Partly allowed

Zulfukar Ali v. Delhi Development Authority

NGT23 Mar 2022Original Application No. 111/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal quashed an order imposing a fine on the applicant for alleged plastic disposal. Finding the order ignored the applicant's defense and violated natural justice, the Tribunal directed the authority to treat the order as a notice, allowing the applicant two weeks to reply before passing a final decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order imposing a fine was quashed; it shall be treated as a notice allowing the applicant two weeks to reply before the DDA passes a fresh order within two months.

Zulfukar Ali vs Delhi Development Authority — NGT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

(Court No.01)

¶2

Item No. 02

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

(By Video Conferencing)

¶5

Original Application No. 111/2022

Zulfukar Ali

Applicant

Versus

Delhi Development Authority Respondent

¶10

Date of hearing: 23.03.2022

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE PROF. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. VIJAY KULKARNI, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The application is against the order of the DDA dated 17.10.2020 imposing fine of Rs. 50,000/- purporting to be in compliance of order of this Tribunal dated 15.01.2015, O.A. No. 06/2012, Manoj Mishra v. UOI & Ors. Though strictly speaking OA is not maintainable, we treat the same as application in OA 6/2012 as the impugned order purports to have been passed in view of order of this Tribunal.

¶14

According to the applicant it has been wrongly alleged that the applicant was disposing of plastic bottles into river Yamuna. He merely transporting the plastic for sale. Order of this Tribunal has been wrongly invoked without considering the view point of the Applicant.

¶15

We find merit in the contention that the order does not consider the stand of the applicant which is based on one sided version that there was dumping of malba in the river/flood plain, without any opportunity

¶16

¶17

to the applicant to present its defence, as per principles of natural justice.

¶18

Accordingly, we direct that the impugned order be treated as notice to the applicant to which the applicant may give his reply within two weeks. The DDA may pass appropriate order, after considering the stand of the applicant in accordance with law, within two months. The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶19