Dismissed

Rupesh Kalantri v. State of Maharashtra

NGT6 Jul 2026Original Application No. 45/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal Western Zone Bench dismissed an interim application for amendment as withdrawn. The court further disposed of the main Original Application as not maintainable, directing the applicant to seek quashing through an appeal.

What did the court decide?

I.A. No. 250/2026 dismissed as withdrawn; Original Application No. 45/2026 disposed of as not maintainable.

Rupesh Kalantri vs State of Maharashtra — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.15

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 45/2026 I.A No. 250/2026(WZ)

Rupesh Kalantri

…..Applicant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 06.07.2026

¶12

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

¶13

Applicant : Mr. Niranjan Deshpande, Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that he wants to withdraw I.A. No.250 of 2026, wherein he has sought for an amendment in the Original Application, therefore, we dismiss this application as withdrawn.

¶16

I.A. No.250 of 2026 stands disposed of.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed Original Application again, though we have already considered the same earlier vide our Order dated 24.06.2026, wherein we had held that quashing of main public notice dated 27.01.2026, which is found to be not maintainable, is possible to be entertained in an Appeal and that Prayer B, whereby he had sought quashing of the Minutes of Meeting was not maintainable.

¶18

Page 1 of 2

¶19

Thereafter, the learned counsel for the applicant again pressed the Original Application No.45 of 2026 and states that Prayer C, D, E and F, which are sited therein, are still maintainable. But we are of the view that if and when he files an appeal seeking quashing of the notice which was found to be erroneous, these reliefs may be considered as ancillary reliefs and therefore, this Original Application does not appear to be maintainable. Learned counsel has already made it clear that he will be filing an appeal. Therefore, we dispose of this Original Application as not maintainable.

¶20

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶21

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶22

July 06, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 45/2026 I.A No. 250/2026(WZ) KNG

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Rupesh Kalantri v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupesh Kalantri 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Venkatapathi Raja Yenumala vs Union of India

Shri Ashutosh Kumar vs Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd.

Suresh Bisen vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Secretory Revenue Department

Mijanur Hossain vs State of West Bengal

Thangavel vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Mrs M v Lakshmi vs Greater Chennai Corporation

Vandana Chavan vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Prem Prakash Thapliyal vs State of Uttarakhand

Dhananjay Bajirao Jambhale vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Shri Ashutosh Kumar vs Gujarat Fluorochemicals Ltd.

Mr John Phillipose vs L and T Realty Properties Ltd.

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

Vandana Chavan vs Pune Municipal Corporation