Allowed

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT9 Jul 2025Original Application No. 21/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal addressed an application regarding discharge of untreated effluent by M/s Shivneri Sugar Ltd. Finding that the industry was in violation between late November 2024 and mid-April 2025, the Tribunal directed the MPCB to calculate and recover an environmental compensation amount for the specific period from November 20, 2024 to April 3, 2025.

What did the court decide?

MPCB directed to calculate and levy EDC from M/s Shivneri Sugar Ltd. for period from 20.11.2024 to 03.04.2025 within one month.

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.15

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.21 of 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad & Ors. …. Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

MoEF&CC & Ors. …. Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 09.07.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Applicants : Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocate holding for Mr. R.B. Mahabal, Advocate

¶12

Respondents : Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1

¶13

Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2, R-3 and R-4

¶14

Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R-5 and R-6

¶15

Mr. D.T. Devale, Advocate for R-7

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The issue involved in this matter is discharge of untreated effluent being made outside the premises of respondent No. 7 – M/s Shivneri Sugar Ltd. Respondent No.7 has filed their affidavit-in-reply dated 08.07.2025, wherein in para 7, it has been mentioned that the answering respondent was granted first Consent to Operate (CTO) on 19.12.2023 and it started its first crushing season from 30.12.2023 and completed on 19.03.2024 and second season of 2024-25 was started on 20.11.2024 and closed on 27.02.2025. In para 6 of the affidavit, actions taken by respondent Nos.5 and 6 – MPCB have been summarized as below:

Page 1 of 8

“

Page 2 of 8

By our order dated 18.06.2025, learned counsel for the applicants was directed to give details of the period for which the past violations are stated to have been committed by respondent No.7 so that accurate EDC amount may be directed to be calculated by the MPCB to be levied from respondent No.7. In pursuance thereof, the applicants have filed rejoinder dated 05.07.2025, wherein in para 13, it has been stated that first Consent to Operate (CTO) was granted to respondent No.7 on 19.12.2023. That date can be said to be the first date of violation and the same continued till date. When we enquired from him as to whether there is evidence that the violations were continued from the said alleged first date of violation till now, he drew our attention to page 69 of the paperbook, which is a news item published in Satara News dated 16.01.2024, wherein it was published that the polluted water was emanating from the factory and by its release into nearby drains, pollution was happening. The photograph of the said paper-cutting is also annexed showing the site of pollution. Another newspaper photograph/cutting of Daily Sakal dated 17.01.2025 has been shown by the learned counsel for the applicants wherein also the news is published regarding damage to the horticultural crops in Pimpri, Jaipur villages and it has also photograph of the site in question showing pollution. Learned counsel has also drawn our attention to page 68 of the paper-book, which is a test report showing pollution at the site in question, at the surrounding area of the premises of M/s Shivneri Sugar Ltd. – respondent No.7. But we cannot rely on this particular document. From where the sample was taken has not been indicated in the said report. So, this document cannot be relied upon to show that the untreated effluent emanated from respondent No.7’s unit/factory.

¶22

Page 3 of 8

¶23

As regards the above news items, those cannot be treated to be a conclusive proof of pollution being caused by the respondent No.7 Industry at the site in question.

¶24

Thereafter, learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to pages 528 and 529 of the paper-book, which is the proposed directions dated 03.04.2025 issued by the MPCB 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, wherein following non-compliances were noted:

¶25

“1. The untreated/partial treated effluent is found stored within factory premises and discharged along with condensate water outside the premises .

¶26

2 . The units of the Effluent Treatment Plant are not operating properly.

¶27

3 . The effluent is found discharged illegally outside the factory premises by various ways, causing blackish colour to the well water.”

¶28

On the basis of above proposed directions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicants that the MPCB itself is considering the noncompliances on the part of respondent No.7, which is sufficient proof of pollution being caused by respondent No.7, and hence it should calculate and levy the EDC from the said Industry.

¶29

From the side of respondent No.7, it is urged by their learned counsel that the Industry had commenced its operation on 20.11.2024 and the same was closed on 27.02.2025. Besides that, he admitted that the non-compliances regarding which proposed directions were issued by the MPCB on 03.04.2025 were complied with on the same day by the Industry, but the visit was made by the officers of MPCB on 27.12.2024.

¶30

Page 4 of 8

¶31

Therefore, the Industry should not be held accountable for the noncompliances for the period from 03.04.2024 to 27.12.2024, because all the non-compliances were met on 03.04.2024 itself. He admits that the period from 20.12.2024 to 03.04.2025, when the proposed directions were issued by the MPCB, violations may be treated to have been there for which EDC may be levied against respondent No.7 Industry.

¶32

From the side of respondent Nos.5 and 6 – MPCB, an affidavit dated 11.06.2025 has been filed, wherein they have stated that a complaint was made on 23.12.2024 regarding air pollution, water pollution and noise pollution caused by respondent No.7, pursuant to which officers of MPCB had made a visit to the premises of respondent No.7 on 27.12.2024 and observed various non-compliances and accordingly, issued proposed directions on 03.04.2025. In order to verify compliance of the proposed directions, the officers of MPCB visited respondent No.7 on 07.04.2025 and found as follows:

¶33

Page 5 of 8

¶34

The MPCB gave opportunity of personal hearing to respondent No.7 on 08.04.2025 and issued directions vide letter dated 06.05.2025 as under:

¶35

The above directions were complied with by respondent No.7

¶36

Industry as follows:

¶37

Page 6 of 8

¶38

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are convinced that the MPCB has forfeited the Bank Guarantee of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) for non-compliances, but no amount of EDC for past violations has been levied against respondent No.7. Therefore, we are of the view that as acknowledged by the learned counsel for respondent No.7 that the Industry was in operation from 20.11.2024 and the non-compliances, which were noted were complied with by it by 03.04.2025, hence for the period from 20.11.2024 to 03.04.2025, the amount of EDC may be levied from respondent No.7 by the MPCB.

¶39

In the result, we direct MPCB – respondent Nos.5 and 6 to calculate the amount of EDC for the period from 20.11.2024 to 03.04.2025 in accordance with the guidelines laid down in the case of Paryavaran

¶40

Page 7 of 8

¶41

Surakshi Samiti and the same shall be levied from respondent No.7 – Industry within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this order.

¶42

With the above directions, we dispose of this Original Application.

¶43

No order as to costs.

¶44

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶45

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶46

July 09, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2025 (WZ) npj

¶47

Page 8 of 8

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad 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

Gareeb Guide Ngo vs State of Andhra Pradesh

News Item Titled Illegal Encroachment of Forest Land Appearing in the Eenadu Chennai Edition Dated 29 01 2025 vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Its Regional Office Rep by Its Regional Director

K Rajarajan vs Central Pollution Control Board

Galina Babaiteva vs State of Goa through Goa State Pollution Control Board

Dulli Chand Meena vs State of Rajasthan

P S Saboo vs Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands

M/S Msp Steel Sponge Iron Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Sonjit Kumar Kayal vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Paramparik Machimmar Bachav Samajik Kruti Samittee vs Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority

Lalitkumar Namdeo Chaudhari vs the Chief Secretary Maharashtra State

Galina Babaiteva vs State of Goa through Goa State Pollution Control Board

Green Space through Its President Mr Praveen Dlima vs State of Goa

Ia No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde vs Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

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