Dismissed

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

NGT11 Nov 2025Original Application No. 125/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application concerning illegal construction and environmental damage compensation, the applicant abandoned pressing the stay direction after a new Office Memorandum was issued. The Tribunal adjourned the matter and granted liberty to file a fresh application upon gathering required RTI information.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file fresh Original Application after gathering RTI information; current application dismissed as not pressed.

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and… — RTI and Transparency | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble …. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

MoEF&CC & Ors. …. Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing : 11.11.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant : Mr. Viraj Pawar, Advocate

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This Original Application has been filed with the prayers that a direction may be issued to respondent No.9/Project Proponent – M/s Prathamesh Developers & Builders & M/s Shree Sai Promoters & Builders to stop the illegal construction of the project by the name “SAI NAKSHATRA” (earlier name of project) i.e. “PRATHAMESH EXCELLENCIA” (present name of project) at Survey Nos.134/1 and 134/3 of village Tathawade, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune and the amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) may be directed to be levied from the Project Proponent for lapse period in Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO).

¶14

During argument, learned counsel for the applicant stated that CTO was sought by the Project Proponent, which was rejected on 10.03.2025, copy of which is annexed at pages 59 and 60 of the paper-book. He also

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶16

stated that he does not want to press the relief with respect to direction to be issued for stopping illegal construction, because there is Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 10.09.2025, issued by the MoEF&CC, copy of which is provided to us across the bar, which is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification purposes.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant further states that several information, which this Tribunal is asking for, was prayed to be provided to the applicant under Right to Information Act, which has not been provided by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB). At this stage, we direct learned counsel to gather the required information and if the Authority concerned is not providing the same to him, he may move an application for a direction in that regard to the said Authority. After completion information is gathered by the applicant, he should have approached this Tribunal for seeking the relief/s, if so required.

¶18

At this juncture, learned counsel for the applicant does not press the present Original Application and prayed that liberty be granted to him to file fresh Original Application as soon as he gathers the required information. Accordingly, we grant his request and dismiss this Original Application as not pressed, with liberty to file appropriate/fresh proceeding with full particulars.

¶19

No order as to costs.

¶20

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶21

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶22

November 11, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.125 OF 2025 (WZ) npj

¶23

Page 2 of 2

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Guljar Singh Chouhan vs State of Mp Though Its Chief Secretary

Environment Protection Society Regd vs Government of India through Secretary to Goi Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Pavinder Rana vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Jagvir Singh vs

Sanju Changal vs State of Rajasthan

Mr. Muralidhar Dattoba Nimankar vs Maharashtra State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd.

News Item Titled ;IndiaS Green Energy Wind Drive Hits Desert Herders Hard ; Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 26.08.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Public Action Committee through Its Member Er Kapil Dev vs the State of Punjab through the Principal Secretary of Water Resources Department

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Suyog Kelkar vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Devraj Bhatia vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Tahir Hussain vs Ministry of Jal Shakti