A dispute over alleged tree felling for a pumped-storage hydroelectric project near Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary has exposed a crucial gap in how environmental claims are communicated and verified: the Forest Department has denied illegal felling inside the sanctuary, while the allegation concerns the adjoining Saindongar forest area in Raigad district.
The clarification was issued on October 24 by Ashish Thakare, Conservator of Forests, Pune, after NCP (SP) MLA Rohit Pawar alleged that more than 32,000 trees were being cut across over 233 hectares of forest land in Karjat tehsil for a pumped-storage project. Pawar’s claims were made in a social media post and, according to the supplied report, have not been independently verified.
The Forest Department said reports circulating over the previous two to three days about illegal tree felling for a company project inside Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary were incorrect. It appealed to citizens to take note of the clarification and cooperate with the administration. The statement, however, specifically referred to activity inside the sanctuary, rather than establishing whether tree felling had or had not occurred in the adjacent Saindongar forest area identified by Pawar.
That distinction is central to the dispute. A denial concerning one legally or administratively defined area does not, by itself, settle allegations relating to a neighbouring forest area. The supplied material does not identify the project’s approvals, the exact legal status of the affected land, the name of the company, the sanctioned tree-felling area, or whether any work has been authorised outside the sanctuary boundary.
Pawar said he was not opposed to the pumped-storage project or the company involved, but objected to the proposed location. He described the area as environmentally sensitive and called for the project to be moved to a site where forest damage could be avoided. His intervention therefore focused less on the technology itself than on the relationship between large energy infrastructure and the ecological limits of the landscape in which it is built.
Pumped-storage hydroelectric projects generally involve storing water and moving it between reservoirs at different elevations to generate electricity when demand is high. The supplied report does not provide the project’s capacity, reservoir configuration, construction schedule, land requirement or environmental approval details. It does, however, identify tunnel construction and blasting as specific concerns raised by Pawar.
Pawar warned that blasting could weaken sections of the hills and referred to the Malin and Irshalwadi disasters while arguing that development in ecologically sensitive areas requires greater caution. The report does not establish a connection between those disasters and the proposed project, nor does it provide an independent geological assessment of the site. The references are therefore part of Pawar’s warning, not confirmed evidence of a project-specific risk.
The environmental concerns outlined by the MLA include possible damage to wildlife habitats, biodiversity and local ecosystems. He said the area was home to barking deer, leopards, wild boars, otters and numerous bird species, and warned that tree felling could affect nests, eggs and chicks. He also mentioned medicinal plants and other ecological elements that could be disturbed by construction.
These claims have not been independently verified in the supplied material. No wildlife survey, tree inventory, environmental impact assessment, forest diversion order or monitoring report has been cited. The absence of those documents does not establish that the allegations are false, but it means the scale, location and consequences of the alleged activity cannot yet be treated as confirmed facts.
The controversy also demonstrates why the precise mapping of project boundaries matters in environmental governance. Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary and the adjoining Saindongar forest area may be geographically connected in public understanding, but administrative and legal decisions can apply differently across sanctuary boundaries, reserved or protected forests, revenue land and other land categories. The supplied report does not state how the relevant land has been classified.
That missing information is especially important because the Forest Department’s statement uses the phrase “inside Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary”, while the allegation refers to “the adjoining Saindongar forest area”. Without an official map, survey numbers or a project layout, readers cannot determine whether the two sides are discussing the same location, neighbouring locations or overlapping descriptions of a wider landscape.
The dispute further raises questions about institutional responsibility. The Forest Department has addressed the allegation of illegal felling inside the sanctuary. Other aspects of the project, including energy infrastructure approvals, land acquisition or diversion, environmental clearance, wildlife permissions, geological safety and construction supervision, may involve different authorities. The source material does not identify which agencies have granted or reviewed those permissions.
Pawar claimed that the project was scheduled to be inaugurated by the Prime Minister on November 3 and questioned whether development should proceed at the cost of forest conservation. The supplied report does not independently confirm the inauguration schedule. It also does not state whether the project has reached construction, commissioning or inauguration stage, or whether the proposed date relates to a formal government programme.
For residents and communities around the project area, the immediate issue is not only whether a particular number of trees has been cut. It is also whether the public can access reliable information about the project’s location, approvals, environmental safeguards and construction footprint before irreversible work takes place. The supplied material does not include statements from local residents, community groups or affected landholders, so their views and any direct impacts remain undocumented in this account.
The episode shows how environmental disputes can become difficult to resolve when official clarifications and political allegations refer to different geographic boundaries. A broad denial may reduce public alarm about activity inside a sanctuary, but it may not answer questions about adjoining forests. Conversely, an allegation about extensive tree felling requires documentary and field-based evidence before its scale and legality can be established.
The next step for a definitive assessment would be to establish the exact project footprint and compare it with official forest and sanctuary boundaries, approved tree inventories and statutory permissions. The supplied report does not say whether such records have been released or whether an independent inspection has taken place. Until those details are available, the Forest Department’s denial and Pawar’s allegations should be understood as addressing different parts of an unresolved environmental dispute.
What is confirmed is that the Forest Department has denied illegal tree felling inside Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary and that Rohit Pawar has raised allegations concerning the adjacent Saindongar forest area. What remains unestablished is whether the alleged tree felling occurred at the reported scale, whether it was legally authorised, and how the proposed project would affect forests, wildlife and hill stability. The reported November 3 inauguration claim also requires confirmation from the relevant authorities.
