Dismissed

Suresh M Pujari v. Lonavala Municipal Council

NGT8 Dec 2025Review Application No. 8/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses a review application challenging an order in an environmental dispute. The Bench held that the review application sought to re-hear the original matter on grounds raised for the first time, rendering the review application unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

The review application is dismissed as it seeks to re-hear the original application on grounds not previously raised.

Suresh M Pujari vs Lonavala Municipal Council — Environment and Pollution | 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.08 OF 2025 (WZ) IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.72 OF 2025 (WZ) CAVEAT NO.30 OF 2025(WZ)

Suresh M. Pujari

…..Applicant

Versus

Lonavala Municipal Council & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 08.12.2025

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Chaitanya Ajay Talhar, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, Advocate for R-5

¶14

: Mr. Sangramsingh R. Bhonsle, Advocate for R-5

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Review Application has been filed with the prayer to review the order dated 21.08.2025 passed by this Tribunal in Original Application No.72 of 2025 (WZ), wherein following directions were passed:-

¶17

(i) Respondent No.5 has filled the soil over the carved out passage in Survey No.24 repeatedly four times earlier, which had to be restored by respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council. The Chief Officer of respondent No.1 - LMC Mr. Ashok Sable, who is present today before this Tribunal, has submitted that respondent No.1 – LMC was required to spend approximately Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) for restoration work of the area in question. He further submits that respondent No.1 – LMC will have to undertake restoration work of the area in question again, which would involve expenses/cost of approximately Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs). Therefore, we direct respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council to levy a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Thirty Lakhs) from respondent NO. 5 – Prakash Mishrimal Porwal towards restoration of the area in question, which shall be deposited by respondent No.5 with respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this order, failing which this amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

¶20

(ii) We further direct that respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council shall remove all the illegal and unauthorized construction, earth-filling undertaken by respondent No.5 in Indrayani river and the gates installed by him in the area in question.

¶21

(iii) Respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council shall take remedial measures to ensure that no further encroachment or damage is carried by respondent No.5 by constructing the approach road or temporary bridge or installing gate thereby obstructing the flow of river Indrayani.

¶22

(iv) Respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council shall ensure that the proper wall is constructed along the main road at the site in question to avoid obstruction to the flow of Indrayani river.

¶23

(v) As regards criminal cases lodged against respondent No.5, respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council shall take necessary steps for expediting the hearing of those cases before the Court/s concerned.

¶24

(vi) We further direct that if any resistance is shown by respondent No.5 while carrying out this order, the Superintendent of Police, Pune (Rural) shall provide all necessary police aid to the officers of respondent No.1 – Lonavala Municipal Council on the dates and time which would be communicated by them to the concerned Police Authorities.”

¶25

In this Review Application, following grounds have been mentioned:-

¶26

“

¶27

A. Non-joinder of co-owner;

¶28

B. Non-service of crucial affidavit and false assertions;

¶29

C. Non-consideration of binding records, statutory orders, and Supreme Court directions;

¶30

Page 2 of 3

¶31

D. Conflicting and unreliable Joint Committee Report;

¶32

E. Jurisdictional transgression;

¶33

F. Failure to consider material evidence;

¶34

G. Adjudication done without affording time to reply the affidavit;

¶35

H. Existence of the approach road from inception;

¶36

I. No environmental obstruction and public harm whatsoever;

¶37

J. Easementary right and violation of constitutional guarantee of property;

¶38

K. Applicant's proven commitment to the environment;

¶39

L. Malafides of the complainant and abuse of process;

¶40

M. Imposition of fine.”

¶41

During argument, the main emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the review applicant upon the point that the applicant has not encroached upon the river bed.

¶42

At the outset, we may make it clear here that the Judgment, which is being assailed in this review application, is dictated in front of the party concerned in the Open Court and all these points were never raised earlier at the time of hearing the arguments in Original Application No.72 of 2025(WZ). Now, it appears that the review applicant wants us to re-hear the said Original Application and decide it again, for which review application is not maintainable.

¶43

In view of above, we dispose of this review application accordingly.

¶44

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶45

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶46

December 08, 2025 REVIEW APPLICATION NO.08 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶47

Page 3 of 3

Suresh M Pujari v. Lonavala Municipal Council

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh M Pujari v. Lonavala Municipal Council

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

Lalitkumar Namdeo Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra

Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Anuj Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand

Balwinder Kumar vs

Indotech Waste Solution vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti vs Union of India

Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti vs Union of India

Jodhpura Sangharsh Samiti vs Union of India

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

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

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra

Supreme Pallacio Co-Operative Housing Society vs State of Maharashtra

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