Kiran Raj

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Western Zone Bench, Pune, presided over by Judicial Member Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh and Expert Member Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, has directed an appellant challenging a Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearance to provide specific evidence supporting his allegations. The Tribunal has granted the appellant four weeks to substantiate claims regarding alleged violations by the project proponent and the Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority (MCZMA). The Tribunal stated, "If any violation of the above procedure has been committed by the Project Proponent or the MCZMA, the same may be submitted by the appellant specifically along with the evidence in support of that, within four weeks, failing which we would be left with no option but to dismiss the present appeal for non-compliance of the order of this Tribunal, at the stage of admission itself."

The appeal was filed by the appellant seeking to challenge the CRZ clearance granted on January 3, 2025, by the MCZMA. The appellant contended that the project proponent had a history of CRZ violations and that the new clearance was granted without addressing previous infractions. The appeal raised multiple concerns, including the demolition of two heritage structures without mandatory environmental clearance from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), unauthorized construction of a Ground + 6 storied building without prior MCZMA approval, and changes to the statutory development plan that allegedly removed the reservation for an art gallery without mandatory MCZMA approval.

Also Read: Supreme Court: Sterling Quality of Eyewitness Testimony Sufficient to Uphold Murder Conviction, Even if Other Eyewitnesses Are Not Examined

The appellant also argued that the project, which exceeded a cost of ₹5 crore, required prior environmental clearance from MoEF&CC. Further, it was alleged that the project proponent unlawfully extracted minor minerals and groundwater by constructing a deep basement approximately six meters below ground level, an action the appellant claimed is prohibited under Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications. Additionally, the appellant asserted that the project proponent had committed fraud by initially constructing 12 one-bedroom-hall-kitchen flats for mass housing and later merging them into a single luxury unit, allegedly violating the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

The appellant further claimed that heritage areas are classified under CRZ-I as per the 1991 CRZ Notification and that the impugned construction, undertaken in 2004, should not have been permitted within a CRZ-I area. It was also alleged that the project proponent, who is an artist, had improperly influenced the removal of the art gallery reservation from the statutory plan.

The Tribunal examined the submissions and determined that the appellant's grounds did not appear to be directly relevant to the CRZ clearance granted in 2025. It recorded, "We are of the view that the grounds, which have been raised by him in the present appeal, do not appear to be relevant because whatever actions have been taken by the Project Proponent, were taken long back between the year 2000 to 2006. But it is also true that the CRZ recommendation, which has been impugned herein, is obtained in the year 2025 i.e. on 03.01.2025."

The Tribunal noted that while the appeal had been filed within the prescribed 30-day limitation period, the reasons provided for challenging the CRZ recommendation did not appear sufficient. It stated that the clearance was granted in accordance with Clause 8 of the CRZ Notification 2019. The specific provisions of this clause were not detailed in the order, but the Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant had substantive evidence to demonstrate procedural violations by the project proponent or the MCZMA, he must provide such evidence within four weeks.

Also Read: Bombay High Court Partially Allows Revenue’s Appeal in Dispute Over Bogus Purchases

The Tribunal directed the appellant to submit specific evidence substantiating his claims against the project proponent and MCZMA within four weeks. The order made it clear that failure to comply with this directive would result in the dismissal of the appeal at the admission stage.

The case is scheduled for admission on April 23, 2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellant:

• Mr. Aditya Pratap, Advocate

Case Title: Santosh Daudkar v. The Secretary, MoEF&CC & Ors.
Case Number: Appeal No. 21/2025(WZ)
Bench: Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member), Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member)

[Read/Download order]