Disposed

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale v. Regional Officer Mpcb

NGT13 Jul 2026Original Application No. 59/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application seeking closure direction and EDC against a Ready-Mix Plant operator. The court dismissed closure as operations had ceased. It rejected EDC claims due to lack of inspection reports proving the violation start date and closed the matter after finding tree survival rates satisfactory.

What did the court decide?

No closure order required as operations ceased; no EDC levied due to lack of proof of violation start date; application disposed of.

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale vs Regional Officer Mpcb — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.9

¶2

(Pune Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2019 (WZ)

¶6

Sakharam Asaram Kale & Anr.

¶7

…..Applicants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Regional Officer, MPCB & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 13.07.2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Applicants : Mr. Tanaji Gambhire and Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Advocates Respondents : Mrs. Manasi Joshi and Ms. Pooja Natu, Advocates for R-1/MPCB Ms. Monica Bhandari, Advocate i/b. M.V. Kini Law Firm, for R-2 to R-4/NHAI Mr. Raghunath Mahabal and Mr. Sachin Subhash Gore, Advocates for R-5/PP Mr. Aniruddha Kulkarni, Advocate for R-6/SEIAA Mr. Deepak M. Gupte, Advocate for R-7/PCCF Mrs. Swati Pandit, Advocate for R-8 to 12

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Original Application has been filed with the prayer that closure direction may be issued against Respondent No.5- M/s. Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd./Project Proponent; and further it is prayed that Respondent No.5 may be directed to take necessary steps to comply with the Proposed Directions and environmental norms and till then not to operate its activities.

¶16

During hearing the argument of learned counsel for the applicants, it transpired that Respondent No.5 has already closed its operations. So,

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

now, there is no order required to be passed against Respondent No.5 to close down its activities.

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicants has pressed for Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) amount to be levied from Respondent No.5Project Proponent, which should be utilized for restoration of the site in question.

¶20

In regard to the above, when we enquired from learned counsel for Respondent No.1- MPCB as to whether any calculation of the amount of EDC has been done from their side, it is urged by her that in this regard, additional reply affidavit dated 24.02.2020 has been filed from their side, giving therein the details of calculation of the amount of EDC, in which we find that against M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Gat No 264/1, 263, 264/2, at Khed, Tal. & Dist:- Osmanabad, the amount of EDC has been calculated to the tune of Rs.5,81,250/- (Five Lakh Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Rupees only) for violation of 93 days. This violation has been calculated from 05.08.2019 till 05.11.2019 (i.e. till the date of issuance of interim directions).

¶21

Learned counsel for Respondent No.1-MPCB has candidly admitted that there is no evidence on record to prove that violation has been commenced by the industry on 05.08.2019 i.e. the date, which has been considered to be the initial date for calculating the amount of EDC against Respondent No.5-Project Proponent in the present case.

¶22

Similar is the position with respect to other units, such as M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.89, at Washi, Tq.-Washi, Dist.Osamanabad, against which the amount of EDC has been calculated to the tune of Rs.5,31,250/- (Five Lakh Thirty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Rupees only); with respect to M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Gat

¶23

Page 2 of 4

¶24

No.85/1 Sr. No 86, at Sasewadishivar, Manjarsumba, Tq. & Dist.- Beed, an amount of EDC has been calculated to the tune of Rs.5,56,250/- (Five Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Rupees only); against M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Sr. No.243, at Talewadi, Tal.-Georai, Dist.Beed, an amount of EDC has been calculated to the tune of Rs.3,81,250/(Three Lakh Eighty One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Rupees only); and against M/s. Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.172 & 174, at Village Muruma, Tal. Paithan, Dist.- Aurangabad, an amount of EDC has been calculated to the tune of Rs.4,56,250/-(Four Lakh Fifty Six Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Rupees only).

¶25

The submission made by learned counsel for Respondent No.1MPCB is that in respect of each of these Ready-Mix Plants/ Hot-Mix Plants, the initial date of violation is not on record because there is no such inspection report available. From the record, it appears that first interim direction was issued on 05.11.2019, therefore, this date should be treated to be the first date of inspection, hence calculation of the days of violation appears to be erroneous in the case in hand. In view of this, we cannot levy any amount of EDC from these Ready-Mix Plants/ Hot-Mix Plants.

¶26

As regards trees plantation, in compliance with our previous order dated 20.04.2026, learned counsel for Respondent No.7- Principal Chief Conservator of Forests has filed reply affidavit dated 09.07.2026, stating therein that compensatory afforestation and their present survival status has been verified by the concerned field Officers, as follows:-

¶27

“
Sr. No.	Forest Division	Trees Planted Trees Survived	Survival Percentage

¶28

Page 3 of 4

¶29

”

¶30

1	Osmanabad (Dharashiv) Forest Division	2,314	2,019	87.25%
2	Beed	2,900	2,030	70.00%
	Forest Division

¶31

The above details would indicate that the survival percentage of planted trees at Osmanabad (Dharashiv Forest Division) is found to be 87.25% and at Beed Forest Division, it is found to be 70%. Therefore, we are of the view that these percentages seem to be good enough and satisfactory and therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the present Original Application and the same stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶33

Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM

¶34

July 13, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.59 OF 2019 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale v. Regional Officer Mpcb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale v. Regional Officer Mpcb

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

Dr Jeet Singh Yadav vs

Mantu Das vs State of Odisha

M/ S Tilak Hospital vs State of Punjab

Akhilesh Kumar vs Union of India

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Hritik Baliyan vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Gobinda Dhar vs Department of Environment

Public Power and Awareness Society Bhilwarathrough Its Chairman Sh Gotu Singh Rajput So Bhanwar Singh Rajput vs State of Rajasthan

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

Shivam Saxena vs Bhopal Muncipal Corporation through Commissionerurban Development

Rajendra Shah vs State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary Forest and Environment Department

Rajendra Shah vs State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary Forest and Environment Department