Disposed

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

NGT2 Sept 2026Appeal No. 517/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal categorized an appeal regarding whether a building's 12th floor was constructed before or after Environmental Clearance. The Tribunal found site reports unreliable and noted the absence of clear documentary evidence. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was granted to the project proponent, and the appeal was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Benefit of doubt granted to the project proponent; appeal dismissed on facts not established.

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.9

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.517 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Shashikant Vitthal Kamble

…..Appellant

Versus

MoEF&CC & Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 02.09.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Viraj Pawar, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-1/MoEF&CC Ms. Sanika Kadam, Advocate h/f Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-2/SEIAA & R-3/SEAC-III Mrs. Manasi Joshi and Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocates for R-4 & 5/MPCB Mr. Dattatraya Devale, Advocate for R-6/PMRDA Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni and Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocates for R-7/PP

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 18.09.2025, 08.12.2025, 22.01.2026, 03.02.2026, 27.03.2026, 25.06.2026 and 08.07.2026.

¶16

As per our previous order dated 08.07.2026, the only question, which remained to be determined in the case in hand, is as to whether 12^th floor of Building- B of the Project in question was constructed by Respondent No.7 prior to the grant of EC or post EC because on that very point, the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

present appeal was admitted by us. To provide evidence in this regard, the appropriate Authority would be the Respondent No.6- PMRDA.

¶19

From the side of Respondent No.6- PMRDA, an additional affidavit dated 17.08.2026 has been filed, wherein in para no.1.3, it is made clear that on verification of records available, there is no such documentary evidence found on record, which would reveal that whether the 12^th floor of building B is constructed by Respondent No.7 prior to the grant of EC or post EC. It is orally apprised by the learned counsel for Respondent No.6 that on 11.02.2026, the jurisdiction was transferred to the PMC, but building was already constructed prior to that, therefore, nothing is required to be inquired into from the PMC.

¶20

By the previous order of this Tribunal dated 08.07.2026, we had directed the Respondent Nos.4 & 5- MPCB to file clarification with regard to para nos.6 & 7 of the said order, but no clarification has been submitted from their side with respect to the Inspection Report conducted on 16.12.2024. Today, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5- MPCB has submitted that no clarification is required to be filed from their side in this regard and that they cannot provide evidence to the effect that the 12^th floor of the Building B is constructed prior to the grant of EC.

¶21

The main reliance placed by the learned counsel for the appellant to establish that the 12^th floor of the building B was constructed prior to the grant of EC dated 09.07.2025 is that the visit, which was conducted by the MPCB on 15.07.2024, which is annexed from page nos.161 to 163 of the paper book, in para no.9 records “ it is observed that the PP has constructed building B- P +12 floors instead of P+11 floors and violated the configurations prescribed in the EC….” . Thereafter, the 2^nd visit report dated 14.02.2025 is annexed at page nos.164 to 167 of the paper book, in which the visit

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

scheduled on is mentioned to be 13.02.2025, while the visit of the industry is shown to have been made on 12.12.2025 i.e. one day prior to that, which is a discrepancy, which has not been responded to by the MPCB. In this report under the head “Specific Observation”, it is mentioned “…..During visit, it is observed that, PP has completed construction of building A, B, & E=P+12^th floor, Building C, D & F=land levelling work is in progress...” .

¶24

Based on the above two reports, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that prior to the grant of EC to the Project Proponent, the 12^th floor of the Building B had been constructed, which should be treated to be a violation.

¶25

On the other hand, the learned counsel for Respondent No.7-M/s Anshul Bhosale Realty LLP/Project Proponent has drawn our attention to one more Site Inspection Report, which was conducted in between the above two site visits, which was conducted on 16.12.2024, a copy of which is annexed from page nos.510 to 513 of the paper book, wherein under the head “Specific Observation”, it is recorded “ Construction of Building B is in progress and completed up to 11^th floor….” . Based on this, he has stated that this report was deliberately not placed earlier before this Tribunal from the side of Respondent Nos.4 & 5- MPCB, which is being denied by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5- MPCB, stating that the same could not be placed inadvertently. On the basis of this report, it is being submitted that only up to 11^th floor, the construction was done at that time when the visit of the site in question was conducted.

¶26

We find that the visit, which was conducted on 12.12.2025, has various discrepancies with respect to the schedule of the visit conducted. Therefore, this report cannot be treated to be an authentic report.

¶27

Page 3 of 4

¶28

It is candidly admitted by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 & 5- MPCB that it is not in their domain to give an evidence to the effect that prior to grant of EC i.e. prior to 08.07.2025, the said construction had been done, because that falls under the domain of the local authority i.e. PMRDA. It is on the basis of that only, the PMRDA’s affidavit was directed to be filed by us and which has been filed and we have already considered the same above.

¶29

Based on the above information given by the Respondent No.6PMRDA that there is no documentary evidence available with them to prove that the construction of the 12^th floor of Building B was done prior to grant of EC or post EC. Therefore, we would like to give benefit of doubt to the Project Proponent instead of going against it or penalizing it since they have valid EC.

¶30

It is a very sorry state of affairs that the evidence, which has come from the side of Respondent No.6-PMRDA, is not clear. They ought to have given very clear evidence whether the said construction was done prior to grant of EC or post EC.

¶31

In view of above observations, we dispose of this appeal accordingly.

¶32

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶33

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶34

September 02, 2026 APPEAL NO.517 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶35

Page 4 of 4

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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hakimuddin Kasamali Hathyari (Vohra) vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Faisal Mehbubbhai Khota vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Sharadchandra Shantilal Patel vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

Jagdish Fakirbhai Chahan vs State of Gujarat through Secretary Industries and Mines Dept

C Kandasamy vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Puducherry Rep by Its Member Secretary

Bluebird Software Private Limited vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Prakash Foods and Feeds Mills Private Ltd. vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

Vaibhav Baban Satam vs Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Vaibhav Baban Satam vs Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Nizamuddin Asmad Jalal vs Jalal Zubair Zahid Hussain

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee vs Moef

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil vs 1. M/S. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd.

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change