The Torrent project in Karjat is not located in the Bhimashankar temple area or inside the Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary, according to a report by Lokmat – Pune. The project is being developed around Saidongar in Karjat taluka of Raigad district, around 15 to 20 kilometres from the sanctuary boundary. The correction matters because the public debate has combined two separate questions: whether the project is geographically connected to Bhimashankar, and whether the proposed clearing of more than 32,000 trees in the Sahyadri landscape is environmentally acceptable.
For the past eight days, discussion in Maharashtra has focused on claims that the project would damage the environment around Bhimashankar. The report states that the project is outside the sanctuary and that no company project-related tree felling is taking place inside the protected area. K. J. Sable, deputy conservator of forests in the wildlife department, said that no tree felling for a company project was under way anywhere inside the Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary.
That clarification does not remove the environmental issue. It changes its administrative and geographical frame. The project is reported to be spread across six villages in Karjat taluka: Saidongar, Humgaon, Potal, Bhalivadi, Pali and Ambot. It is expected to generate 3,000 megawatts of electricity and store 18,000 megawatt-hours of power. The project is targeted for completion by the end of 2029, with an investment of Rs 14,000 crore, according to the report.
The project’s significance lies in the way it links energy infrastructure with a landscape that remains environmentally sensitive even outside a formally protected boundary. The report identifies it as a Torrent company project in the Western Ghats’ Sahyadri ranges. More than 32,000 trees are expected to be felled for the development. The report also states that the company will be required to plant three times the number of trees removed.
This creates a central implementation question: whether compensatory plantation can reproduce the ecological functions of an established forest. The report cites concerns that trees that have grown over many years cannot be replaced by newly planted saplings in an equivalent period, and that the original ecological character of the area may be affected. It also raises questions about whether the conditions imposed by the wildlife department while granting permission will be followed in full.
The distinction between a protected area and its surrounding landscape is important to understanding the controversy. The Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary extends across the boundaries of Pune, Thane and Raigad districts and covers 130.78 square kilometres. It was declared a sanctuary on 16 September 1985. The sanctuary’s first section lies in Ambegaon and Khed talukas of Pune district, while its second section extends into Karjat taluka in Raigad district and Murbad taluka in Thane district.
The sanctuary is known for dense forest, rare plant species and wildlife, including the shekru, Maharashtra’s state animal. It also contains the Bhimashankar temple, one of the twelve Jyotirlinga sites. An eco-sensitive zone around the sanctuary was notified on 5 August 2020. The report states that development works, construction and industrial activity face restrictions inside the sanctuary and up to 10 kilometres from its boundary.
The project’s reported location, 15 to 20 kilometres from the sanctuary boundary, is therefore central to the factual correction. If that distance is accurate, the project is outside the 10-kilometre zone described in the report. The location does not establish a direct connection with the sanctuary, and the sanctuary administration has denied that project-related tree felling is taking place within the protected area. At the same time, being outside the sanctuary does not by itself establish that the project has no environmental impact. The report’s account places the proposed clearing in the wider Sahyadri landscape, where ecological value is not limited to notified sanctuary boundaries.
The approvals described in the report show how such a project moves through multiple institutions. Public hearings were held by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and the Raigad district administration before permissions were granted, according to Lokmat – Pune. The wildlife department subsequently granted permission. These steps indicate that the project has been considered through regulatory and administrative processes, but the report does not provide the approval documents, the conditions attached to them, the hearing records or a compliance status report.
That missing operational detail is significant. An approval is not the same as completed compliance. The practical environmental outcome will depend on how the permission conditions are implemented, how tree felling is monitored, where compensatory plantation takes place, and whether those plantations survive. The supplied report confirms the existence of concerns about these matters, but it does not establish the current stage of construction, the precise area to be cleared, the location of the compensatory plantation or the results of any independent monitoring.
The public statements quoted in the report reflect the competing layers of the issue. Former minister Dilip Walse Patil said that connecting the tree felling in Karjat taluka directly with the Bhimashankar sanctuary was incorrect because the two locations were geographically different. He nevertheless said that tree felling would continue to face opposition and that Bhimashankar’s image should not be damaged by repeated references to a project outside the sanctuary.
Sanjay Gawari, a panchayat samiti member and tribal leader, also said the project was outside the sanctuary but opposed it on environmental grounds. He said future projects in the Bhimashankar area would face resistance. Suresh Kaudre, president of the Bhimashankar Devasthan Trust, said the project was not in Bhimashankar or nearby villages and that repeated references to the area had led devotees and environmental supporters to contact the trust.
The statements reveal why the geographical confusion has had consequences beyond a technical correction. Bhimashankar is simultaneously a religious destination, a wildlife sanctuary and a recognised ecological landscape. Associating a large power project with the sanctuary can create an inaccurate public narrative. But the reverse error is also possible: treating the location correction as a complete answer may obscure the environmental questions attached to a project in the wider Sahyadri region.
Local opposition is also being shaped by the possibility of future infrastructure in neighbouring areas. Amol Ankush, described in the report as a local resident, referred to an Adani power project in Junnar and possible future development in Ambegaon, saying that opposition would be maintained. The report does not provide details of those projects or establish their status, so they cannot be treated as part of the Torrent project’s approval record. Their mention does, however, show that residents are placing the Karjat project within a broader debate about industrial and power infrastructure in the Western Ghats.
The project’s stated energy function adds another layer. Its reported ability to generate 3,000 megawatts and store 18,000 megawatt-hours positions it as a large-scale power infrastructure proposal rather than a small local installation. The report does not specify the project’s operating design, transmission arrangements, land requirement, construction schedule or the source of the investment figure beyond attributing the details to the reported project. Those are important facts for assessing its full urban and regional footprint, but they are not established in the supplied material.
The larger governance question is how environmental regulation communicates with the public when projects sit near prominent ecological and religious identities. Administrative boundaries, sanctuary limits and eco-sensitive zones are legally meaningful, but public understanding often follows place names rather than jurisdictional maps. In this case, the repeated use of Bhimashankar appears to have caused confusion about where the project is located, while the environmental concern extends to the wider landscape around Karjat.
For residents and institutions, the next phase should therefore be judged through verifiable records: the permissions issued by the relevant authorities, the conditions imposed by the wildlife department, the public-hearing material, the approved tree-felling plan and evidence of compliance. The supplied report establishes that the project is in Karjat taluka and outside the Bhimashankar sanctuary, while also reporting that more than 32,000 trees may be felled and that environmental objections remain active. It does not establish whether the promised mitigation measures will succeed.
The evidence currently supports two conclusions. First, the Torrent project should not be described as being inside Bhimashankar or the Bhimashankar Wildlife Sanctuary without documentary proof. Second, the location correction does not settle the environmental debate, because the project is reported to involve substantial tree felling in the Sahyadri ranges. The next meaningful developments will be the disclosure of project permissions, implementation conditions, tree-felling activity and the monitoring of compensatory plantation through official records.
