Dismissed

Multiwal Duplex (P) Ltd. v. Other

NGT18 Dec 2019Appeal No. 100/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed appeals filed by four paper mills challenging the rejection of their NOC applications for ground water extraction. The Tribunal upheld the Central Ground Water Authority's decision, invoking its earlier directive that unconditional extraction for commercial purposes is prohibited in semi-critical or critical areas without ensuring water replenishment, as the a

What the court decided

AI extract

Multiwal Duplex (P) Ltd. vs Other — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2019)

¶1

Item No.09 to 12

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No.100/2019
With
Appeal No.101/2019
With
Appeal No.102/2019
With
Appeal No.103/2019
M/s Multiwal Duplex (P) Ltd. Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Ground Water Authority & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
M/s Multiwal Pulp & Board Mills (P) Ltd. Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Ground Water Authority & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
M/s Cheema Papers Ltd. Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Ground Water Authority & Ors. Respondent(s)
With
M/s Banwari Papers Mills Ltd. Appellant(s)
Versus
Central Ground Water Authority & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 18.12.2019
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P WANGDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. NAGIN NANDA, EXPERT MEMBER
For Appellant(s): Mr. Prashant Umrao, Advocate

¶5

¶6

ORDER

¶7

These appeals have been preferred against the order passed by Central Ground Water Board (CGWB) declining NOC for extraction of ground water.

¶8

The case of the appellant is that they are running industries extracting ground water. This Tribunal vide the order dated 03.01.2019 in O.A. No.176/2015- Shailesh Singh v. Hotel Holiday Regency Moradabad & Ors. directed that there should be robust institutional mechanism for monitoring of compliance of conditions for grant of permission for extraction of ground water except for drinking purposes and in critical, semi-critical or over-exploited areas, unconditional permission could not be granted for extraction of ground water for commercial purposes unless the ground water can be replenished and compliance of such condition ensured. In the impugned order, it is stated that the entire area is in semi-critical category, while in the application filed by the appellant, the area is said to be critical.

¶9

After going through the record and the grounds of appeals, we do not find any material which may justify permission for extraction of ground water in semi-critical area without ensuring replenishment. It is not the case of the appellant that the area is not a semi-critical or that replenishment of ground water is being ensured.

¶10

The very basis of classification of the areas as critical, semicritical and over-exploited as against ‘safe’ is where replenishment of water is not taking place against extraction thereof, as noticed in the order of the Tribunal dated 03.01.2019 (supra).

¶11

¶12

In view of the above, we do not find any merit in these appeals

¶13

which stand dismissed.

¶14

Adarsh Kumar Goel, CP

¶15

S.P Wangdi, JM

¶16

Dr. Nagin Nanda, EM

¶17