Disposed

Vandana Chavan v. Pune Municipal Corporation

NGT7 Jul 2026Original Application No. 131/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench addressed an application alleging violations of Environmental Clearance conditions and an Irrigation Department Circular in the Riverfront Development Project. The Tribunal held that the Regional Office of MoEF&CC is the appropriate authority to verify compliance and directed the respondent to report any violations to SEIAA for action.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed; Direction issued to Respondent No.4 (MoEF&CC) to specify violations if any and apprise SEIAA for action.

Vandana Chavan vs Pune Municipal Corporation — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶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

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.11 OF 2026 (WZ) & I.A. NO.29 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶6

Vandana Chavan & Ors.

¶7

…..Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 07.07.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Applicants : Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Rahul Garg, Advocate along-with Ms. Mugdha C. Lohar, Advocate for R-1/PMC Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan, Advocate for R-2/PCMC Ms. Supriya Dangare, Advocate for R-3/Irri. Deptt. Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Advocate for R-4/MoEF&CC

¶14

ORDER

¶15

In compliance with our previous order dated 08.06.2026, Respondent No.3- Irrigation Department (Water Resource Department, Government of Maharashtra) has failed to file reply affidavit.

¶16

During hearing of this matter, from the side of Respondent No.1PMC, learned counsel Mr. Rahul Garg has appeared and stated that this is 8th round of ligation with respect to the Riverfront Development Project. The Respondent No.1 has already taken Environmental Clearance dated 19.11.2019, which is annexed as Annexure A-I beginning from Page No.190 and its amendment was done on 12.11.2024, which is annexed as Annexure A-III beginning from Page No.253, wherein one condition was

¶17

Page 1 of 5

¶18

added to the effect, mentioned at Page No.262 of the paper book, “PP to obtain NOC from Irrigation Department. PP to strictly follow all the provisions mentioned in the Irrigation Department Circular dated 30.05.2018”.

¶19

From the side of applicant, learned counsel Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector has drawn our attention to the Circular which is annexed as Annexure A-6 beginning from Page No.104 of the paper book, wherein attention is drawn to Para Nos.7, 8 & 9, which are quoted herein below:-

¶20

“7. Prohibitive Zone can be used only in the form of open land e.g. gardens, play grounds, light crops; where there is established easement right to take crops (e.g. water melons, musk melons etc. public toilets and sewage discharge facilities), so that there will not be any obstruction to the flow of the river, there will not be reduction in the carrying capacity of the river and there will not be any change in the cross section of the river.

¶21

8. Restrictive Zone should be used only for the following:

¶22

i) Sewage carrying projects unavoidable in public interest.

¶23

ii) Public roads unavoidable in public interest; provided the top level of such road shall be above the level of Blue Flood line.

¶24

iii) Water supply pipe lines, gas pipe lines, drainage pipe lines unavoidable in public interest provided such pipe lines shall be under ground and will not cause obstruction in the cross section of the Restrictive Zone.

¶25

iv) The plinth level of the ground floor of the buildings in Restrictive Zone shall be safely above the level of Red Flood line so that the people could be evacuated to safe location before the flood level rises in the Restrictive Zone and it will be possible for

¶26

Page 2 of 5

¶27

the people and cattle to shift urgently to safe location with their belongings to avoid the loss of life and property due to floods.

¶28

9. Care shall be taken that there shall be no impediment to the flow of river, carrying capacity of the river shall not be reduced and there shall be no change in the cross section of the river due to the land use mentioned in Para No. 8 above. Chief Engineer shall be empowered to take action against the construction that causes obstruction to the flow of river. Concerned dept./Local Governing Body shall be responsible for the safety of the works done in the Prohibitive and Restrictive Zones. Concerned dept./Local Governing Body shall be responsible for the loss of life and property and possible litigations due to it because of the possible flood”

¶29

Having drawn our attention to the above, it is urged that despite one of the conditions being there directing the Project Proponent to make compliance of stipulations given in said Circular, noted above, they are being violated, therefore, present application has been moved.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- PMC has clearly stated that there is no violation committed on their part of any of the terms and conditions of the EC which includes also following the provisions given in Irrigation Department Circular dated 30.05.2018 cited above.

¶31

We are of the view that the appropriate authority to ensure whether the terms and conditions of the EC are being followed by the PP or not, is the Regional office of MoEF&CC, which is Respondent No.4 herein.

¶32

We have gone through the affidavit of the Respondent No.4MoEF&CC also, wherein no specific reply has been given with respect to

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

the non-compliance of the provisions of Circular dated 03.05.2018, rather it is stated that vide Notification dated 28.02.2014, they have authorized SEIAA and the powers under Section 19 of the Act to take necessary action against the violations. But it is evaded from answering as to whether violations have been Committed by the PP or not as alleged.

¶35

From the side of Respondent No.2- PCMC, learned counsel Mr. Shivshankar Swaminathan has filed affidavit dated 07.04.2026, wherein it is alleged that by way of the present application the applicant has sought to challenge indirectly the ECs. The EC is a substantive document which has been granted only upon conduction a scientific study. None of the grounds raised by the applicant are valid. If the submissions of the applicant are to be considered, the same would negate the whole purpose of obtaining an EC. Hence the application deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

After having considered the respective pleadings and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and respondents, we are of the view that the appropriate authority in this case to notice as to whether the compliances to the EC conditions including that of the provisions of that Circular dated 03.05.2018 has been done/being done by the Project Proponent or not is the Regional Office of the MoEF&CCRespondent No.4, which has not clarified in its reply as to whether any such violation has been done by the PMC in the case in hand, therefore, we dispose of this application with the direction to Respondent No.4MoEF&CC to specify the violations, if any, made at the end of the Respondent No.1- PMC and Respondent No.2- PCMC and if they are found to be indulging in any kind of violation then that has to be apprised to the SEIAA, which will take appropriate action in accordance of the law.

¶37

Page 4 of 5

¶38

Even if thereafter any grievance remains to the applicant then she

¶39

may approach us.

¶40

I.A.s stand disposed of.

¶41

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶42

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶43

July 07, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2025 (WZ) I.A. NO.11 OF 2026 (WZ) & I.A. NO.29 OF 2026 (WZ) SAR

¶44

Page 5 of 5

Vandana Chavan v. Pune Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Chavan v. Pune Municipal Corporation

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

Babu Lal and Ors. vs

E Lakshmipathy vs Tamilnadu Pollution Control Board

N. Viswambharan vs State of Kerala

Rupesh Kalantri vs State of Maharashtra

K Palanivel vs Union of India

1. K.Balasubramanian vs 1. the Government of Tamil Nadu Represented by Chief Secretary

News Item Titled Kon Karega Kariywai Pirdaa Mai Khanij Janch Chouki Ke Piche 200 Highwa Ret Ka Avhedh Bhandaran Appearing in Db Star Dainik Bhaskar Raipur Dated 20TH November 2025 vs State of Chattisgarh

Ramlal Meena vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Rupesh Kalantri vs State of Maharashtra

Rupesh Kalantri vs State of Maharashtra

Sanjib Dhal S/O Murali Dhal Aged About 47 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Union of India

Vandana Chavan vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Sushilkumar Mulchandji Agrawal (Propriter of M/S Bravim Enterprise) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat