Allowed

Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Pilkhuwa v. Commission for Air Quality Management in Ncr

NGT11 Nov 2025Appeal No. 66/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an appeal against a CAQM closure order, holding that since no show-cause notice was issued, the appeal will be treated as provisional. The Tribunal permitted the appellant to temporarily operate the plant pending a hearing and final decision, directing power restoration.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the appellant to temporarily operate the plant pending a hearing and final decision; directed CAQM to conduct a hearing within 10 days and restore the electricity supply.

Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Pilkhuwa vs… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 27

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 66/2025

¶5

M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Pilkhuwa

¶6

Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 11.11.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Appellant: Mr. Pinaki Misra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Mr. Arjun Nanda & Ms. Vanshika Jhamb, Advs. for Appellant

¶13

Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Adv. for CAQM

¶14

Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Mr. Shivansh Sharma, Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi & Ms. Anjali Sharma, Advs. for R - 2 to 5

¶15

Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for R - 3 & 4

¶16

ORDER

¶17

This appeal under Section 18 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 has been filed by the Appellant challenging the closure order dated 28.10.2025 passed by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) under Section 12(2)(xi) of the Act directing the closure of all industrial operations/activities by the Appellant alongwith further consequential directions.

¶18

The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that the Appellant is a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Dairy Development Board and the daily production of the Appellant’s unit is about 9 lacs litres of milk and milk products. The Appellant is operating since last several years and it collects milk from approximately 70,000 -

¶19

¶20

90,000 farmers on a daily basis having a robust collection and processing system. Further submission of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that the Consent to Operate under the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 was given to the Appellant on 27.12.2017 by the UPPCB taking into account all the three boilers and mentioning the same in the consent condition. On the expiry of the said consent, the Appellant had applied for renewal of the consent disclosing all the three boilers. But while issuing the fresh CTO dated 29.11.2024, the UPPCB had mentioned only two boilers and had left out the third boiler. Therefore, the applicant had submitted the representation dated 20.01.2025 to the RO, UPPCB pointing out this lapse and making a request for correction of Consolidated Consent and Authorization. He submits that the said issue remains pending, therefore, the operation of third boiler was stopped from 29.05.2025 to 27.09.2025 and in the meanwhile, the Flying Squad of the CAQM had conducted the inspection on 20.09.2025 when the third boiler of was closed. He submits that on the basis of the said inspection, without issuing any show cause notice and without giving an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed.

¶21

3. The impugned order records the following violations:

¶22

“WHEREAS, it was reported after the inspection that Unit is operating on rice husk. CTO mentions two boiler but three boilers were found installed in the unit. The OCEMS readings recorded on 19.09.2025 were consistently observed to exceed the prescribed limit of 80 mg/Nm³ .

¶23

WHEREAS, the Enforcement Task Force constituted by the Commission vide Order dated 08.01.2025, based on the report submitted by the flying squad, has examined the matter in its meeting held on 26.09.2025;

¶24

WHEREAS, Industrial pollution is a major contributing sector towards deterioration of air quality in the NCR and the facts in this case are apparent and explicit, it is felt that issuing a show cause notice will be a mere empty formality and is likely to defeat the very purpose of the action being taken to control air pollution in the region;”

¶25

¶26

In the impugned order dated 28.10.2025, the CAQM had issued the

¶27

following directions under Section 12(2)(xi) of the Act:

¶28

“NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the above and in exercise of the powers of the Commission by the Enforcement Task Force, under Section 12(2)(xi) of the Act, read with explanation, the following directions are issued to the said unit for strict compliance:

¶29

1. The unit shall immediately close down all its industrial operations / activities on receipt of this Direction.

¶30

2. The unit shall immediately thereafter report the closure of the unit to the Commission and Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB).

¶31

3. The unit, under no circumstances, shall resume operations without prior permission and an order of resumption from the Commission.

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

the activities by the Appellant on compliance of the following conditions:

¶35

“6. For consideration of resumption of operations in the unit, the following needs to be complied with:

¶36

(i) After taking due corrective and preventive measures, in respect of the non-compliances / violations as noted in the closure direction, the project proponent shall report the same to the Regional Officer Hapur of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, also under advise to the headquarter office of the UPPCB.

¶37

(ii) The Regional Officer, UPPCB shall thereafter verify the corrective and preventive measures initiated by the unit / project proponent and submit a report in this context to the UPPCB 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 & 05.06.2025.

¶38

(iii) The UPPCB 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 for all categories of violations as noted in this direction and realise the same, from 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 UPPCB,

¶39

¶40

(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.

¶41

(v) In exercise of powers of the Commission under Section 14 of the Act, the Member Secretary, UPPCB shall also initiate action for prosecution under section 14 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 against the said unit.”

¶42

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 was e-mailed on the wrong address which is mentioned in the first page of the order, therefore, the Appellant was not aware of the passing of the impugned order. He further submits that in compliance of the directions contained in the impugned order, the PVVNL has disconnected the electricity supply yesterday at 7:30 pm after a copy of this appeal was served upon them. He submits that atleast one million liters of milk is lying stored in silos which will be spoiled and thousands of farmers from whom the milk is collected will be affected and the supply of milk in Delhi and NCR will also be affected. He has submitted that the Appellant will not operate third boiler till the issue is resolved and will also comply with all the requisite norms, especially concerning the stack emission.

¶43

It has been brought to our notice 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. has been disposed of by the Tribunal by the order dated 30.05.2025 with certain directions and following the same another Appeal No. 50/2025 in the matter of Om Prakash Khetan & Anr. vs. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and

¶44

¶45

Adjoining Areas & Ors. was disposed of by the Tribunal by the order dated 16.07.2025.

¶46

Learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has further submitted that after the impugned order came to the knowledge of the Appellant, the detailed reply dated 09.11.2025 alongwith all the supporting material was submitted to the CAQM. He has stated that the Appellant will submit the additional reply within a short time to the CAQM and the appeal be disposed of by treating the impugned order as provisional or interim and issuing a direction to the CAQM to consider the representation/reply of the Appellant and take a final decision within a time bound period and meanwhile, the Appellant may be permitted to operate on certain conditions till the decision is taken.

¶47

Having regard to the fact that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice to the Appellant and without giving any opportunity of hearing and also the consequences which have been pointed by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant which will result in the closure of the Appellant’s plant and taking it into account the issue of parity and the statement made by learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that it will not operate the third boiler and will comply with all the requisite norms, we dispose of the Appeal permitting the Appellant to file the detailed supplementary reply/representation before the CAQM within three days. The CAQM will give an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and will take a decision in accordance with law within 10 days from the date of receipt of the Appellant’s additional reply/representation. Till then, the 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 the CAQM in terms of the above direction, the Appellant is permitted to operate the plant by

¶48

¶49

complying with all the environmental norms and instructions issued by the CAQM from time to time.

¶50