Disposed

Pratap Vaare Parshad v. State of Madhya Pradesh

NGT11 Jul 2025IA No. 13/2025 in Original Application No. 146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pratap Vaare challenged sewage discharge violations by a multistory building in Bhopal. The Tribunal disposed of an interim application as premature due to available alternative remedy before the State PCB. Another interim application for name correction was dismissed pending compliance. The order listed the matter for further hearing.

What did the court decide?

I.A No. 33/2024 disposed as premature; I.A No. 13/2025 disposed as decided previously; matter listed for further hearing.

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (Through Video Conferencing)

¶3

Original Application No.146/2023(CZ) ( I.A.No.33/2024) (I.A.No.13/2025)

¶4

Pratap Vaare Applicant(s) Vs.

¶5

State of M.P. & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶6

Date of Hearing: 11.07.2025

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. A SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶8

For Applicant(s):

¶9

None

¶10

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Parul Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Yadvendra Yadav, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Pranjal Karera, Adv. Mr. Prashant M. Harne, Adv. Mr. Girdhar Prasad Upwanshai, Adv

¶11

ORDER

¶12

¶13

The issue raised in this application is the violation of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 by discharging the sewage/untreated water in the open by the multistory building located in Ward No.53 within the Municipal Corporation Bhopal. It is further submitted the builders of the colony have not built underground tank or laid any line for the drainage of the sewage water and the untreated sewage water is being discharged in vacant land spreading foul smell, spill, mosquito and diseases in the entire area and also polluting the ground water.

¶14

¶15

I.A. No. 33/2024

¶16

During the course of hearing respondent no. 7 moved an application that the notice issued by the respondent no. 2/State PCB dated 16.02.2024 may be quashed on the ground as mentioned in the application. By the impugned notice president of the respondent no. 7 was informed that certain deficiencies noted in the order was found and after notice the said deficiencies were not removed. The notices were issued by the State Pollution Control Board giving an opportunity of hearing of 15 days to the respondent no.7 to submit the reply and objection, if any. The process has been initiated by the State PCB and it is a simply show cause notice and against this application I.A. is not maintainable, because the application and its disposal is pending before the State PCB. Applicant has sufficient opportunity to file an objection within the 15 days as time prescribed by the appropriate authority and the same would have been filed and it is desired that the State PCB may have to take necessary actions after disposing the above application. Since alternate remedy is available to file objection/reply before the appropriate forum, thus the application is premature and not maintainable before this Tribunal. I.A. No.33/2024 stands disposed of accordingly.

¶17

I.A. No. 13/2025

¶18

This application has been moved by the respondent no. 5 through counsel Shri Yadvendra Yadav seeking modification and correction of the name of the respondent. The application was discussed and decided vide order dated 03.04.2025 vide para 2.Thus, I.A. No. 13/2025 stands disposed of. The necessary steps be taken by the applicant, within a week.

¶19

¶20

Reply by respondent no. 3 & 6, action taken report, objection on the joint committee report and additional reply by respondent no. 3 and compliance report has been filed.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Yadvendra Yadav has submitted that notices were sent to on the correct address of respondent Mrs. Saloni Garhwal but the same has been refused. Learned Counsel representing Priyadarshni Colony/Respondent no. 6 has submitted that he has to response on the report submitted by the State PCB.

¶22

I.A. has been filed on behalf of respondent. Thus, presence of the respondent no. 7 is sufficient and is directed to file the response, if any. Learned Counsel for the State PCB Ms. Parul Bhadoria has submitted report in compliance of the order and submitted that in response to the directions issued by the National Green Tribunal opportunity of hearing was provided to the concerned and necessary orders have been issued. It is to be noted that appropriate forum against the imposition/calculation of environment compensation has to file the appeal and thus aggrieved may approach to the appropriate forum. Reply/response, if any may be filed within two weeks.

¶23

List it on 29^th August, 2025 .

¶24

Sheo Kumar Singh, JM

¶25

Dr. A Senthil Vel, EM

¶26

11^th July, 2025 O.A. No. 146/2023 (CZ) K

¶27

Pratap Vaare Parshad v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratap Vaare Parshad v. State of Madhya Pradesh

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

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Forest

Sajimon Joseph Narakathingal House vs Chief Secretary Govt of Kerala

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

Ia No. 34/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 15/2023 of Machindra Mahadeo Shinde vs Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Enterprisess

Hasmukhbhai Bahecharbhai Parmar vs Bharuch District Collector C/O Mr. Gaurang Makwana (Ias)

Naresh Vashisth vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

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

Ellora Heritage LLP vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Dulli Chand Meena vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Agarwal vs M.P Pollution Control Board

Chandikant Jha Son of Shri Vijay Kumar Jha vs Chief Secretary

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Naresh Vashisth vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change Government of India

Chitrabhan Singh Rathore vs State of Chhattisgarh through Chief Secretary (Revenue)