Congress general secretary in charge of communications Jairam Ramesh described the change as a “scandal of gigantic proportions” and challenged the Narendra Modi government over the handling of the 1,500-megawatt Tarali pumped storage project in Satara district.
Adani Green Energy Limited submitted a notarised affidavit on September 8 placing the project’s cost at Rs 56.75 crore, compared with Rs 5,675 crore specified in an earlier environmental clearance document. The Maharashtra forest department subsequently accepted the revised figure for calculating a conservation deposit.
The change reduced the amount payable towards protection of the Sahyadri Tiger Reserve from Rs 227 crore to approximately Rs 2.27 crore. The company has deposited Rs 56.75 lakh as an initial payment, with the remaining amount linked to approval by the National Board for Wildlife.
The Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change instructed Maharashtra’s forest department on November 6 to investigate the discrepancy on priority. State forest authorities have also initiated an inquiry, while the project still awaits consideration by the wildlife board.
The central directive followed an October 30 complaint by Rohan Bhate, honorary wildlife warden in Satara, submitted through the Prime Minister’s grievance portal and Maharashtra’s Aaple Sarkar grievance system. Bhate questioned the accuracy of the revised valuation and sought scrutiny of the company’s submission.
Ramesh said the difference between the two figures strengthened the Congress demand for a Joint Parliamentary Committee investigation into the Adani Group’s operations. The opposition party has pursued that demand since March 2023, although no such parliamentary investigation has been constituted.
“A project which was sanctioned last year for Rs 5,675 crore is now stated in an affidavit to have a cost of Rs 56.75 crore,” Ramesh wrote on X. He highlighted the scale of the reduction and questioned how the company could submit such a sharply lower estimate.
His accusations concern the adequacy of regulatory scrutiny and the financial consequences of accepting the revised valuation. The allegations do not themselves establish wrongdoing by the company or any public official, and the inquiries have not produced publicly disclosed findings establishing misconduct.
The original figure appeared in a February 11, 2025, environmental clearance letter. The State Board for Wildlife subsequently imposed conditions on the project in February 2026, including a conservation contribution calculated at four per cent of the project cost.
Maharashtra’s principal chief conservator of forests for wildlife sought a Rs 227 crore deposit in March. After the September affidavit, the department agreed on October 12 to accept an initial payment equivalent to one per cent of the newly declared cost, with a further three per cent payable after wildlife clearance.
The arrangement means that the disputed valuation directly affects the amount earmarked for conservation measures. The difference between the original and revised total deposits is approximately Rs 224.73 crore, although the ultimate amount payable remains subject to the outcome of regulatory proceedings.
The company has not provided a publicly verified breakdown reconciling the two estimates. Maharashtra’s principal chief conservator of forests for wildlife, M Srinivas Reddy, said questions about the affidavit and its valuation should be addressed to the company.
The Adani Group has stated that all components of the Tarali project are situated on privately owned land and that no forest land is involved. That assertion addresses the project’s land classification but does not explain the difference between the two cost estimates.
The project is located in Patan taluka, within the deemed eco-sensitive zone of Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary, which forms part of the Sahyadri Tiger Reserve landscape. Its proposed footprint covers approximately 150.74 hectares of non-forest land across four villages.
The location is significant because the conservation contribution arises from the project’s proximity to protected wildlife habitat, rather than solely from whether construction occupies land legally classified as forest. The National Board for Wildlife has yet to consider the proposal.
Maharashtra’s forest authorities asked the deputy director of Koyna Wildlife Sanctuary on November 5 to examine the complaint. The following day’s instruction from the central environment ministry called for priority investigation and appropriate action, adding another level of official scrutiny to the disputed figures.
