National Green Tribunal
Vasimbhai Aiyubbhai Vahora vs Karamsad Anand Municipal Corporation on 6 April, 2026
Item No.6 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 09/2026(WZ)
Vasimbhai Aiyubbhai Vahora & Ors.
.....Applicants
Versus
Karamsad Anand Municipal Corporation & Ors.
....Respondents
Date of hearing: 06.04.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicants : Mr. Ram Manohar Vikas, Senior Advocate for the applicants
Respondents : None appeared
ORDER
1. In the present Original Application, the main prayer, which is being raised by the applicants, is that a direction be issued to Respondent No.1- Karamsad Anand Municipal Corporation (KAMC) to immediately cease all activities related to the incinerator on the plot bearing Survey No.2694, Anand and further, prayed that installation and operation of the waste incinerator on the said plot be immediately stayed. The rest of the two prayers, learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has not pressed, therefore, we are not taking those prayers into consideration.
2. The applicants have stated that they are owners and permanent residents of houses in Al Mannan Residency, Salatiya Road, Samarkha Chowkadi, Anand. Al Mannan Residency is a gated housing complex Page 1 of 4 consisting of 110 units of houses and is located on Survey Nos.2691 and 2692, which is adjacent to the Survey No.2694, on which the incinerator project is under construction. Al Mannan Residency was duly approved by the appropriate authority-Anand Vidyanagar Karamsad Development Authority (AVKUDA) on 01.12.2023. AVKUDA was established under the Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. The Respondent No.1- KAMC has commenced construction of animal waste incinerator without obtaining Consent to Establish (CTE) from Respondent No.2- GPCB and without specific development/construction permission. The applicants could come to know about this incinerator construction in the second week of October 2025, which is situated in immediate proximity to the residential areas including Al Mannan Residency.
3. Respondent No.2-GPCB has issued siting norms for various categories of industries, which provides a norm of buffer zone of 500 m between residential area and industry categorized as "Red". The applicants protested the establishment of incinerator and sent one representation dated 12.11.2025 specifically mentioning that CTE was not obtained by the Respondent No.1 for establishing the incinerator facility. On the said complaint Respondent No.2-GPCB conducted site inspection on 29.11.2025 and found that incinerator, which fell in "Red" category of industry was being constructed adjacent to the residential complex with CTE approval. The report of the inspection, conducted by GPCB, is also annexed at Annexure-12 at Page No.95 of the paper book, wherein it is recorded that Respondent No.1 commenced civil activities for the incinerator project without obtaining prior CTE/CCA. Therefore, it appears that the submission in Para 15 of the Original Application regarding the incinerator was being constructed with CTE approval, is wrong averment. Page 2 of 4
4. The learned counsel for the applicants has urged that as per the inspection report conducted by the GPCB, which is annexed at Page No.95 of the paper book, the incinerator facility is marked as "Red" category project and it is recorded therein that the Municipal Corporation has commenced civil activities for the incinerator project without obtaining prior CTE/CCA and that as per Circular of the GPCB, a copy of which is annexed at Page Nos.90 to 91 of paper book, it is provided that for a "Red" category industry unit the distance has to be minimum 500m from their residential area, while in the case in hand the incinerator is being set-up adjacent to the residential complex of the applicants, which is roughly around 50m. Therefore, it is in violation of the said siting criteria, hence above prayer is made.
5. We find that in the previous order dated 12.02.2026, Respondent No.1- KAMC had sought two weeks' time to file reply affidavit, but the same has not been filed till date nor has the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2- GPCB appeared today.
6. Respondent No.3- State of Gujarat is a formal party.
7. We would like to proceed ex-parte against the above respondents but we deem it appropriate to grant one opportunity to Respondent No.1- KAMC and Respondent No.2- GPCB to file their reply affidavits within 2 weeks': Further, we direct Ld. Assistant Registrar to write a letter to the Member Secretary of the GPCB to ensure that somebody appears from their side on the next date positively along-with the reply and also to Municipal Commissioner of the KAMC to ensure that somebody appears from their side along-with the reply, failing which we will direct for personal appearance of the Officers concerned.
Page 3 of 4
8. Put up this matter for next consideration on 19.06.2026.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM April 06, 2026 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 09/2026(WZ) SAR Page 4 of 4