within a week.

¶25

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶26

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶27

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶28

September 17, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.111 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr

¶29

Page 3 of 3

Premnath Singh v. Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premnath Singh v. Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

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

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

Banda Nagaraj Kumar vs Maharashta Maritime Board

Shreeji Mahali Charitable Trust vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Forest and Environment Department

Ashuosh R. Mishra vs M/S Naroda Enviro Projects Ltd.

Shambhu M. Jha vs Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Deepak Kumar Barpete vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Principal Secretary

Avinash Kumar Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Ramesh Chand vs Govt. of NCT Delhi

Dr Rakesh Bakshi vs State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary

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

Shreeji Mahali Charitable Trust vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Forest and Environment Department

Order on the Report Dated 05.08.2025 Submitted by the Registrar National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench Pune vs Executive Engineer Public Works Department (Pwd)

Vanashakti vs State of Maharashtra

Sadguru Raghuveer Pednekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority