Applicants challenged the non-levy of Environmental Damage Compensation against a milk plant. The Tribunal noted the unit was voluntarily closed for pollution control installation. Finding no specific quantified emission data and the plant closed, the application was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
(Pune Bench)
Item No.7
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2025 (WZ)
Sangram Subhash Divekar & 11 Ors.
…..Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Environment Department & 4 Ors.
….Respondents
Date of hearing: 21.07.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Mr. Maitreya P. Ghorpade, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-1/Envt. Deptt. Mrs. Manasi Joshi and Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocates for R-2 & 3/MPCB Mr. Ajay Gadegaonkar and Ms. Akshata Patwari, Advocates for R-5
ORDER
Page 1 of 8
present status, the Official of the Answering Respondent at Pune visited the site in question on 15.07.2026 and observed that manufacturing operations of the industry were found to be closed. It was informed by the representative of the industry that the manufacturing process has been voluntarily shut down with effect from 15.07.2026 for carrying out installation of the Electrostatic Precipitators (ESP) Project and completion of the covered coal storage yard. The industry has submitted a letter dated 15.07.2026 intimating the temporary closure of the manufacturing operations for execution of the pollution control works. Further, the construction of the covered coal storage yard was found to be in progress.
Page 2 of 8
have heard his argument orally instead of providing him time to file rejoinder affidavit. It is submitted by him that as per the CPCB’s guidelines, which are annexed as Annexure A-17 from page no.115 onwards of the paper book, it is laid down for levying Environmental Compensation (EC) to the effect “(a) Discharges in violation of consent conditions, mainly prescribed standards/ consent limits ”.
Page 3 of 8
time for design of the same . Minimum lead time for delivering this system is 6 Months and the process is underway for a long-term solution as it is cost intensive also. Further observation made by M/s Thermax to replace Rotary Valve of the Air Cyclone on the same day has been taken up by placing a Purchase Order (scan of the Purchase Order is placed at Annexure) to mitigate dust from being released into the environment.”
Page 4 of 8
“
1. You shall upgrade and provide adequate air pollution control systems to avoid environmental pollution and air pollution nuisance to the nearby area within 60 days.
2. You shall store the coal at dedicated area in closed sheds to avoid air born emissions in the surrounding area. Also provide the shed with adequate capacity within 90 days.
3. You shall upgrade the existing effluent treatment plant so as to achieve the consented standards and same shall be operated in accordance with the consent conditions.
4. You shall submit fresh Bank Guarantee of Rs. 5,00,000/(Five Lakh Only) towards ensure the compliance of the above directions. The Bank Guarantee shall submit in favor of Regional Officer, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Pune (PAN No. AAAGM0150J) within 15 days in the form of E-BG as per the Board's circular dtd. 29/05/2025.”
“
Page 5 of 8
Page 6 of 8
”
Page 7 of 8
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM
Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM
July 21, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.106 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.
Page 8 of 8
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) could be levied despite lack of specific quantified emission data.
Whether the applicant was entitled to a fresh calculation of EDC amount based on CPCB guidelines.
Whether continued unit closure for pollution control installation disposed of the application.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sangram Subhash Divekar & 11 Ors.
State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Environment Department
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
Mahanand Rajya Sahakari Dudh Mahasangh Maryadit
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh
Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
