A Maharashtra Forest Department order permitting the removal of 32,490 trees for a proposed 3,000 MW pumped-storage project in Karjat has turned a major energy infrastructure proposal into a wider test of environmental governance. The controversy is not only about the number of trees listed for removal, but also about how forest diversion, project execution and political deadlines are being managed in a rapidly urbanising region of Raigad district.
The order, dated October 14 and issued by Sameer Shinde, Range Forest Officer, Karjat East, was shared publicly by Shiv Sena UBT leader Sanjay Raut on October 27. According to the report, the communication grants permission to remove trees affected by the proposed Saidongar-I Karjat Off-Stream Open Loop Pumped Storage Project. The project is being developed by Torrent PSP 3 Private Limited across Pali, Kotal, Khalati, Saidongar and Dhak villages in Karjat taluka.
The forest department letter refers to approvals for diversion of 233 hectares of forest land. This includes 197.0272 hectares of reserved forest, 26.066 hectares of private forest and 9.9068 hectares of protected forest. The figures show that the tree-felling decision is part of a broader land-diversion process rather than an isolated clearance for road widening or a small construction site.
The distinction matters because pumped-storage projects occupy a different position in the infrastructure debate. They are designed to store energy by moving water between reservoirs at different elevations and generating power when demand rises. In the supplied report, the project’s planned capacity is identified as 3,000 MW. However, the report does not provide details of the project’s reservoir design, construction schedule, expected generation profile, rehabilitation arrangements or the conditions attached to the forest approvals.
That absence of detail leaves the tree-felling order as the most visible part of a much larger administrative process. The forest department’s letter says the removal must be restricted to the 32,490 trees covered by the approved project proposal. It also directs officials to ensure that no additional trees are felled and that the conditions attached to the approved proposal are not violated. The instructions indicate that the department has recognised the risk of activity extending beyond the approved footprint, at least during execution.
The communication also asks the concerned forest guard to classify the timber and other material obtained from the felled trees and store it at a suitable location. This is an important administrative detail. It shows that the order is not simply a political announcement or a broad permission to clear vegetation; it is an operational instruction that assigns responsibility for controlling and recording the material generated by the felling.
At the same time, the timing of the instruction has become central to the controversy. The report says the letter refers to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proposed visit on November 3, 2026, in connection with an inauguration ceremony for the project. It directs that affected trees within the project area be removed immediately in view of the proposed visit. The report does not establish whether the visit took place, whether the project was formally inaugurated, or whether the tree removal was completed.
Raut has questioned the Maharashtra government over the order and asked Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to respond. He alleged that the trees were being cut ahead of the Prime Minister’s proposed visit and questioned whether the letter was genuine. These are political allegations and should be distinguished from the administrative facts contained in the forest officer’s letter as described in the report.
The report also says Raut tagged senior advocate and BJP-nominated Rajya Sabha MP Ujjwal Nikam, asking him to stand up for the public. Raut’s broader criticism was that forests, water and land should not be treated as belonging to a political party. The report does not include a response from the Chief Minister, the Forest Department, Torrent PSP 3 Private Limited, or the Prime Minister’s Office to the allegations.
## The administrative question behind the tree count
The number 32,490 has become the headline figure, but a proper assessment of the project requires more than a tree count. The 233-hectare diversion area includes different legal categories of forest and land. Reserved forest, private forest and protected forest do not represent identical ownership or regulatory conditions. The order’s reference to these categories points to a project requiring coordination between forest administration, the project developer and other authorities responsible for land, water, energy and local governance.
The supplied material does not identify the authority that granted the forest-diversion approval, the date of that approval, the compensatory afforestation conditions, or the monitoring mechanism for compliance. It also does not state whether the 32,490 trees are distributed evenly across the project area or concentrated in specific sites such as reservoirs, access roads, transmission corridors or construction zones. Without those details, the scale of the ecological impact cannot be reduced to a single number.
The forest officer’s instruction against additional felling is therefore significant. Large infrastructure projects rarely occupy only the footprint shown on a final map. Temporary roads, worker facilities, storage areas, construction yards and movement of heavy equipment can expand the area affected during implementation. The order, as reported, acknowledges the need to prevent such expansion, but the material supplied does not explain how compliance will be checked or what penalties would follow a violation.
This is where the controversy becomes a governance issue. An approval can define a legal boundary, but the environmental outcome depends on whether that boundary is visible on the ground, whether contractors understand it, whether local officials have the capacity to monitor it and whether records of tree removal are independently reviewed. The report provides evidence of an instruction to classify and store timber, but not of a public monitoring system or a completed compliance audit.
## Pumped storage and the land-use trade-off
Pumped storage is increasingly relevant to power systems because it can help balance electricity supply and demand. A project with a planned capacity of 3,000 MW would be a substantial piece of infrastructure. Yet the environmental case for a storage project cannot be assessed only by the electricity it may eventually support. It must also account for the land diverted, the forest lost, the water systems affected and the communities living around construction areas.
The supplied report identifies the proposed project as an off-stream open-loop pumped-storage facility, but it does not provide technical details about its water sources, reservoir levels, operating cycles or downstream effects. Those details are necessary to understand whether the project’s environmental burden is temporary, recurring or distributed across several locations. They are also necessary for residents and local institutions to evaluate how the project may affect access roads, water flows, land use and livelihood activity.
Karjat’s location adds another layer to the issue. The project spans villages rather than an uninhabited industrial parcel. The report names Pali, Kotal, Khalati, Saidongar and Dhak as locations within the project area. This means the infrastructure decision intersects with settlement patterns, local access and the everyday use of land. The supplied material does not state whether residents have raised concerns about displacement, compensation or access, so those questions cannot be treated as established outcomes. They remain issues that the project authorities would need to clarify publicly.
The report says the project has drawn criticism from Opposition leaders and environmental activists over the proposed loss of forest cover. It does not provide the activists’ names, independent ecological assessments or details of any legal challenge. That limitation is important. The controversy is clearly established as a political and environmental dispute, but the supplied evidence does not by itself establish the project’s total ecological impact or whether all statutory conditions have been met.
## What the order reveals about implementation pressure
The reference to a proposed inauguration creates a potential tension between ceremonial deadlines and regulatory process. Infrastructure projects can have long approval and construction timelines, while public events often impose a short operational schedule. The reported instruction to remove affected trees immediately because of the proposed visit makes the relationship between project presentation and on-ground execution a central question.
The key issue is not whether a project can proceed after receiving approval. It is whether the sequence of implementation follows the conditions of that approval and whether public milestones are being allowed to accelerate field activity. The forest department’s own warning against additional felling suggests that the boundaries of the approval must remain actively enforced during this period.
The available material does not establish that trees were removed unlawfully or that the project’s approvals were bypassed. It also does not establish that the proposed visit caused an illegal order. What it does establish is that an official letter linked immediate tree removal to a proposed project-related visit, while limiting the action to the approved tree count and directing officials to manage the resulting timber.
That distinction should guide the next stage of public scrutiny. The relevant documents include the forest-diversion approval, the project proposal identifying the 32,490 trees, maps of the 233-hectare area, conditions for compensatory afforestation, and records showing how the felling was monitored. The report does not say whether these documents have been released publicly.
The Karjat case therefore presents two linked questions. The first is whether the proposed 3,000 MW project can meet its energy objective within the approved environmental footprint. The second is whether the institutions responsible for enforcing that footprint have the resources and independence to monitor implementation when a high-profile inauguration is approaching.
The evidence currently confirms an official tree-removal instruction, a large forest-diversion area and a project with major planned generating capacity. It also confirms that the order expressly limits felling to 32,490 trees and prohibits additional removal. What remains unclear from the supplied material is the project’s full environmental assessment, the status of compensatory measures, the responses of the developer and government, and whether the proposed visit altered the project’s implementation sequence. Those facts will determine whether the Karjat dispute remains a political controversy or becomes a wider test of how Maharashtra governs large energy projects in forested landscapes.
