Disposed

Santosh Ningappa Burje v. the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

NGT12 Feb 2026Original Application No. 43/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal accepted the MPCB's calculation of Environmental Damage Compensation for M/s. Spark Industries, which had operated without a valid Consent to Operate. The applicant confirmed the figures. The tribunal directed the industry to deposit Rs. 1.825 crore.

What did the court decide?

Directed M/s. Spark Industries to deposit Rs. 1,82,50,000/- as Environmental Damage Compensation with the MPCB within one month.

Santosh Ningappa Burje vs the Maharashtra Pollution… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.12

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025 (WZ)

¶6

Santosh Ningappa Burje

…..Applicant

Versus

MPCB & 6 Ors.

….Respondents

Date of hearing: 12.02.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Sachin Gore, Advocate Respondents : Ms. Manasi Joshi, Advocate along-with Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocate for R-1 & 2/MPCB

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We are passing this order in continuation to the earlier orders dated 29.04.2025, 26.06.2025, 10.07.2025, 12.09.2025 and 06.11.2025.

¶16

This Original Application has been filed seeking direction to be issued to Respondent No.7 – M/s. Spark Industries to stop its operations until it obtains the mandatory ‘Consent to Operate’ from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB)- Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶17

As per the report dated 24.06.2025 submitted by Respondent Nos.1 & 2- MPCB, it is found that Consent to Operate was granted by the Answering Respondent to Respondent No.7 vide their letter dated 22.04.2025 under Red Category/S.S.I. which was valid up to 31.03.2026. It is also recorded in this report that Respondent No.7-Project Proponent has paid penal charges of Rs.48,190/- towards the operation of the industry without consent on 31.12.2024.

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

Thereafter, Respondent Nos.1 & 2- MPCB has filed additional affidavit dated 11.02.2026, wherein it is submitted that Answering Respondent has extended personal hearing to the industry- Respondent No.7 on 02.12.2025, in which Respondent No.7 requested the Answering Respondent that since its electric consumption from May 2008 to January 2017 was zero, the initial date of starting of the unit may be considered to be January 2017 and therefore, requested to consider 41 months of operation @ 26 days per month i.e. period of violation will be 41 x 26 = 1066 days. Thereafter, the industry has further submitted that as per actual records of the working days, considering the internal production records, total days of operation of the industry to be considered from January 2017 to December 2024 comes to a total of 427 days. So, total number of days of violation stand at 1493 days.

¶20

It is further submitted in this affidavit by Respondent Nos.1 & 2- MPCB that in terms of the provisions contained under Section 15 (3) of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, i.e. “no application for grant of any compensation or relief or restitution of property or environment under this Section shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless it is made within a period of 5 years from the date, on which the cause for such compensation or relief first arose”, total days of violations are reckoned from 03.01.2020 to 31.12.2024. Accordingly, as per the provisions laid down in

¶21

Paryavaran Suraksha Samiti and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. ,

¶22

an amount of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) has been arrived at to the tune of Rs.1,82,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only).

¶23

A copy of the above affidavit of Respondent Nos.1 & 2- MPCB is said to have been served upon learned counsel for Respondent No.7-Project Proponent today only. But today, none has appeared from the side of Respondent No.7 nor has learned counsel for Respondent No.7 submitted

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

written request for adjournment of this matter nor any objections against the said report regarding the said calculation of the amount of EDC is filed. Therefore, we believe that he does not have to say anything to that calculation and hence, we accept the said calculation of the amount of EDC to be correct.

¶26

Learned counsel for the applicant confirms that the above calculation of the amount of EDC to be levied from Respondent No.7Project Proponent has been rightly done by the MPCB.

¶27

In view of above, we dispose of this application with the following directions:-

¶28

(i). Respondent No.7 – M/s. Spark Industries/Project Proponent shall deposit Rs.1,82,50,000/- (Rupees One Crore Eighty-Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) by way of EDC with the MPCB within a period of one month from the date of uploading of this order.

¶29

(ii). After depositing the above amount of EDC by Respondent No.7, the said amount shall be utilized by the MPCB for upliftment of the environment at the site in question within a period of six months.

¶30

(iii). In regard to the above, a report shall be submitted by the MPCB to the Registry of this Tribunal as well as to the applicant within one month after utilizing the said amount of EDC.

¶31

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶32

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶33

February 12, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2025 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶34

Page 3 of 3

Santosh Ningappa Burje v. the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Ningappa Burje v. the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board

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

Nandakumar Waman Pawar vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Suo Moto Titled Shahdol Becomes Haven for Illegal Mining Dated 15TH January 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Mala Ram Gurjar vs Principal Secretary (Forest) State of Rajasthan

Dr Amit Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Vasant Krishnaji Vatkar vs Union of India through Secretary

Chidipi Nakula Suresh vs the District Collector

V Veerabadiran vs District Collector

Chandra vs Deputy Commissioner/Chairman Udupi District Sand Monitoring Committee

Mr Satyaprakash Bastiram Sharma vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Nandakumar Waman Pawar vs Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

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

Judith vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ajitsinh Bachubhai Parmar vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority

Prakash Vagadiya vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat