Partly allowed

Ashish Kothari v. the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT21 Nov 2025IA No. 111/2025 in Original Application No. 93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal granted interim relief to limit adjudication to pleadings on record, rejecting prayers to expunge the report or direct it to be served, due to national security considerations while ensuring the report was not decisively relied upon.

What did the court decide?

Allowed IA No. 108/2025/EZ and IA No. 110/2025/EZ to limit adjudication to pleadings; rejected IA No. 109/2025/EZ and IA No. 111/2025/EZ seeking direction to serve the report.

Ashish Kothari vs the Ministry of Environment… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item Nos. 1 to 3

¶2

(Kolkata Bench)

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA [THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶4

Original Application No. 93/2024/EZ (IA No. 80/2024/EZ, I.A. No. 110/2025/EZ, I.A No.111/2025/EZ)

¶5

WITH

¶6

Original Application No. 95/2024/EZ (I.A No. 108/2025/EZ, I.A No. 109/2025/EZ)

¶7

WITH

¶8

M.A No. 23/2024/EZ In

¶9

Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ

¶10

Ashish Kothari Applicant

Versus

MoEF& CC & Ors.

Respondent(s)

Date of hearing: 21.11.2025

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶16

Applicants: Mr. Yogeshwaran, Adv. with Ms. Poongkhulali B, Advocate for the Applicant in O.A. No. 93/2024/EZ, 95/2024/EZ and M.A. No.23/2024/EZ, (physically present)

¶17

Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Advocate, Masooma Rizvi, Advocate, Ms. Sista Srinivas, Advocate Ms. Aanya Shrotriya, Ms. Supraja V., Advocates and Shri Amardeep Raju, Scientist, MoEF&CC for R-1,

¶18

Ms. Manisha Chava, Advocate, Ms. Smita Salve, Advocate, Mr. Apurba Ghosh, Advocate for Respondent No.1 in O.A. No.93/2024/EZ, O.A. No.95/2024/EZ and M.A. No.23/2024/EZ (through VC).

¶19

Mr. Ashok Prasad, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in O.A. No.93/2024/EZ, O.A. No. 95/2024/EZ and M.A. No.23/2024/EZ (through VC).

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The final arguments in these original applications had commenced

¶22

on 17.09.2025 when learned Counsel for the Applicant was heard. Thereafter, learned ASG had concluded her argument for the Respondent

¶23

¶24

No. 1 and the matter was adjourned for the arguments by learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and for rejoinder arguments of the Applicant. Thereafter on 19.11.2025 when the matter was at the final stage of concluding arguments, learned Counsel for the Applicant has filed IA No. 108/2025/EZ in OA No. 95/2024/EZ and IA No. 110/2025/EZ in OA No. 93/2024/EZ for expunging the report of the High-Powered Committee with the following prayers:

¶25

“A. Expunge the report of the High-Powered Committee which was circulated by the respondent to the Hon'ble Tribunal in a sealed cover during the course of the hearing of the applications on 30.10.2025 without providing a copy to the Applicants, from the record of the present proceedings in the interest of principles of natural justice and limit its consideration to the pleadings on record filed by the respective parties and thus render justice.

¶26

B. Issue such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and thus render justice.”

¶27

Other IA’s, being IA No. 109/2025/EZ in OA No. 95/2024/EZ and IA No. 111/2025/EZ in OA No. 93/2024/EZ have been filed by the Applicant seeking a direction to the Respondent No. 1 to serve/furnish a copy of the report of the High-Powered Committee.

¶28

Submission of learned Counsel for the Applicant is that either a copy of the report of the High-Powered Committee should be supplied to the Counsel for the Applicant or the adjudication of the OA should be limited to the pleadings on record filed by the respective parties. He further submits that consideration of such a report without supplying a copy thereof to the Applicant would violate the principle of natural justice. He has further submitted that there was no plea of national security raised in the matter, therefore, the oral argument in this regard for denying a copy of the report should not be accepted. In support of such a submission, he has placed reliance upon the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India & Anr. ,

¶29

¶30

reported in 1981 (Supp) SCC 87 , Manohar Lal Sharma vs. Union of India & Ors ., reported in (2023) 11 SCC 401 , Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd v. Union of India , reported in (2023) 13 SCC 401 and CDR Amit Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors ., reported in (2023) 20 SCC 486 .

¶31

Learned Counsel for the Respondent has orally opposed the IA’s by submitting that these applications are highly belated, hence, should be rejected on the ground of delay. She has fairly stated that there is no objection if the OA is decided on the basis of the pleading and if the report of the High-Powered Committee is not considered and taken into account. She has further submitted that the plea of national security was taken in the pleadings earlier and it is not a new plea.

¶32

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the records, we notice that in the IA No. 108/2025/EZ and IA No. 110/2025/EZ, the prayer of the Applicant is to limit the adjudication of the OA to the pleadings on record filed by the respective parties.

¶33

On showing the report of the High-Powered Committee at the time of final arguments by the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, the Tribunal was assured that such a report of the High-Powered Committee which is mentioned in the pleadings of the Respondent No. 1 exists and the material disclosed in the pleadings corroborates with the report of the High-Powered Committee. The report of the High-Powered Committee has not been supplied to the Applicant on the plea of national security not it has been placed on record as the same was immediately returned to Counsel for MoEF&CC after brief perusal. Hence, considering the judgments relied upon by Counsel for the Applicant, we do not intend to go beyond the pleadings and rely upon any part of the report of the HighPowered Committee which is not on record. Thus, we allow IA No.

¶34

¶35

108/2025/EZ and IA No. 110/2025/EZ. Consequently, we reject the prayer made in IA No. 109/2025/EZ and IA No. 111/2025/EZ.

¶36

Concluding his arguments on merit, learned ASG appearing for Respondent No. 2 has submitted that he is adopting the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and will abide by whatever order is passed by the Tribunal.

¶37

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant has concluded his arguments in rejoinder.

¶38

All the parties have concluded their arguments.

¶39

Reserved for orders.

¶40

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶41

Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM Afroz Ahmad, EM Ishwar Singh, EM

¶42

November 21, 2025 Original Application No. 93/2024/EZ IA 80/2024/EZ Original Application No. 95/2024/EZ M.A No. 23/2024/EZ In Appeal No. 32/2022/EZ dv

¶43

Ashish Kothari v. the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Kothari v. the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Minering Aggregates Private Limited vs Sieaa

Dheeraj Tiwari vs Chhattishgarh Environment Conservation Board

Ia No. 135/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 7/2024 of National Green Tribunal Southern Zone vs the Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu Public Works Department

Vikash Kumar Pathak vs State of Bihar

Balaji Dhar vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation

K Selvaraj vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Ashish Kothari vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ashish Kothari vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ashish Kothari vs the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change