Allowed

Vaibhav Baban Satam v. Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

NGT1 Sept 2026Original Application No. 18/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's request for 15 days to object to the Joint Committee Report as time was already allowed during the hearing. The Court directed TMC to lift debris, restore the site, complete plantation by October, and submit an action taken report. The main prayer to stop illegal dumping was addressed via these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directed TMC to lift debris within 15 days, restore the site, complete plantation by October, and submit an action taken report to the Tribunal.

Vaibhav Baban Satam vs Environment Department Government… — Writ and Judicial Review | 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. 18/2025 (WZ) I.A. NO. 36/2025 (WZ)

¶6

Adv. Vaibhav Baban Satam …..Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors.

¶9

….Respondents

¶10

Date of hearing: 01.09.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant : Applicant in-person Respondents : Mr. Saurabh Kulkarni, Advocate a/w Mr. Adwait Gokhale, Adv. for R.1 Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate for R.3 to 5 & 8 Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R.7

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Applicant, who has appeared in-person and raised objection to the Joint Committee Report on two counts, firstly, that it does not provide the survey numbers of the site in question and secondly, that the restoration of how much part of the site in question has been done, has not been made clear. Therefore, for these two aspects he was asking for time to be allowed to file the objection against the said report within 15 days. But we are of the view since we have already heard him, therefore, he does not require any time to be allowed for filing objection against the said report

¶15

The main prayer in the O.A. is to the effect that the direction be issued to the respondents for stopping illegal dumping activities in the

¶16

Page 1 of 4

¶17

eco-sensitive zone of Sanjay Gandhi National Park and Coastal Zone Management Zone near Gaimukh Jakat Naka, Ghodbunder Road, Thane.

¶18

The learned counsel for respondent no. 8- MCZMA has filed its reply dated 09.03.2026, wherein it is submitted that respondent no. 1- TMC has removed all waste dumping/dabris from the site in question. They have written a letter dated 12.02.2026 to the respondent no. 1- TMC, to remove all waste dumping/dabris from the site in question and restore the same and action taken report be submitted to the answering respondent. In response to that letter respondent no. 1- TMC has sent an action taken report dated 04.03.2026, stating therein that all the waste dumping/debris has been removed and the site has been restored. Also large scale plantation has been carried out at the site in question.

¶19

The Joint Committee, which has submitted its report and has mentioned that the applicant was present at the time of inspection and has put his signature also on the said report, relvant part of this report is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶20

“During the visit, the Committee, as guided by the Applicant visited the entire site which is situated adjacent to Ghodbunder Road, Thane, Gaimukh area. The site is situated along the Gaimukh creek and partly affected by CRZ, Certain portion of the site is within the Eco- sensitive zone of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park and it is in possession of the Forest Dept and certain portion is in CR% arca.

¶21

Committee observed that at substantial part of the site, the land is levelled with soil and restored with Miyawaki Plantation. However, at certain portions of the site, heap of debris/ stones were lying. These patches are yet to be restored. The Assistant Municipal Commissioner (AMC), Thane Municipal Corporation during the visit

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

informed that, after removing the solid waste & debris, around 24000 miyawalki plantation and 10,000 bamboo plantation has been carried out at the site. AMC, TMC during the visit assured that, heap of debris/ stones lysing at certain stretch of the site would be cleared soon and restored with plantation.

¶24

The Committee, in view of the site visit recommends the following:

¶25

1) TMC to lift the debris/ stone af certain stretches and restore the said stretches with plantation.

¶26

2) TMC to ensure proper maintenance and survival of plantation through regular watering protection and monitoring.

¶27

3) Action Taken Report (ATR) be submitted within 15 days by the Thane Municipal Corporation.”

¶28

The above report make it clear that at certain portions of the site, heap of debris/stones were lying, which is yet to be restored but it is being submitted by the learned counsel for TMC that the same has been restored as per his current report, which is not on record. The applicant is also saying that there is no evidence to the effect that the said restoration has taken place.

¶29

This report further states that Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corportation during the visit informed that after removing the solid waste and debris, around 24,000 miyawalki plantation and 10,000 bamboo plantation has been carried out at the site and that assurance was given by the TMC that the heap of debris/stone lying at the site would also be cleared very soon. The three recommendations, which are quoted above, made by the Joint Committee are accepted by us.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

In view of above report, we direct the TMC to lift the debris/stone, which are found to be lying at the site within a period of 15 days and restore the site. The plantation at the site will also be done by the end of October as assured by the learned counsel for TMC. Thereafter, we direct the TMC shall submit action taken report before Registry of this Tribunal. This application stands disposed of.

¶32

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶33

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶34

September 01, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 18/2025 (WZ) I.A. NO. 36/2025 (WZ) F.K

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Vaibhav Baban Satam v. Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Baban Satam v. Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

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

Nizamuddin Asmad Jalal vs Jalal Zubair Zahid Hussain

Aditya Chaudhuri vs State of Haryana through the Chief Secretary

Shiv Kumar Dubey vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Toxic Kilns Pollution Aravallis; Wildlife and Locals Suffer" Appearing in the Tribune Dated 28.12.2024 vs

Sumita Banerjee vs State of West Bengal

Vijay Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Rashid Noor Khan vs Union of India through Its Secretary

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Nizamuddin Asmad Jalal vs Jalal Zubair Zahid Hussain

Nizamuddin Asmad Jalal vs Jalal Zubair Zahid Hussain

News Item Titled Four Workers Killed in Storage Tank Explosion at Gujarat Industrial Unit Appearing in the Hindu Dated 03.12.2024 vs -Gujarat Pollution Control Board(Gpcb) through Its Member Secretary

Vaibhav Baban Satam vs Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Babasaheb Mahadev Patil vs 1. M/S. Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd.