Disposed

Mr. Dnyaneshwar Margaje v. Mukta Stone Crusher

NGT5 Feb 2026Original Application No. 108/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal directed the MPCB to hear applicant and project proponent within one month regarding violations by a stone crusher, determine Environment Damage Compensation (EDC), and ensure funds are used for environmental improvement.

What did the court decide?

Direction to MPCB to hear parties, levy EDC if default exists, utilize EDC for environment improvement, and submit reports.

Mr. Dnyaneshwar Margaje vs Mukta Stone Crusher — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.9

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2025 (WZ)

Dnyaneshwar Margaje

…..Applicant

Versus

M/s. Mukta Stone Crusher & 3 Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 05.02.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Omkar Wangikar, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate along-with Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Advocate for R-1/PP Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-3/MPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier order dated 17.09.2025, wherein we had already dealt with the issue at length.

¶16

Thereafter, Respondent No.3- MPCB has filed reply affidavit dated 04.02.2026, wherein it is made clear that in order to verify the present status, the officials of the Answering Respondent at Satara visited the site of Respondent No.1’s unit on 26.01.2026 and observed as follows:-

¶17

I. During visit, stone crusher was found not in operation due to maintenance work.

¶18

II. The stone crusher unit is located at Gat No. 500, A/P Kanhawadi, Tal. - Khandala, Dist- Satara, which is 57.37 mtr. away from Khandala Bhor road and 3.00 km away from shirwal-bhor road (National Highway 965 DD —Lonand to Mahad road).

¶19

III. The stone crusher unit is located approximately 463 mts. away from human habitation of village Kanhawadi.

¶20

Page 1 of 3

¶21

IV. The stone crusher has not provided vibrating screen cover with tin sheet covering.

¶22

V. The stone crusher unit has partially covered conveyer belts.

¶23

VI. The stone crusher has provided water sprinkling arrangements at Conveyer Belts, Jaw crusher and within premises.

¶24

VII. The stone crusher has not provided tin metal sheets along the periphery of crusher, which acts as wind breaking wall.

¶25

VIII. The stone crusher has provided metallic road these roads are approach roads in the crusher.

¶26

IX. The stone crusher has not developed green belt along the periphery of the unit.

¶27

X. The stone crusher has not provided covered storage to Raw material and finished goods.

¶28

XI. The stone crusher has not provided air pollution control systems /dust suppression system as per Board's Consent Conditions.

¶29

Further, it is clarified in this affidavit by Respondent No.3 that Respondent No.1- Stone Crusher Unit has not fulfilled the siting criteria for stone crusher unit as per the MPCB’s Circular dated 04.03.2020. Further, it is submitted that personal hearing is fixed to be provided to the Project Proponent within one month and thereafter, penal action, if so required, would be taken against it.

¶30

Learned counsel for the applicant has orally submitted that Respondent No.1-Project Proponent has been indulging in violation, particularly, not putting in place the air pollution control system.

¶31

At this stage, we direct Respondent No.3- MPCB to consider all the grievances of the applicant, which he has raised in the present Original Application, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicant as well as to Respondent No.1- Project Proponent within one month and thereafter, an appropriate action be taken against Respondent No.1, particularly, levying the amount of EDC for the period of default, if any.

¶32

Page 2 of 3

¶33

The amount of EDC, if any, so arrived at, shall be levied from Respondent No.1 within a period of one month thereafter.

¶34

Respondent No.1- Stone Crusher Unit/Project Proponent has filed reply affidavit dated 04.02.2026, wherein it is alleged that the applicant has moved this application with false motive without any proof substantiating his claim because he has alleged in the present Original Application that air pollution is being caused not only by the activities of Respondent No.1 but the other stone crusher units also, which have not been made party here. It is further submitted that Respondent No.1 is conducting its operations with valid consents.

¶35

Above averment of Respondent No.1 is being rebutted by learned counsel for the applicant, by saying that he has already made complaints against the other crusher units before the MPCB and is planning to move separate case against them.

¶36

In view of above, we dispose of this Original Application with the direction to Respondent No.3- MPCB that the above amount of EDC, if any, which is to be arrived at, shall be utilized for the improvement of the environment at the area in question within two months of its realization.

¶37

In regard to the above, a report shall be submitted by Respondent No.3- MPCB to the Registry of this Tribunal within one month thereafter.

¶38

In case, any grievance is left to the applicant thereafter, he may approach us again as per law.

¶39

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶40

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶41

February 05, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.108 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶42

Page 3 of 3

Mr. Dnyaneshwar Margaje v. Mukta Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Dnyaneshwar Margaje v. Mukta Stone Crusher

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Chandra Kumawat vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Singh vs

Sakhubai Patil vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (Kspcb)

Sou Moto Newspeaper Article Published on People Samachar Dated 16TH April 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Venkateshwaran. S vs Vimal Raj M

Sunil Kumar vs Union of India

Suo Moto News Item Titled 22 Coloniyon Mai Zehar Ghol Raha Pani Ganda Itna Ki Nahane Par Sharir Se Aati Hai Badbu Appearing in Patrika News Paper Dated 6TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled 70 Ekad Ke Mor Van Mai Pedon Ki Jagah Jhhugiyan Chandan Ki Chori Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

Nilkanth Stone Industries vs Seiaa

Ms Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Gujarat

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Moef & Cc

Nandakumar Waman Pawar vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation