Dismissed

Sagar Kantilal Devre v. State of Maharashtra

NGT18 Mar 2026Original Application No. 146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench disposed of an original application challenging an advertisement for tree felling. The applicant sought directions for an expert committee and strict compliance with statutory procedures. The court noted that specific reliefs were not pressed during arguments and that the matter was pending regarding documentation, leading to dismissal.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief was granted; the matter was disposed of as nothing remained to be decided.

Sagar Kantilal Devre vs State of Maharashtra — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No. 4

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 146/2025 (WZ)

Sagar Kantilal Devre

…..Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 18.03.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Raghunath Mahabal, Advocate for applicant Respondents : Mr. Sameer Khale and Shubham Rathod, Adv. for R-3

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Learned counsel for applicant has filed rejoinder against the reply filed by the respondent no. 3 & 4-MCGM. We take the same on record. A copy of the same is also served upon learned counsel for respondent no. 3 & 4-MCGM.

¶16

In the rejoinder affidavit, the main submission, which is made by the learned counsel for the applicant is to the fact that the advertisement dated 07.10.2025 issued by respondent no. 3-MCGM does not disclose; a). species and age; b). Girth; c). Exact geo-tagged locations; d). Transplantation sites; e). Compensatory plantation sites; and f). Technical basis of unavoidability.

¶17

The submission made by learned counsel for applicant is that in the advertisement, since the above facts have not been disclosed, advertisement is not in accordance with Section 8 of the Trees Act.

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

At this stage, we again looked at the reliefs, which have been claimed in the present application by the applicant, in which the relief claimed by the applicant is to the effect that a direction be issued for formation of an independent Expert Committee to re-evaluate the project alignment and explore all alternatives to minimise or eliminate tree felling.

¶20

The above relief has not been pressed during the argument by learned counsel for the applicant. Therefore, we do not find it appropriate to consider this.

¶21

Relief B says that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to ensure strict compliance with all legal and procedural safeguards as per Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Preservation of Tree Act and the directions of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PIL No. 119/2017 in case of “Rohit Verma Monahar Joshi Versus Tree Authority, Thane and Others”.

¶22

The Section 3 of the Maharashtra (Urban Area) Preservation of Tree

¶23

Act lays down as under:

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

A perusal of the above provision would indicate that it provides for only the establishment of the tree authority and nothing beyond that. So what compliance of this section is required to be done. he fail to appreciate.

¶26

The pray C is to the effect that mandate be issued for a robust, transparent and scientifically sound plan for compensatory afforstation, with a high survival rate, if any tree felling is ultimately deemed absolutely necessary by the Expert Committee; and prayer D seeks that an order of continuous monitoring and public disclosure of the status of the transplanted trees be passed.

¶27

As regards with prayer C and D, we may mention that as per the report of MCGM dated 25.02.2026, it is clear that at present, the proposal is pending before them due to non-sufficiency of documents related to notice, photos and location for new plantation and transplantation of trees.

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

The learned counsel for the NCGM apprised that this is ongoing process, as and when, the permission will be granted for cutting of trees the place, the trees in lieu thereof would be allowed to be transplanted, would be indicated. He also denied that there is any necessity for indicating the place, where the trees are to be transplanted/planted, new trees are to be planted has to be given in such a notice as is being alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant.

¶30

In view of above facts we are of the view that they nothing remains to be decided by us in this O.A and this matter is disposed of, accordingly.

¶31

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶32

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶33

March 18, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 146/2025 (WZ) F.K

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Sagar Kantilal Devre v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sagar Kantilal Devre v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar Tiwari vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Smt Anupama Awasthi vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Pt Girdhari Lal vs

Sarvanababu Ethirajalu vs

Rakesh Kumar Choudhary vs

Meenava Thanthai Kr Selvaraj Kumar Meenavar Nalla Sangam vs the Principal Secretary Government of Tamilnadu Environment Departmenmt

Mr. Tejas Chandrakant Yadav vs M/S. K K Nag Pvt. Ltd.

Adhir Maiti vs West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Nitesh Gokuldas Pagi Care of Royal Agonda vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Dikshay Dattu Phadte vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Dikshay Dattu Phadte vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Vinod Kumar Girdharilal Jaiswal vs State of Maharashtra through Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Ms Reactive Polymers Ltd. vs the Appellate Authority

Sadguru Raghuveer Pednekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority