906 pil 99-25.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 99 OF 2025 Shriram Arun Kognolikar and Another. ...Petitioners. Versus Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and Others. ...Respondents. —————— Mr. V. Jeevan Vilankar for the Petitioner. Mr. Abhijit Adagule and Ms. Ketaki Patil for the Respondent No. 1. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre for the Respondent No. 3 and 4. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 3, 2026. P. C. : 1. In the present PIL petition, the grievance of the Petitioner was as regards the illegal felling of trees in the city of Kolhapur and more particularly at Gat No.352/B/1/B for the purpose of construction of International Convention Centre. The Petitioner came with the grievance that Respondent No.3 had approved the budget of Rs.50 crores for the purpose of construction of International Convention Centre, which was thereafter enhanced and without obtaining any permission of the Tree Authority, there has been illegal and unauthorised cutting of almost 110 trees to which the objections were raised and without hearing the Petitioners, the Respondents have illegally cut the trees near the project site without any permission. Patil-SR 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:8503-DB 906 pil 99-25.doc 2. From the material which is on record, on 14th October 2024, the Government of Maharashtra had approved the project of Kolhapur International Convention Centre and on 1st August 2025, the Respondent No. 4, i.e., the Maharashtra Public Works Department had submitted an application under Section 8(2) of the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Preservation of Trees Act, 1975 seeking permission for transplantation of 110 trees. On 14th August 2025, the Tree Officer inspected the site and submitted a report under Section 8(3)(a) of the said Act calling for the re-submission and on 20th August 2025, the conditional approval was granted. The joint physical inspection was conducted by the Tree Authority on 4th September 2025 and further documents were called for from the Respondent No. 4 who submitted the proposal to plant 690 trees. On 16th September 2025, the public notice was issued inviting objections and hearing was conducted. The inspection by the Assistant Garden Superintendent on 15th October 2025 records that only few trees were partially buried and not 500 trees, as claimed by the Petitioner. A joint meeting was conveyed by the Collector and Commissioner for hearing the objections on 29th October 2025 and a detailed communication supported by Google Earth Images was submitted by the Public Works Department on 31st October 2025 clarifying that approximately 15 trees were affected. The inspection was conducted by the Tree Authority to verify the factual position and Patil-SR 2 of 4 906 pil 99-25.doc report was prepared. On 24th November 2025, the Tree Authority Committee meeting finalised the proposal for transplantation, tree fund deposit, penalty, compensatory plantation, subject to Court orders and final decision has been kept in abeyance due to pendency of present PIL. On 2nd January 2026, the final permission was granted by the Tree Authority. 3. Despite the permission having been granted, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would insist that more than 500 trees have been affected and would seek to rely upon photographs to support the said claim. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that there should be strict compliance of the permission granted on 2nd January 2026, to be regulated by the Corporation and in event, it is found that there is non compliance of the condition of afforestation, liberty be reserved to the Petitioner to raise the said issue. 5. Material on record would indicate that before granting permission for felling of trees for the purpose of construction of International Convention Centre, objections were invited from the public and hearing was held, in which the present Petitioner had participated. The hearing was for the purpose of determining whether the final permission for tree felling can be granted by Tree Authority. On 2nd January 2026, the final permission has been granted by the Tree Authority, which grants Patil-SR 3 of 4 906 pil 99-25.doc permission for felling of 110 trees. The Tree Authority Committee meeting held on 24th November 2025 lists out the directions for compensatory plantation, tree fund deposit, penalty etc. The minutes of the meeting have to be read along with the final permission granted on 2nd January 2026 and there is required to be strict compliance of the afforestation which is a condition for the purpose of granting permission for felling of trees. As the grievance of the PIL Petitioner was as regards the illegal felling of trees without securing any permission, which permission has now been secured on 2nd January 2026, the PIL petition is disposed of by directing the Respondent- Corporation to ensure the compliance of conditions subject to which the permission has been granted for felling of trees. In event it is found that there is non compliance of the condition as regards afforestation as contained in the minutes of meeting dated 24th November 2025, it is open for the Petitioner to revive the cause. 6. The PIL petition is disposed of in the above terms. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Patil-SR 4 of 4