Dismissed

Maruti M Kadam v. Mrs. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Company Pvt. Ltd.

NGT8 Apr 2025Original Application No. 75/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal disposed of an application challenging a construction permit for a school within the Sanjay Gandhi National Park's Eco-Sensitive Zone, holding that the unauthorized-by-applicant challenge to the valid, timely-issued permit was time-barred.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of; pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

Maruti M Kadam vs Mrs. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Company… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.50

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.75/2024(WZ) [EARLIER LETTER PETITION NO.39/2024(WZ)]

Maruti M. Kadam

…..Applicant

Versus

M/s. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 08.04.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Shankarlal Raheja, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/PP Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/MPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 25.04.2024, 05.12.2024 and 06.02.2025.

¶16

The main grievance of the applicant in this case is that Respondent No.1- M/s. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Company Pvt. Ltd. is raising construction of private school building at C.T.S. No.29/6, Mulund (W), Mumbai within one kilometer of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, which is an eco-sensitive area, where such kind of construction is prohibited.

¶17

From the side of applicant, learned counsel Mr. Shankarlal Raheja has appeared before us. When we enquired from him as to where is the law laying down that such kind of activities are prohibited, he has drawn our attention to the Notification dated 05.12.2016 issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which is annexed at page nos.98 to 118 of the paper book, in which he could not show the same.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has pointed out at page no.102 of the paper book, which is a part of abovementioned Notification, which deals with Regulated Activities at serial no.10 and serial no.11 deals with construction activities, which are permitted within the Eco-sensitive Zone as per the provisions of the approved Development Plan and other applicable rules and regulation under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. Thereafter, he drew our attention to page nos.121 to 122 of the paper book, which is a Permission/NOC dated 19.03.2019 granted by the Member Secretary, Sanjay Gandhi National Park, Eco-Sensitive Zone, Monitoring Committee & Dy. Conservator of Forest, Thane Forest Division to Respondent No.1M/s. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Company Pvt. Ltd., wherein following is recorded:-

“

”

Page 2 of 3

In view of above, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has urged that this Permission/NOC has not been challenged before any Court, for which an appeal was required to be filed, which already stands time barred because this permission was already granted on 19.03.2019.

¶24

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted before us that the Zonal Master Plan was required to be prepared by Respondent No.1, which has not been done in this case, hence this kind of permission could not have been granted.

¶25

We do not agree with the above argument made by learned counsel for the applicant and find force in the argument made by learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and are convinced that the activity i.e. the construction of a school building was validly permitted vide order dated 19.03.2019 by the Competent Authority, which was never challenged within time period, hence this application does not have force and the same needs to be disposed of and is accordingly disposed of.

¶26

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶27

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶28

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶29

April 08, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.75/2024(WZ) [EARLIER LETTER PETITION NO.39/2024(WZ)] P.Kr

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Maruti M Kadam v. Mrs. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Company Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti M Kadam v. Mrs. Apurva Natwar Parikh & Company Pvt. Ltd.

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

A Muthuvel vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

Janardan Chandar Patil vs Union of India Department of Environment Forest and Wild Life through Secretary

Dr Pg Najpande vs Union of India through Secretary

Satyam Shekhar vs District Conservator Forest Alwar

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

News Item Titled "77 Cases of Illegal Felling of Conifer Trees Reported in J & K,S Doda" Appearing in the Daily Excelsior Dated 27.11.2024. vs

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

National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs the Principal Secretary to Government of Kerala Environment Department

Janardan Chandar Patil vs Union of India Department of Environment Forest and Wild Life through Secretary

Mr Satyaprakash Bastiram Sharma vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Vernon Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

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

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

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