Disposed

Kankana Das v. Moef

NGT8 Dec 2025IA No. 47/2024 in Original Application No. 159/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal allowed the substitution of the original petitioner with a proposed party. It directed the MoEF&CC to report on the approval status of CPCB guidelines formulated from Southern State Action Plans for air pollution and fixed the matter for a video conference hearing.

What did the court decide?

Interlocutory applications for substitution and withdrawal were allowed; Petitioner Kankana Das substituted by Mr. Dharmesh Shah.

Kankana Das vs Moef — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item Nos. 1 to 3:-

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL SOUTHERN ZONE, CHENNAI

¶3

[Through Physical Hearing (Hybrid Option)]

¶4

Original Application No. 159 of 2021 (SZ) & I.A. No.47 & 48 of 2024 (SZ)

¶5

WITH

¶6

Original Application No. 245 of 2024 (SZ)

¶7

[Earlier O.A. No.1009 of 2024 (PB)]

¶8

WITH

¶9

Original Application No. 292 of 2024 (SZ)

¶10

[Earlier O.A. No.1185 of 2024 (PB)]

¶11

IN THE MATTER OF: Kankana Das, Kolkata

¶12

... Applicant(s) Versus

¶13

Union of India, Through Secretary, MoEF&CC and Ors.

¶14

...Respondent(s)

¶15

WITH

¶16

Tribunal on its own motion SUO MOTU based on the News Item in Deccan Herald dt: 20.07.2024 titled, “Karnataka among worst performing states in clean air programme spending; Bengaluru at bottom among cities” .

¶17

And

¶18

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Represented by its Chairman, New Delhi and Ors.

...Respondent(s)

WITH

Page 1 of 5

Tribunal on its own motion SUO MOTU based on the news item published in The Hindustan Times, dated: 07-09-2024, under the caption “Greenpeace research shows Air Pollution levels skyrocketing in Bengaluru, other South Indian cities : Report ” .

¶23

And

¶24

MoEF & CC, Through its Secretary, New Delhi and Ors.

¶25

... Respondent(s)

¶26

Date of hearing: 08.12.2025.

¶27

CORAM :

¶28

HON’BLE Smt. JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. PRASHANT GARGAVA, EXPERT MEMBER

¶29

O.A. No.159/2021 (S	Z):-
For Applicant(s):	Mr. Ritwick Dutta and Mr. G. Stanly Hebzon Singh.
For Respondent(s):	Mr. Meyyappan represented Mrs. Me. Sarashwathy for R1.
	Mr. D.S. Ekambaram represented
	Mrs. P. Jayalakshmi for R2.
	Dr. D. Shanmuganathan for R3.
	Mr. Azar represented
	Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R4.
	Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented
	Mr. Darpan K.M. for R5.
	Mr. Mohamed Aathic represented
	Mrs. H. Yasmeen Ali for R7.
	Mr. B. Rajaprabhakar represented
	Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R8.
	Mr. G. Vignesh represented
	Mr. K. Ravindranath for R9 & R10.
	Mr. G. Vignesh represented
	Mr. E.K. Kumaresan for R11.
	Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for R12.
	Ms. Dhanya Dheekshita represented
	Page2of5 Mr. Ramaswamy Meyyappan for R13 & R14.

¶30

O.A. No.245/2024 (SZ):-

¶31

For Applicant(s): Suo Motu. For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R1. Mr. A. Mahesh Chowdhary for R2. M/s. Y. Kavitha for R3. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw represented Mr. Darpan K.M. for R4. Mr. T.V. Sekar for R5.

¶32

O.A. No.292/2024 (SZ):-

¶33

For Applicant(s): Suo Motu.

¶34

For Respondent(s): Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu for R2. Mr. B. Rajaprabhakar represented Mr. T. Sai Krishnan for R3. Mr. G. Vignesh represented Mr. K. Ravindranath for R4. Mr. Devaraj Ashok for R5. Mr. Azar represented Mr. S. Sai Sathya Jith for R6. Mrs. V.K. Rema Smrithi for R7. Ms. Dhanya Dheekshita represented Mr. Ramaswamy Meyyappan for R8.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

1. Ms. Kankana Das, the Applicant in O.A. No. 159 of 2021 (SZ), has filed an interlocutory application [I.A. No. 47 of 2024 (SZ)], expressing her intention to withdraw her name from the matter due to unavoidable personal difficulties and prayed accordingly. The applicant has also enclosed the No Objection Letter dated 16.01.2024 along with the application.

¶37

Page 3 of 5

¶38

2. One Mr. Dharmesh Shah, the proposed party, has filed an interlocutory application [I.A. No. 48 of 2024 (SZ)], seeking substitution as the applicant in place of Ms. Kankana Das.

¶39

3. Accordingly, both applications [I.A. Nos. 47 & 48 of 2024 (SZ)] are allowed and the proposed party, Mr. Dharmesh Shah, is permitted to be substituted in place of Ms. Kankana Das.

¶40

4. The Registry is directed to carry out the necessary amendment in the cause title by substituting the name of the applicant.

¶41

5. The status report on the preparation of the State Action Plan on air pollution of the unit is filed and taken on record.

¶42

6. The matter has been pending since 2021 and similar matters are also being taken up by the Principal Bench on the same issue. Earlier, we had directed all the SPCBs and PCCs to obtain approval of the State Action Plan (SAP) from the Steering Committee and forward the same to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on or before 31.01.2025, which has been done accordingly.

¶43

7. Upon receiving the SAPs from the SPCBs and PCCs, the CPCB was directed to collate all the action plans, formulate guidelines and implement them to improve air quality.

¶44

8. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the CPCB states that the said exercise has been completed and placed before

¶45

Page 4 of 5

¶46

the MoEF&CC. Though the guidelines were submitted as early as February 2025, the matter has been pending for formal approval by the MoEF&CC, as the Clean Air Program is one of the national policies.

¶47

9. The learned counsel appearing for the MoEF&CC is unable to state whether the approval has been accorded by the MoEF&CC.

¶48

10. Therefore, we direct the MoEF&CC to file its report on the CPCB’s guidelines, which were prepared based on the Steering Committees of various southern states and indicate whether they have been approved by the MoEF&CC. Let the report be filed before the date of the next hearing, without fail.

¶49

11. We direct the Regional Director, CPCB and the concerned officer of the MoEF&CC to appear through Video Conference on the next adjourned date to assist this Tribunal.

¶50

12. Post the matter for 06.01.2026 .

¶51

Sd/Smt. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, JM

¶52

Sd/Dr. Prashant Gargava, EM

¶53

O.A. No.159/2021 (SZ), I.A. Nos.47 & 48/2024 (SZ) O.A. No.245/2024 (SZ) O.A. No.292/2024 (SZ) 08^th December, 2025. AD.

¶54

Page 5 of 5

Kankana Das v. Moef

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kankana Das v. Moef

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

Santanu Kumar Bhukta S/O Golak Bhukta Aged About 29 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

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

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

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

Rajan v vs State of Kerala

Mantu Soni vs Jharkhand Pollution Control Board

Mohid Shah vs Ms Avicenna Stones and Minerals Private Limited through Its Director

Compliance of Municipal Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016 and Other Environmental Issues. vs State of Tamil Nadu

Sama Soma Narsaiah vs Union of India

Thota Ganga Raju vs 1.THE Government of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Its Principal Secretary Water Resources (Irrigation) Department

T Kalki vs State of Tamil Nadu

Kankana Das vs Moef

Rajan v vs State of Kerala

Rajan v vs State of Kerala