PRAMOD RAVINDRA DHURIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

2026:BHC-KOL:7711-DB

                                                                          10-PIL-97-2010(C).doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 97 OF 2010

               Pramod Ravindra Dhuri                                      ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                        ...Respondents

                                               ——————
               None for the Petitioner.
               Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-
               State.
                                               ——————

                                                 Coram :     Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
                                                             Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.

                                                 Date      : August 18th, 2026.

               P. C. :

               1.        By the present Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”), the grievance

               raised was with regard to the illegal diversion of forest land for non-

               forest purposes by the Forest Department of the State Government. It

               was pleaded that even before Stage-I approval was granted by the

               Ministry of Environment and Forests, Union of India, on 9 th April 2010,

               diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes was made and the

               order dated 9th April 2010 granted post-facto Stage-I approval for

               diversion of 1.25 hectares of reserved forest land for establishing Eco

               Tourism      Centre   at   Dhamapur    village,   Taluka   Malwan,     District


               Jamadar-SL                         1 of 6
                                                         10-PIL-97-2010(C).doc


Sindhudurg.

2.     By order dated 19th September 2014, this Court noted that the

Stage-I approval was post-facto approval and that there was no Stage-II

approval. The affidavit filed on behalf of the Ministry of Environment

and Forests recorded that the post-facto approval did not absolve the

officials guilty of violation of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, for

which the State Government would have to fix responsibility and

intimate the same to the Central Government. By the said order, interim

relief was granted staying the post-facto approval dated 9 th April 2010,

and directions were given to the State Government to file an affidavit

setting out the action taken against the erring officers in terms of the

recommendation of the Chief Conservator of Forests and the Central

Government. A period of two months was also given to the State

Government to obtain Stage-II approval from the Union of India.

3.     We find on record the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and 3’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.

The deponent has pleaded that Dhamapur is considered a tourism place

in the working plan of Sawantwadi Forest Division approved vide order

dated 27th May 2003 of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the

State Government had conveyed its sanction. The construction of

cement concrete structures, as pleaded in the Petition, was for the

purpose of providing a platform for tents and toilets.


Jamadar-SL                       2 of 6
                                                          10-PIL-97-2010(C).doc


4.      Under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, a proposal

dated 12th September 2009 for post-facto approval for diversion of 1.25

hectares of forest land was submitted and prior approval was not

sought, as there was an assumption that separate approval under the

Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was not necessary as it was approved in

the Kokan Package Eco Tourism vide the Government Resolution of

2004.

5.      The deponent has further stated that there is no permission for

igniting fire in the forest for the purpose of cooking food. The outcome

of the departmental inquiries against the delinquent officer is also set

out in the affidavit. The affidavit also makes a reference to the report of

the court-appointed commission, which inspected the Eco Tourism

Centre and noted in its report that there is no visual sign of any big tree

being hacked or felled in and around the machan structure.

6.      It is pleaded that the pleading in the Petition is an estimation that

146 trees were cut, and there is no direct evidence which has been

produced. The affidavit in paragraph 5 further pleads that, assuming

that 146 trees were cut, steps are being taken to plant 1,460 trees and

comply with the order dated 9th April 2010 of the Ministry of

Environment and Forests. It is further stated that the Ministry of

Environment and Forests has granted in-principle approval under

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the NPV is


Jamadar-SL                         3 of 6
                                                        10-PIL-97-2010(C).doc


recoverable from the user agency, which in the present case is the

Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sawantwadi.

7.     It is further pleaded that PIL No. 2 of 2007 filed by the present

petitioner was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner therein

and not the present petitioner to file an independent petition to

challenge the permission dated 9th April 2010. It is pleaded that a

request has been made for formal approval for diversion of 1.25

hectares of forest area for the project. There is a further affidavit dated

16th January 2015 by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, stating that

the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Bhopal

(“MoEF”), by letter dated 12th January 2015, has granted approval for

the diversion of 1.25 hectares of reserved forest land for construction

of Eco Tourism Centre at Dhamapur.

8.     None appears on behalf of the Petitioner.

9.     The order dated 19th September 2014 was passed, granting the

interim relief as at that stage, Stage-I approval had been granted post-

facto and there was no Stage-II approval. The Hon'ble Division Bench

had directed the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Maharashtra

State, Nagpur, to file an affidavit as regards the steps taken against the

erring officers. The order also granted a period of two months to the

State Government to obtain Stage-II approval from the Union of India in

terms of the direction contained in the order dated 9th April 2010.


Jamadar-SL                       4 of 6
                                                       10-PIL-97-2010(C).doc


10.    In accordance with the directions contained in the order of 19 th

September 2014, the affidavit has been filed by the Chief Conservator

of Forests, wherein it is specifically pleaded that action has been taken

against the delinquent officers. It is further pleaded that prior approval

of the MoEF was not sought under an assumption that such approval

was not necessary as it was a Government Resolution which approved

the Kokan Package Eco Tourism and the land was included in the

working plan in the Eco Tourism working circle, which was approved by

the Government of India.

11.    The affidavit further sets out that in terms of the Stage-I

approval, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Sawantwadi, who is the

user agency for the project, has paid the amount of NPV on behalf of

the State Government. The project is therefore in accordance with the

Government Resolution regarding Eco Tourism, and the post-facto

sanction was granted by the Central Government, which was the Stage-I

approval. Subsequently, the affidavit dated 16th January 2015 states

that on 12th January 2015, the approval was granted by MoEF, which is a

formal approval under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

12.    As necessary sanctions and permissions are now in place, it

appears that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the PIL.

There is no material on record to demonstrate that these permissions

and sanctions have been challenged in any independent proceedings.


Jamadar-SL                       5 of 6
                                                      10-PIL-97-2010(C).doc


13.    We are satisfied with the affidavits which have been filed by the

Deputy Conservator of Forests and find that approval has been granted

for diversion of 1.25 hectares of land by the MoEF, subject to the

conditions which have been duly complied with. Resultantly, the PIL

stands disposed of.




 [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.]                     [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]




Jamadar-SL                      6 of 6