Disposed

Rashi Sharma v. Harmeet Singh

NGT3 Apr 2025IA No. 117/2025 in Original Application No. 1357/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Green Tribunal examined a complaint of illegal groundwater extraction at construction sites in Delhi. It considered joint committee reports, DPCC inspection findings citing violations, and DPCC imposed environmental compensation. All party replies were admitted.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing reply affidavit condoned; parties allowed time to file objections to joint committee report; matter listed for future hearing.

Rashi Sharma vs Harmeet Singh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 07

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No.1357/2024 (I.A. No.117/2025)

¶5

Rashi Sharma Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Harmeet Singh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 03.04.2025

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Ms. Rashi Sharma, Applicant in Person Respondent Ms. Simran Jot Singh & Mr. Neil Mukherjee, Advs. for R - 1 Mr. Roshan Santhalia, Adv. for R - 2 Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur & Mr. Aditya Verma, Advs. for R - 3 Ms. Puja S. Kalra & Mr. Virendra Singh, Advs. for R - 4 Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for R - 7 & 8 Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for SDM, Civil Lines, GNCTD Mr. Om Prakash, ASI, Police Station, Roop Nagar, North Delhi

¶11

ORDER

¶12

In this original application, Tribunal is examining the complaint of the applicant that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are illegally extracting groundwater from the borewell at 43 and 42A Bungalow Road (Western Side) near Kamlanagar Market, Delhi for commercial construction.

¶13

Tribunal by order dated 11.12.2024 had appointed a joint committee which has submitted the report dated 25.01.2025. Joint committee has found that bungalow no. 42A and 43, each have one borewell. Observations of the joint committee are as under:-

¶14

“1. Total number of Borewells at each site i.e. Bungalow no. 42A and 43 is 01 (one). The photographs of the site visit are placed as Annexure-II.

¶15

2. Both the mentioned sites are under construction phase during visit and were using the borewell supplied water for construction

¶16

¶17

purpose. The photographs of the construction activity is placed as Annexure-III.

¶18

3. As per the information provided by the site Incharges, at these two sites the certificate of registrations of wells has been issued by Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA). Copy of the registration certificates for Bungalow no. 42A and 43 are placed as AnnexureIV and Annexure V respectively. Date of issuance of certificate is not available for the site Bungalow no. 43.

¶19

4. However, no metering was observed at the borewells at the two above mentioned sites.

¶20

5. However, validity of registration of borewells may be verified with CGWA.”

¶21

Above observations reveal that there is no meter in the borewells and though registration certificates have been issued by Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) but date of issuance of certificate is not available for site bungalow no. 43.

¶22

Learned Counsel for the applicant has pointed out that in terms of the 2010 notification, power to issue NOC lies with the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and it is not with CGWA. She has pointed out that certificate of registration of borewell, annexure A-4 enclosed with the joint committee report and has submitted that it does not contain any date or validity period.

¶23

Though, CGWA has been impleaded as respondent no.7 but no reply on behalf of CGWA has been filed till now.

¶24

Sh. Gigi. C. George, Learned Counsel has accepted the notice by submitting that he has also not received the instructions till now.

¶25

Respondent no.2 along with reply dated 18.02.2025 has filed reply to the RTI application submitted to the information officer of the CGWA as annexure-A-4 wherein details of licenses have been disclosed. Chairman, CGWA is required to ascertain under which authority licenses annexure A-4 enclosed with the joint committee report were issued that

¶26

¶27

too without containing any date or validity period. He will find out if these licenses are validly issued, if not, the officer/person responsible for issuing such a license and will take appropriate action against him.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the applicant and CGWA have sought four weeks’ time to file the reply. Counsel for the applicant will supply a copy of the OA along with all the annexures to Counsel for the respondent no.7.

¶29

Respondent no.6-Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) has also filed the report which reveals that inspection of the construction site was done on 25.10.2024 and following was found on inspection:-

¶30

“3 That, answering respondent on the basis of the complaints, had inspected the construction sites on 25.10.2024. The details of the inspection are as follows:

¶31

(a) M/s SS Buildwell C/o Sh. Ranjit Singh Kohli, 43, Bungalow Road, Kamla Nagar:

¶32

Dust/wind breaking walls of appropriate height around the periphery of the construction site had not compliance.

¶33

Tarpaulin or green-net on scaffolding around the arca underconstruction and the building was not compliance.

¶34

No wheel washing arrangement of vehicles was observed.

¶35

All construction debris and construction material of any kind should be stored on the site and not dumped on public roads or pavements were not compliance.

¶36

No loose soil or sand or Construction & Demolition waste or any other construction material that causes dust shall be left uncovered were not compliance.

¶37

Unpaved surfaces and areas had not been adequately sprinkling with water to suppress dust.

¶38

No dust-mask on workers working in construction site.

¶39

No Arrangement for Medical Help present on site.

¶40

No dust mitigation measure had been displayed prominently at the construction site for easy public viewing

¶41

Illegal Ground water extraction for Commercial usage.

¶42

(b) M/s Sprecrtrum Construction, C/o Sh. R.D. Singh & Sh. Anil Bagai. 42A, Bungalow Road, Kamla Nagar:

¶43

¶44

Dust/wind breaking walls of appropriate height around the periphery of the construction site was not compliance.

¶45

Tarpaulin or green-net on scaffolding around the area underconstruction and the building was not compliance.

¶46

No wheel washing arrangement of vehicles was observed.

¶47

All construction debris and construction material of any kind should be stored on the site and not dumped on public roads or pavements were not compliance

¶48

No loose soil or sand or Construction & Demolition waste or any other construction material that causes dust shall be left uncovered were not compliance,

¶49

Unpaved surfaces and areas had not been adequately sprinkling with water to suppress dust.

¶50

No dust-mask on workers working in construction site.

¶51

No Arrangement for Medical Help present on site.

¶52

No dust mitigation measure had been displayed prominently at the construction site for easy public viewing.

¶53

Illegal Ground Water extraction for Commercial usage.

¶54

C&D site was not registered on DPCC dust portal.”

¶55

10. Above inspection details reveal that illegal ground water extraction

¶56

for commercial uses among other defaults and violation was noticed on

¶57

the spot inspection, therefore, DPCC has taken the following action:-

¶58

“ 4 That letter's were issued to DM (Central) on 13.11.2024 asking to take necessary action for stoppage of unauthorized extraction of ground water by the occupier(s). Copies of the letter dated 13.11.2024 are enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-..(Colly).

¶59

M/s SS Buildwell C/o Sh. Ranjit Singh Kohli, 43, Bungalow Road, Kamla Nagar

¶60

5. That, in view of the finding of the inspection, a Show Cause Notice for imposition of Environmental Compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs was issued on 13.11.2024. Project Proponent has submitted reply on 25.11.2024 with respect to SCN dated 13.11.2024, reply was found not satisfactory, therefore, DPCC had issued direction for imposition of Environmental Compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs on 30.12.2024. Copy of the direction dated 30.12.2024 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE-.

¶61

M/s Sprecrtrum Construction, C/o Sh. R.D. Si 42A, Bungalow Road. Kamla Nagerı Singli & Sh. Anil Bagai

¶62

6. The plot is more than 500 Sqm and site had not been registered on Dust Portal of DPCC, which was in violation of CAQM directions as well as the direction of GRAP Stage-1. Therefore, DPCC had issued direction for compliance of GRAP Stage-1 on 13.11.2024 and directed to stop

¶63

¶64

construction at the site and register on the Dust Portal of DPCC. Copy of the direction dated 13.11.2024 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE.

¶65

7. That, in view of the finding of the inspection, a Show Cause Notice for imposition of Environmental Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs on 13.11.2024 was issued. Project Proponent has not submitted reply with respect to SCN dated 13.11.2024, therefore, DPCC had issued direction for imposition of Environmental Compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs on 30.12.2024, Copy of the direction dated 30.12.2024 is enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE.”

¶66

Learned Counsel for respondent no.9 SDM has informed that both these borewells have been sealed on 28.01.2025.

¶67

It will be open to all the parties to file objection to the report of the joint committee within four weeks.

¶68

Respondent no.1 has filed the reply dated 28.03.2025.

¶69

Respondent no.2 has also the filed the reply dated 18.02.2025.

¶70

I.A. No.117/2025: this IA has been filed by respondent no.2 for condonation of delay in filing the reply affidavit. On due consideration, delay is condoned and reply is taken on record. IA No.117/2025 accordingly stands disposed of.

¶71

List on 06.08.2025.

¶72

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶73

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶74

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶75

April 03, 2025 Original Application No.1357/2024 (I.A. No.117/2025) JG..

¶76

Rashi Sharma v. Harmeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rashi Sharma v. Harmeet Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bachiter Singh vs State of Punjab

Vinay Shrivastav vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Aranya Parisara Mathu Havamana Badalavane Sangha vs Union of India

Vernon Rodrigues vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

News Item Titled "Paint Factory Fire in Delhi,S Alipur Claims 11 Lives 4 Injured" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 16.02.2024 vs

Vikram Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

News Item Titled "Notified Aravalli Forest Portion Sold for Mining" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 15.09.2024 vs

Pintu Dutta vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Bachiter Singh vs State of Punjab

Bachiter Singh vs State of Punjab

Vinay Shrivastav vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Hardik Bhanot vs State of Haryana through Additional Chief Secretary Department of Forest and Environment

Vikram Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

News Item Titled "Paint Factory Fire in Delhi,S Alipur Claims 11 Lives 4 Injured" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 16.02.2024 vs