Allowed

Akshay Sunil Jagtap v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT18 Aug 2026IA No. 175/2026 in Appeal No. 529/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, Pune Bench, considered an interim application seeking dismissal of an appeal on the grounds of malafide intent. The court, relying on email evidence showing the appellant's desire to secure excavation work denied to him, held the appellant acted with ulterior motives and dismissed both the interim application and the main appeal.

What did the court decide?

The interim application to dismiss the appeal on grounds of malafide intent was allowed, and consequently, the main appeal was dismissed.

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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

I.A. NO.221 OF 2026 (WZ) IN

¶6

APPEAL NO.529 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.175 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶7

Bajaj Finserv Ventures Ltd.

¶8

Applicant/Respondent No.7

¶9

IN THE MATTER OF :

Akshay Sunil Jagtap

…..Appellant

Versus

SEIAA, Maharashtra & Ors.

¶14

….Respondents

¶15

Date of hearing: 18.08.2026

¶16

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

¶17

Appellant : Appellant in-person Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/SEIAA & R-3/MPCB Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for R-2/MoEF&CC Mr. Rahul Garg and Ms. Mugdha Lohar, Advocates for R-4/PMC Mr. R. B. Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Subhash Gore, Advocates for R-7/PP and applicant in I.A. No.221 of 2026 (WZ).

¶18

ORDER

¶19

I.A. NO.221 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶20

This I.A. has been moved by the applicant/Respondent No.7- Bajaj Finserv Ventures Limited/Project Proponent with the prayer that the present appeal may be dismissed at the initial stage of admission itself, as

¶21

Page 1 of 8

¶22

the same has been filed by the appellant for the personal vendetta against the Respondent No.7’s company.

¶23

The submissions made in this I.A. are that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed opinion through various Judgments and Orders that petitions by non-bonafide litigants should not be entertained. However, in the case in hand, the appellant is the party interested in extracting business worth about Rs.50 Crore from the Respondent No.7 of the nature of excavation work to be carried out at the site located at Mundhwa, Pune. When the appellant failed to secure the excavation work, only then appellant approached this Tribunal under the pretext of environmental cause by filing this appeal, which proves malafide intent of the Appellant.

¶24

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the Environmental Clearance (EC) dated 16.03.2020 was granted to M/s. Bramha Corp Ltd., even in the past for construction of the project, on the same plot at 84/3 + 84/6 and 84/4B/I, corresponding to C.T.S No.1271, 1268, Mundhwa, Taluka Haveli, Pune. The work was started by the earlier Project Proponent at the very same site on 18.01.2020. However, at that time, the appellant, who claims to be environmentally concerned litigant, did not raise any alarm or concern in the last 5 years. The very same cause, i.e. the diversion of the water course within the plot area, which is now being raised as a matter of concern, was also the part of the earlier project.

¶25

In support of the above allegations, learned counsel for the applicant/Respondent No.7-Project Proponent has drawn our attention to page no.819 of the paper book, which is an e-mail dated 13.04.2024 written by the appellant addressed to one Mr. Mahesh Kunkulol (who is said to be an employee of Respondent No.7), in which following are recorded:-

Page 2 of 8

“

”

Thereafter, our attention is drawn by the learned counsel for the

¶30

applicant/Respondent No.7-Project Proponent to page no.830 of the paper book, whereon the same appellant has written another e-mail dated

¶31

12.04.2024 addressed to one Mr. Akshay Jagtap, wherein following are

recorded:-

“

”

Page 3 of 8

Having drawn our attention to the above e-mails, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant/Respondent No.7-Project Proponent that these e-mails clearly indicate that the appellant was seeking the work of excavation to be allotted to him, which was not done, hence by getting prejudiced by the same, he has moved this appeal against Respondent No.7.

¶37

Further, it is mentioned in this I.A. that Appeal No.523/2025 (Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs. SEIAA) was filed by the appellant before this Tribunal on 02.09.2025 and withdrawn without mentioning any reason. Hence, the said Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No appeal was filed thereafter. The appellant was also present in-person on the very first date of hearing of this appeal. However, to withdraw this appeal, an Advocate was engaged who appeared along-with the appellant on 04.11.2025. Appellant had sought liberty to re-file it but till date, no appeal has been filed.

¶38

Having drawn our attention to the above submissions, it is urged by the learned counsel for the applicant/Respondent No.7-Project Proponent that had there been any environmental issue, the appeal would have certainly been pursued, but that has not been done.

¶39

Further, it is mentioned in this I.A. that the appellant approached the Respondent No.7 for the work of excavation at the site. When the appellant failed to get the said work, only then he filed the present appeal, and that the appellant suppressed this important relevant fact in the present appeal. The grounds raised in this appeal are the same grounds which existed even in the earlier EC granted to the earlier Project Proponent- M/s Bramha Corp. Ltd. on the same site on 16.03.2020. The issue of water stream diversion was there in the last project also. Even the work of stream

¶40

Page 4 of 8

¶41

channelization had started on site, but no complaint was made to this Tribunal against it in the last 5 years.

¶42

Further, it is mentioned in this I.A. that a complaint was also made by the appellant against the Advocate of the Respondent No.7 (Mr. R.B. Mahabal) to the Bar Council, in order to take revenge and harass him, a copy of which is annexed at page no.703 of the paper book.

¶43

Further, it is mentioned in this I.A. that the appellant did not pursue pending appeal. The appellant filed an Original Application on 29.10.2025 against M/s Speciality Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. (Mantra Magnus Project at S.Nos.52, 53, 54, Mundhwa, Pune) and never pursued it, after he was satisfied.

¶44

In response to the above I.A., the appellant has filed objection dated 08.06.2026, wherein he has denied the allegations levelled against him by Respondent No.7 and says that no contract, correspondence, tender document, proposal, quotation, communication, meeting record, financial transaction or any other material whatsoever has been produced in support of such allegation. Therefore, these allegations are nothing but a bald assertion made for the purpose of dis-crediting the Appellant in order to divert the attention from the environmental issues raised in the present proceedings. Respondent No.7 has not substantiated allegations concerning the motives of the appellant bringing such facts to the notice of the Tribunal. Even assuming, without admitting, that there had been any prior interaction between the parties, the same would neither validate any environmental violation nor extinguish the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to examine the legality of the impugned actions. The Respondent No.7 cannot seek dismissal of the Appeal by raising collateral allegations which have no bearing upon compliance with the environmental laws. The Appellant

¶45

Page 5 of 8

¶46

specifically states that there is no documentary evidence produced evidencing any alleged Rs.50 Crore excavation arrangement, negotiation, promise, commitment or entitlement exists.

¶47

In support of the above submissions, the appellant has drawn our attention to page nos.1563 to 1564 of the paper book, wherein following are recorded:-

¶48

“Without prejudice to the submissions already made, the Respondent No. 7 has once again sought to rely upon the Appellant's e-mails dated 12/13.04.2024 addressed to Mr. Sanjiv Bajaj sir in an attempt to manufacture an allegation of mala fides. The said contention is wholly misconceived, contrary to the admitted chronology of events, unsupported by any evidence and inconsistent with the Respondent's own corporate records. The Appellant had merely addressed an introductory communication to the Chairman of the Bajaj Group in view of the Respondent's widely publicised commitments relating to sustainable development, environmental protection and generation of local employment. Significantly, the Respondent has failed to produce a single document demonstrating that the Appellant ever submitted any quotation, participated in any tender process, attended any commercial meeting, negotiated any contractual terms, received any assurance, work order or contract, or derived any financial or pecuniary benefit whatsoever. Mere dispatch of an introductory communication, in the complete absence of any commercial transaction, cannot in law or on facts be elevated into evidence of an ulterior motive or lack of bona fides. The allegation is therefore based entirely on conjecture and not on any admissible evidence.

¶49

The Respondent's own documentary record further demolishes its allegation. The certified Board Resolutions passed by Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited dated 21.07.2023, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited dated 21.07.2023, Bajaj Finance Limited dated 26.07.2023, Bajaj Finsery Ventures Limited dated 24.04.2024 and Bajaj Finsery Limited dated 30.01.2025 consistently delegate the implementation of the

¶50

Page 6 of 8

¶51

Mundhwa Project, including procurement of contractors, execution of project documents, approval of payments and other projectrelated functions, to specifically identified authorised officers. The Respondent has not produced any Board Resolution, delegation of authority or contemporaneous corporate record establishing that Mr. Sanjiv Bajaj sir was the designated officer responsible for procurement of contiaelois at award of excavation work in respect of the Mundhwa Project. The Respondent's own corporate records demonstrate that project implementation and contractual matters were entrusted to designated authorised officers, thereby rendering the allegation wholly speculative and unsupported by its own documentary evidence.

¶52

The admitted chronology of events completely negatives the Respondent's theory. The e-mails relied upon are dated 12/13.04.2024. The Board Resolution of Bajaj Finsery Ventures Limited authorising implementation of the Mundhwa Project was passed only on 24.04.2024, while the proposal seeking Terms of Reference under the EIA Notification, 2006 was submitted much later on 18.09.2024. Thus, on the dates of the alleged correspondence, the statutory environmental appraisal process had not even commenced. The Respondent has failed to explain how an alleged refusal of work in April 2024 could constitute the motive for challenging an Environmental Clearance granted only after completion of a subsequent statutory process. The allegation is therefore inherently improbable, contrary to the admitted timeline and liable to be rejected outright.”

¶53

It is clear from perusal of the above submissions of the appellant that his consistent stand is that there is no cogent evidence produced from the side of Respondent No.7 showing that there was any serious transaction taking place between the two sides, which was to be assigned to the appellant. The e-mails, which have been produced by the learned counsel for the applicant/ Respondent No.7, be not taken to be a serious evidence in this regard. But we are of the view otherwise and are of the view that these e-mails are indicative of the fact that there was an inclination on the

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

part of the appellant, who had a strong desire or vested interest to approach the Respondent No.7, as he wanted to get the contract for excavation work from the Respondent No.7, but he failed. Therefore, he has filed this appeal against Respondent No.7 before this Tribunal in order to harass the Respondent No.7. This fact was also suppressed by the appellant in the present appeal.

¶56

We may also mention here that the appeal, which has been filed herein, is not appropriately drafted by the appellant, who has appeared inperson, because we noticed that he took the appeal very lightly because in the very first hearing of this appeal, we had found him sitting in a car and arguing, therefore, we had declined to hear him and subsequently also, we find that the present appeal is not drafted in an appropriate format. The grounds, which have been mentioned in this appeal, are also not in accordance with the law.

¶57

In view of above, this I.A. deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. Consequently, we hold that the appellant has filed the present appeal with malafide intent, hence we dismiss the present appeal as well.

¶58

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶59

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶60

August 18, 2026 I.A. NO.221 OF 2026 (WZ) IN APPEAL NO.529 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.175 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶61

Page 8 of 8

Akshay Sunil Jagtap v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akshay Sunil Jagtap 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Nadavala vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar

Satam Patnaik vs State of Odisha

Ia No. 814/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 130/2025 of Vedanta Limited vs State of Tamilnadu

1. Dillip Kumar Pradhan S/O Khira Mohan Pradhan Aged About 64 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary

Saravanan vs Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary to Government Ministry of Environment & Forests & Climate Change

Ram Gayen vs State of West Bengal

Ram Gayen vs State of West Bengal

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar

Rajiv Bhagelu Gupta vs District Collector Palghar

Ajay R Jani vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Akshay Sunil Jagtap vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Balvant vs Yashwant Soma Tandel