National Green Tribunal
Kalpeash Chandrakant Yadav vs Union Of India on 21 August, 2025
Item No.2 (Pune Bench)
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL
WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE
[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.76 of 2025 (WZ)
Kalpesh Chandrakant Yadav .... Applicant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Date of hearing : 21.08.2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER
Applicant : Mr. Nitin Lonkar, Advocate along with Ms. Pradnya Bheke,
Advocate
ORDER
1. In compliance with our previous order dated 14.07.2025, learned counsel for the applicant has filed additional documents, which are annexed as Annexure-A11, Annexure-A-23 and Annexure-A-24 and true copies of the judgment dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.655 of 2014 (Glomore Constructions & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), which are taken on record.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention to pages 432 to 435 of the paper-book, which is a letter dated 18.08.2025 written by the Metropolitan Commissioner, PMRDA to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Environment and Climate Change, wherein it is mentioned that a report was sought by the Department of Environment regarding construction carried out without obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) by M/s Glow India Realcon LLP - respondent No.10 in the present O.A., to Page 1 of 3 which it is responded that upon conducting the inspection, it was observed that construction upto the 21st floor, admeasuring 26,460.48 sq.mtrs had been completed on the site. Having drawn our attention to this, it is submitted that it clearly suggests that respondent No.10 - Project Proponent had raised construction of more than 20,000 sq.mtrs despite there being no EC, which is in clear violation of EIA Notification, 2006. Hence, it is prayed by the learned counsel that notice be issued to the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention to the judgment dated 24.03.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.655/2014 (Glomore Constructions and Ors. Vs. The Union of India and Ors.) and at pages 436 and 437 of the paper-book, wherein in paragraph No.2, it is mentioned that "grievance of the petitioners is that though the petitioners proposed to construct the buildings, which were less than 20000 sq.mtrs and though this Court, in number of cases, has held that for construction of buildings, which are below 20000 sq.mtr environmental clearance is not required, even then, Respondents State have issued a stop work notice, directing the petitioners to stop the construction work of the buildings which are in project and are admittedly below 20000 sq.mtrs". In para 3 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, it is mentioned that "this Court in several petitions, has already held that environmental clearance for the purpose of construction of buildings below 20000 sq.mtrs is not required and the said orders have not been challenged by the Government in the Apex Court". It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that this judgment of the Hon'ble High Court is being wrongly interpreted by this Tribunal to the effect that even if a proposal for construction was more than 20,000 sq.mtrs., the Project Proponent would not require prior EC. He stresses on complete construction of 20,000 sq.mtrs., because that is also in teeth of the judgment dated 16.05.2025 Page 2 of 3 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C ) No.1394 of 2023 (Vanashakti Vs. Union of India) with connected Writ Petitions and Civil Appeal. Learned counsel has taken us through paragraph No. 14.1, 14.2, 15.1 and 16.1 of the said judgment and submits that this judgment makes it clear that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has quashed Notification dated 14.03.2017 issued by the MoEF&CC and Office Memorandum dated 07.07.2021 as they provided for grant of ex post facto EC. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vanashakti Vs. Union of India (supra) is of subsequent date than the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court Glomore Constructions and Ors. Vs. The Union of India and Ors. (supra). So the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court should prevail.
4. In view of the averments made in the application, the evidence produced on record and the arguments made by the learned counsel for the applicant, we admit this Original Application and direct the Registry to issue notice to the respondents, returnable within four weeks.
5. The applicant is directed to provide copies of Original Application and annexures thereto to the respondents, within a week.
6. The applicant is also directed to take necessary steps for service upon the respondents by both ways and also through available e-mail/
7. Put up this matter for next consideration on 19.09.2025.
Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, EM August 21, 2025 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.76 OF 2025 (WZ) npj Page 3 of 3