Partly allowed

Om Prakash Khetan and Anr. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas and Ors.

NGT16 Jul 2025Appeal No. 50/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against a closure direction for residential construction in Faridabad, the Tribunal held it was passed without a hearing. It permitted the appellant to resume work conditionally, stay the direction probe and order a hearing within ten days.

What did the court decide?

The closure direction is treated as interim; appellant permitted to continue work while complying with norms, subject to a hearing to be held by the Commission within ten days.

Om Prakash Khetan and Anr. vs Commission for Air Quality… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 50/2025

¶5

Om Prakash Khetan & Anr.

¶6

Appellant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 16.07.2025

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Kunal Anand & Ms. Atika Singh, Advocates

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this appeal filed under Section 18 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 (CAQM Act, 2021), appellant has challenged the order dated 09.07.2025 passed under Section 12 (2) (xi) of the CAQM Act, 2021 issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (CAQM) directing closure of the Construction/Demolition activities.

¶14

The case of the appellant is that they are collectively re-constructing a residential house at Plot No. 761, 762, 787, 788 at Sector – 15, Faridabad, Haryana. The construction activity is not for any commercial, industrial or speculative purpose, but the appellants are raising a new residential construction for personal use. The construction activity of the appellant was inspected at the project site on 20.06.2025 by the flying squad of the CAQM and during the inspection following deficiencies/shortcomings at the site were noticed: -

¶15

¶16

“WHEREAS, it was reported after the inspection that the plot size is more than 500m2 and the project is not registered on the Web Portal of HSPCB and self-certification has not been done by the project proponent. Further, during inspection, dust mitigation measures viz. installation of wind breakers along the project boundary, installation of dust screens around active construction zone and covering of excavated soil were not observed at site, in gross violation of the directions of the Commission and extant statutes;”

¶17

3. The CAQM in the impugned order has issued following directions

¶18

under Section 12 (2) (xi) of the Act: -

¶19

“1. The Project Proponent shall immediately close down all activities/ operations related to construction at above said site on receipt of this Direction.

¶20

2. The Project Proponent shall immediately thereafter report the closure of the work at the project site to the Commission and Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB).

¶21

3. The Project Proponent, under no circumstances, shall resume the construction /demolition activities at the site without a prior permission and an order of resumption from the Commission.

¶22

4. The DHBVNL shall, on receipt of this closure direction shall immediately initiate action towards disconnection of electrical power supply to the site / unit and report the same to the HSPCB and the Commission, at the earliest but not later than 3 days after the issue of this Direction.

¶23

5. In case of failure in compliance with the above directions, the Commission will be constrained to initiate appropriate action, in accordance with provisions under the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 and other relevant laws.”

¶24

The order of the CAQM provides for the condition for resumption of

¶25

the construction activities at the site, if the appellant complies it with the following: -

¶26

(i) After taking due corrective and preventive measures in respect of the noncompliances / violations as noted in the closure direction, the project proponent shall report the same to the Regional Officer Faridabad of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, also under advise to the headquarter office of the HSPCB.

¶27

(ii) The Regional Officer, HSPCB shall thereafter verify the corrective and preventive measures initiated by the unit / project proponent and submit a report in this context to the HSPCB headquarter office along with a recommendation for levying of EC charges, as per extant guidelines duly taking cognizance of Standard Schedule for EC charges issued by the Commission vide order dated 01.01.2025.

¶28

¶29

(iii) The HSPCB shall review the report of the Regional Officer in this context to ascertain effectiveness of actions initiated for compliance, levy appropriate EC charges on the project / unit and realise the same, from

¶30

the proponent. Thereafter, a recommendation towards resumption of activities at the site / industrial unit etc. may be made to the Commission by the HQ office of the HSPCB.

¶31

(iv) The Project Proponent shall thereafter also report compliance of all the, requisites as above to the Commission, in the form of an affidavit. The indicative procedure and guidelines for processing of the cases for resumption, including the format for the affidavit may be accessed from the Commission’s website www.caqm.nic.in Closures/Resumptions » GUIDELINES FOR RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS IN CLOSED UNITS.

¶32

(v) In exercise of powers of the Commission under Section 14 of the Act, the Member Secretary, HSPCB or an officer nominated by him is authorised to and shall also initiate action for prosecution under section 14 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021against the said unit.

¶33

The submission of counsel for the appellant is that all the deficiencies which were pointed out by the CAQM have now been cured/complied with. His further submission is that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in similar circumstances Appeal No. 44/2025 in the matter of M/s Ekdant Structure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas & Ors. have been disposed by the Tribunal by order dated 30.05.2025 with certain directions.

¶34

He has submitted that by that order the appeal was disposed of by treating the impugned order as provisional or interim order and issuing a direction to the CAQM to consider the representation and take a final decision within a time bound period and permitting the unit to operate on certain conditions till the decision is taken.

¶35

Having regard to the fact that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the appellant and without giving an opportunity of hearing and also considering the issue of parity and the statement made by the counsel for the appellant that all the deficiencies

¶36

¶37

pointed out by the CAQM have now been removed/complied with, we dispose of the Appeal by permitting the appellant to file a detailed reply/representation before the CAQM within three working days. The CAQM will give an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and will take a decision in accordance with law within ten days from the date of receipt of the appellants reply/representation. Till then, order under challenge will be treated to be interim in nature and will be subject to the order passed by the CAQM after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Till the fresh order is passed by CAQM, in terms of the above direction, appellant is permitted to continue the work complying with all the environmental norms and instructions issued by the CAQM from time to time.

¶38

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶39

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶40

Dr. Afroz Ahmad EM

¶41

July 16, 2025 Appeal No. 50/2025 AS

¶42

Om Prakash Khetan and Anr. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Khetan and Anr. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Rama Ladu Govekar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Ms Chawla Engineering Works vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee and Anr.

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board

M/S Tirupati Minerals through Its Proprietor Subham Dinesh Agrawal vs Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

R Kumar vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Tamil Nadu

Shri Krishna Virnodkar vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Association for Bilnd and Leprosy Eradication Hospital Able Charities through Its President vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board through Its Chairman

News Item Published in the Tribune Dated 16TH January 2023 Titled Joshimath Disaster a Warning for Mussoorie vs

Citizens for Green Doon Cfgd vs State of Uttarakhand

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 48/2025 in Original Application No. 739/2022 of Nyay Prayaas Foundation vs

Tikam Singh Bisht vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 46/2024 in Original Application No. 18/2023 of Mritunjay Narayan Jha vs