Allowed

Shailendrasinh R Jadeja v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

NGT4 Sept 2025Review Application No. 2/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, Pune Bench, allowed a Review Application to correct a clerical error where the awarded amount of Rs. 22,50,000 was intended to be Rs. 22,50,00,000. The court disposed of the matter by substituting the correct figure despite non-appearance of the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Allowed the Review Application and corrected the impugned order to read Rs.22,50,00,000/- instead of Rs.22,50,000/-.

Shailendrasinh R Jadeja vs Gujarat Pollution… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2025)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.3

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

REVIEW APPLICATION NO.02 OF 2025 (WZ) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2023 (WZ)

¶6

Shailendrasinh R. Jadeja ….. Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Gujarat & Ors. … Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing : 04.09.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant : Applicant present in person

¶12

Respondents : Mr. Ajay Gadegaonkar, Advocate along with Ms. Akshata Patwari, Advocate for R-2/Rajkot Municipal Corporation Ms. Manavi Damle, Advocate, holding for Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-3/GPCB

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The applicant was supposed to file an affidavit of service, which has

¶15

not been filed by him although we find that the notice has been served by him personally on respondent No.4 – District Collector, Rajkot, but none has appeared to represent him. Further we find that notice has also been sent to respondent No.1 – Chief Secretary, State of Gujarat, which, as per the tracking report, has been delivered, but none has appeared for him. 2. From the side of respondent No.2 – Rajkot Municipal Corporation, learned counsel Mr. Ajay Gadegaonkar has appeared and states that he has filed the reply, which is not found on record by the Registry; however,

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

hardcopy of the same has been provided by the learned cousin across the bar, which has been taken on record, in which no objection is shown for correction to be made, which is found to be typographical error and it appears to be a formal objection.

¶18

From the side of respondent No.3 – GPCB, learned counsel Ms. Manavi Damle, holding brief of learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati, has appeared and states that copy of the Review Application has not been served on respondent No.3, but candidly submitted that typographical error may be rectified.

¶19

In view of the replies submitted and statements made by learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3 and in absence of respondent Nos.1 and 4, who have not appeared despite sufficient service, we deem it appropriate to allow this Review Application. Accordingly, in place of the amount of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only), wherever it is appearing in the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.99 of 2023 (WZ), it shall be read as Rs.22,50,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Crores Fifty Lakh only). The present Review Application is accordingly allowed and disposed of.

¶20

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶21

Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM

¶22

September 04, 2025 REVIEW APPLICATION NO.02 OF 2025 (WZ) npj

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Shailendrasinh R Jadeja v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailendrasinh R Jadeja v. Gujarat Pollution Control Board

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

Ashish Kumar Pathak vs Union of India

Dr Amit Kumar vs State of Haryana

1. Rakesh Mohanty Aged About 26 Years S/O- Siba Prasad Mohanty vs 1. State of Odisha through Additional Chief Secretary Forest and Environment Climate Change Department Government of Odisha

News Item Titled "Garbage Overflow Poses Health Risks to Visually Impaired Students in W Delhi" Appearing in the Millenium Post Dated 30.04.2024 vs

Vanashakti vs State of Maharashtra

Meenava Thanthai K.R.Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nala Sangam vs Tamil Nadu State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Janardhan P Mesta vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Karnataka

Mr. Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2025 in Original Application No. 40/2023 of Yogesh Mundhara vs 1. M/S Super Dream Real Estate Private Limited

Shaunak Hitesh Sayta vs Union of India

Mr. Tanaji Balasaheb Gambhire vs the Secretary Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Deepak v Rao vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation

Bhau Madan Mehta vs Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation Msidc

Bhau Madan Mehta vs Maharashtra State Infrastructure Development Corporation Msidc