Disposed

Mr Suryakant J Shelake v. Ms Skb Builder India Pvt. Ltd.

NGT2 Feb 2026Original Application No. 62/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal calculated and directed the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board to levy Environment, Development and Compensation (EDC) on several Respondents for operating illegal Ready Mix Concrete plants. The Tribunal approved the amount for respondents who did not appear and corrected the calculation base for others.

What did the court decide?

Directed MPCB to recover specific EDC amounts from respondents if they did not appear or supported by Tribunal analysis, and to calculate imposed fees within one month.

Mr Suryakant J Shelake vs Ms Skb Builder India Pvt. Ltd. — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 11

¶2

Pune Bench

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE [THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION]

¶4

Original Application No.62/2024(WZ) I.A. No. 54/2025(WZ) Earlier Letter Petition 25/2024(WZ)LP

¶5

Mr. Suryakant J. Shelake

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

M/s SKB Builders India Pvt Ltd & ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 02.02.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Suryakant J. Shelake, Applicant in-person

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Vaibhav Jathar, Adv. for R-1.

¶13

Mr. V. S. Tawde, Adv for R7.

¶14

Mr. Tanaji Gambhire, Adv a/w Mr. Vijay Mhaske, Adv for R8.

¶15

Mr. Vilas Jadhav, Adv for R9/MPCB.

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This application has been registered based on a letter petition dated 14.02.2024 moved by the applicant-Mr. Suryakan J. Shelke wherein it is submitted that due to Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) plant of respondent no.10- M/s A K Gupta and Company ltd., being run illegally next to the applicant’s agricultural land, huge damage is caused to the crop or land of the applicant. The complaint was filed to the Human Rights Commission and during enquiry on the said complaint, it was revealed that 08 more RMC plants were running illegally in violation of the environmental laws.

¶18

The RMC plant of respondent no.10 was shut down by the MPCB but Human Rights Commission failed to take cognizance of other RMC plants who were running illegally without consent. The Human Rights Commission directed the applicant to approach this Tribunal orally.

¶19

¶20

The RMC plants are within the radius of 01 km (from where 01 km is being stated is not made clear). The 04RMC plants, namely, M/s. SKB Builders India Ltd-respondent no.1 and Shree Samarth RMC Suppliersrespondent no.8 are located within a distance between 50 to 70 m (from where this distance is measured is not made clear), third RMC plant, namely, M/s. Pricon RMC LLP-respondent no.7 and M/s. Suhana Construction Company-respondent no.3 have common boundary wall, which means they are violating the rules of distance between the two plants (it is not made clear by the applicant what is the minimum distance to be observed between the two plants). Further it is mentioned in his complaint that 07 RMC plants were illegally operating. Out of these 07 RMC plants, 05 are running without consent and 02 are running violating the mandatory provisions as per the notification issued by the MPCB and CPCB.

¶21

Despite repeated complaints made, no efforts were made by the MPCB or by the Collector to examine the Ambient Air Quality of the area. On 31.12.2023, a letter was issued for appropriate action to be taken against these plants which was sent to the District Collector, Alibagh but these RMC plants are still functioning and no action has been taken. All the RMC plants have been named in Para-8 which have been made respondent by us from respondent no. 1 to 8 and 10.

¶22

The matter was first considered by this Tribunal on 06.05.2024 when we called for a report from the MPCB to find out the correctness of the allegations pursuant to which compliance report dated 02.04.2024 was filed which was considered by us in our order dated 03.09.2024. The MPCB in the said report disclosed that closure orders were issued against respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 and respondent nos. 7 and 8 were issued proposed directions on 23.01.2024. We had also directed the MPCB to calculate the amount of EDC to be levied from the defaulting respondent.

¶23

¶24

Pursuant to which MPCB filed a reply affidavit dated 18.11.2024 whereby the calculation of the amount of EDC has been given in tabular form at page 120 as follows:

¶25

Thereafter, we found from the report that respondent no.7-Pricon RMC LLP has already deposited the amount of EDC as Rs. 2,81,250/- with the MPCB, date of deposition of amount has not been disclosed. In this regard only oral submission is made by the Learned Counsel for the MPCB.

¶26

Respondent nos. 2- Consol Ventures, 3- Suhana Construction Compary, 4- SP Enterprises, 5- SOM Project and 6- Sarvoday Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd have not appeared to contest the case. Therefore, we have proceeded against them ex-parte vide order dated 24.06.2025. Therefore, against these respondents it is presumed that they do not have anything to say against the amount of EDC and accordingly we direct the MPCB to

¶27

¶28

recover the amount of Rs. 8,62,500/- from respondent no. 2- Consol Ventures, Rs. 9,90,000/- from respondent no. 3- Suhana Construction Compary, Rs. 6,48,750/- from respondent no. 4- SP Enterprises, an amount of Rs. 9,90,000/- from respondent no. 5- SOM Project and amount of Rs. 11,17,500/- from respondent no.6- Sarvoday Infra Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd from the date of uploading of this order.

¶29

From the side of respondent no.10-M/s A K Gupta and Company no one has appeared and against them amount of EDC to be levied has been calculated to be Rs. 14,82,500/-. We direct the MPCB to levy the said amount on the respondent no. 10 from the date of uploading of this order.

¶30

Now we are going to deal with the defense setup by respondent no.1SKB Builders India ltd. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 has filed objections against the EDC amount which has been calculated by the MPCB by compliance dated 10.03.2025 wherein it is submitted that they started functioning from September, 2023 because they have got installed transformer of 200 KVA on 01.09.2023. While the MPCB has wrongly held that they started functioning from 20.07.2023 and have calculated the days up to the issuance of the closure order dated 20.12.2023 which comes to 145 days. The said calculation is erroneous and the said calculation ought to have been made from December, 2023 when they started functioning of the RMC plant.

¶31

We are not in agreement with Learned Counsel’s argument rather we come to the conclusion that the calculation of the EDC ought to have been done from 18.10.2023 when the electricity connection was taken by the respondent no.1. Therefore, we direct the MPCB to calculate the EDC from 18.10.2023 up to the issuance of the closure notice i.e.,20.12.2023. This amount shall be calculated in accordance with the CPCB guidelines and

¶32

¶33

whatever amount comes as a final amount shall be levied by the MPCB within a period of 01 month from the uploading of this order.

¶34

From the side of respondent no.8- Shree Samarth RMC Supplier, I.A. No. 54 of 2025 has been moved which is in the form of objection against the EDC which is calculated by the MPCB. In this IA, it is submitted that the calculation of EDC is wrongly done by the MPCB because they failed to establish the damage caused to the environment. The Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in Delhi Pollution Control Committee vs. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1601 has been relied upon wherein in Para-30 following has been held:

¶35

“…..30. The Board’s powers under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act have to be read in light of the legal position on the application of Polluter Pays principle as formulated and explained. This means that State Board cannot impose environmental damages in case of every contravention or offence under the Water Act and Air Act. It is only when the State Board has made a determination that some form of environmental damage or harm has been caused by the erring entity, or the same is so imminent, that the State Board must initiate action under Section 33A of the Water Act and Section 31A of the Air Act.

¶36

He has drawn our attention to the show cause direction issued to

¶37

the respondent no.8 which is dated 23.01.2024 annexed at page 447 to 448. It is recorded that the Board visited on 09.01.2024 and observed

¶38

as follows:

¶39

1. Internal work area partially cement concreted/Ashphalted.

¶40

2. You have not provided Non-Hazardous Solid Waste recycling Plant.

¶41

3. You have not provided Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations (AAQMS) within premises as per consent conditions.

¶42

4. As per consent condition schedule-III, you have not submitted B.G. of Rs.50000/- towards O & M of PCS and compliance of consent conditions.

¶43

Having indicated the above closure directions, it is urged by the Learned Counsel that none of the observations would indicate that there was any environmental degradation on account of the activity of the

¶44

¶45

respondent no. 8. Therefore, as per the above Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State Pollution Control Board did not have power to impose any amount of EDC.

¶46

Further our attention is also drawn by the Learned Counsel for the respondent no.8 to the consent to operate granted to the respondent no. 8 dated 04.01.2023 in which at page 37 with respect to the nonhazardous waste, mentioned name is ‘NA’. Having cited this, it is urged by him that when the non-hazardous waste condition was not applicable in the case of the respondent no.8 how could proposed direction be issued in this regard.

¶47

With respect to the AAQMS not set up within the premises, the said consent to operate would indicate at Serial No.11 at page 437, it is recorded that the monitoring of ambient air quality of captive plant shall be carried out twice in a week for 24 hours and in the same consent to operate at page 433 at serial 14 is recorded “industry should monitor effluent quality, stack emissions and ambient air quality monthly/quarterly”. Though we find that there are discrepancies in the frequency of the ambient air quality and it was required to be checked but since no Ambient Air Quality Monitoring station was setup within the premise of respondent no.8, it can be presumed that air pollution must have taken place.

¶48

With respect to internal work area not cementconcreted/Ashphalted, it is urged by the Learned Counsel that 150 sqm only has been used for the purpose and that has been ashphalted. Therefore, this is also erroneous direction.

¶49

Even if that be treated to be an erroneous direction, we certainly find that AAQMS was required to be set up which has not been done nor any

¶50

¶51

monitoring has been done prior to that also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the pollution might not have happened and accordingly, the calculation of the EDC is reckoned from the date of issuance of CTO 04.01.2023 to the issuance of the proposed direction i.e., 23.01.2024 which comes to 385 days and based on this the amount of EDC levied is arrived at Rs14,43,760/- which is found to be correct amount and we approve of that and the same has to be levied on respondent no. 8 by MPCB within a period of 01 month from the uploading of this order.

¶52

With the above directions, we dispose of the Original Application. All I.As pending also stands disposed of.

¶53

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶54

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶55

February 02, 2026 AM.

¶56

Mr Suryakant J Shelake v. Ms Skb Builder India Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Suryakant J Shelake v. Ms Skb Builder India Pvt. Ltd.

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

M/S Ambey Laboratories Ltd. vs Central Pollution Control Board through Zonal Directr

Paribesh Academy vs the State of West Bengal

Digambar Bhoi S/O- Jeherulal Bhoi Aged About- 51 Years vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Tapan Kumar Lenka vs State of Odisha

M/S Sairam Realtors vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

M/S. Enviro Technology Limited vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Gujarat

Shri Raj Saubhag Satsang Mandal vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Aditya Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Wilson Gerry Pereira vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Katiya Haidarali a vs Forestst Department Gujarat

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Taloja Industries Association vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Prasad Haribhau Jadhav vs Godavari Biorefineries Ltd.

Mr Suryakant J Shelake vs Ms Skb Builder India Pvt. Ltd.