Disposed

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management

NGT8 Dec 2025Appeal No. 67/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal considered an appeal challenging a closure direction against a construction site. The court permitted the appellant to approach the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board for compliance assessment, directing authorities to expedite the process for potential resumption of operations.

What did the court decide?

Permitted appellant to approach RO, Greater Noida, UPPCB; directed UPPCB to act expeditiously and CAQM to decide on resumption within one week of receiving final compliance report.

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 22

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 67/2025

¶5

M/s R.S. Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 08.12.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Yadav & Mr. Kumar Abhishek, Advocates for Appellant Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Atrey and Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advs. for R – 1 (CAQM)

¶12

ORDER

¶13

By this appeal filed under Section 18 of Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM) in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021, appellant has challenged the closure direction dated 03.06.2024 issued by CAQM under Section 12(2)(xi) of CAQM Act, 2021.

¶14

This appeal has been filed on 15.10.2025.

¶15

Submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant is that conditions for resumption as contained in the impugned order have been complied with and compliance report dated 30.01.2025 was submitted to Under Secretary, CAQM, therefore, appellant is entitled to resume the operation.

¶16

Submission of Learned Counsel for the CAQM is that though appeal is barred by time but since the issue of resumption has been raised, therefore, in terms of Clause 6(i) of the impugned order, appellant is required to approach the UPPCB at the first instance for assessment of EC for the past violation.

¶17

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that construction/demolition site of the appellant

¶18

¶19

project was inspected by flying squad of CAQM on 16.05.2024 and during the inspection certain short-comings/non-compliances were noted which

¶20

are mentioned in the impugned order as under:-

¶21

“WHEREAS, it was reported after the inspection that the plot size is more than 500 Sq.Mtrs. but the project is not registered on the Web Portal of UPPCB and no self-certification of the project has been done on the web portal. Further, no anti-smog guns found against a mandatory requirement of four (4) numbers, furthermore, no wind breaker and water sprinkling were observed, and construction material was found lying uncovered at the site, in gross violation of the directions of the Commission and extant statutes;”

¶22

Paragraph 6 of the impugned order itself provides for resumption of the activity by the project proponent on compliance of certain conditions mentioned therein. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order reads as under:-

¶23

“6. For consideration of resumption of construction activities at the site, the following need to be complied with:

¶24

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, Greater Noida of the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, also under advice to the headquarter office of the UPPCB.

¶25

ii. The Regional Officer, Greater Noida, 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 Environmental Compensation (EC) charges, as per extant guidelines.

¶26

iii. The UPPCB shall review the report of the Regional Officer in this context to ascertain actions initiated for compliance, levy appropriate EC charges on the project/unit and realize 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.

¶27

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 under Closures/Resumptions - Guidelines for resumption of operations in closed units.

¶28

v. In exercise of powers of the Commission under Section 14 of the Act, the Member Secretary, UPPCB or an officer nominated and authorized shall also initiate action for prosecution under Section 14

¶29

¶30

of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 against the said unit.”

¶31

Though the appellant has submitted the compliance report dated 30.01.2025 but undisputedly appellant has not approached the RO, Greater Noida, UPPCB in terms of the Clause 6(i) of the impugned order. After receiving the said compliance, RO is required to take action in terms of Clause 6(ii) of the impugned order and UPPCB is required to do the review in terms of Clause 6(iii) and thereafter project proponent is required to report compliance of all the requisites to the CAQM in terms of Clause 6 (iv).

¶32

Since the appellant is required to do the needful in terms of Clause 6(i) of the impugned order which has not been done till now, therefore, we accept the prayer made by Counsel for the appellant to permit him to approach the RO, Greater Noida, UPPCB within one week and on submission of such a report, UPPCB will take action in terms of Clause 6 (i) to 6(iii) as expeditious as possible and preferably within a period of three weeks. Thereafter on submission of compliance report in terms of Clause 6(iv), CAQM will take requisite decision within a period of one week. If it is found by authorities that the needful in terms of Clause 6 has been done, necessary orders for resumption of operation will be passed by CAQM without any delay.

¶33

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶35

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶36

December 08, 2025 Appeal No. 67/2025 JG.

¶37

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms Klj Petroplast Ltd. vs Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

M/S Neeta Polycots vs the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

M/S. Mabel Hayes Inc. vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S Gurukrupa Stone Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Freedom Park Life Aoa vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Surti Mohammed Irfan vs State of Gujarat

News Item Titled "Andekhi: Khanan Maafia Khuleaam Kar Rahe Visfot Janjeevan Asurakshit Dahshat: Mandiron-Schoolo Tak Gunj Rahe Dhamake Kaksha Mei Kaamp Jaate Hai Bachche" Appearing in the Rajasthan Patirka Dated 24.11.2025 vs

M/S Neeta Polycots vs the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

M/S Neeta Polycots vs the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Mohammad Kamar S/O Shri Mohammad Faruk vs 1. M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Distillery Division

Bhagwan Singh vs

Girdhari Lal Constructions Private Limited vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas