Disposed

Farukh Chouhan v. State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

NGT7 May 2025IA No. 55/2025 in Original Application No. 528/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of Original Application No. 528/2024 regarding alleged illegal sand mining. The court held that subsequent developments, including the cancellation of Environmental Clearance and imposition of compensation, rendered further orders unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The original application and all pending interim applications are disposed of as no further orders are required due to subsequent developments.

Farukh Chouhan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh — NGT (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 13

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 528/2024 (IA Nos. 54/2025 & 55/2025)

¶5

Farukh Chouhan Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

SEIAA, UP & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 07.05.2025

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Rahul Choudhary & Mr. Kaustav Dhar, Advs.

¶11

Respondents: Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lalit Mohan, Ms. Srishti Mishra & Mr. Videh Vaish, Advs. in I.A No. 54-55/2025 Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for the State of UP & SEIAA, UP Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shubham Upadhyay & Mr. Surya Gupata, Advs. for R - 6 Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv. for the State of UP Mr. Amit Shukla, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Chaitanya Kansra & Mr. Atul Mishra, Advs. for UPPCB

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this Original Application (OA), the allegation of the applicant was

¶14

that Respondent No. 6 was carrying out illegal mining of sand/morrum from the Yamuna riverbed at Gata No. 621 ma, 622 ma in Mandawar village, Kairana Tehsil, Shamli District, UP in an area admeasuring 20.34 ha..

¶15

The Tribunal had appointed the joint Committee by order dated 13.05.2024 and the joint Committee had submitted the report on 06.08.2024 disclosing the violations by the Respondent-Project Proponent. The objection to the report of the joint Committee have been filed.

¶16

¶17

The Tribunal thereafter on 27.01.2025 considering the report of the joint Committee and the fact that the despite the opportunity, the reply of the Respondent No. 6 was not filed within time and also noticing that it was a case of illegal mining, had passed the interim order directing till the next date of hearing the mining activities by Respondents No. 6 and 7 in the area concerned will remain stayed. This order was subject matter of challenge by the Respondent No. 7 on the ground that he was not served, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3537/2025 which was disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2025. In the order under challenge in the appeal, the Tribunal had recorded that newly added Respondent no. 7 was served and affidavit of service was filed. Hence, the appeal was disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2025 permitting the Respondent No. 7 to appear before the Tribunal and seek recall of the order. A separate review application has been filed by the Respondent no. 7 being RA No. 14/2025.

¶18

Learned counsel for the UP PCB has also informed that cost imposed upon the UP PCB by order dated 27.01.2025 has already been deposited.

¶19

It has been pointed by the learned counsel appearing for the SEIAA, UP that on account of subsequent development nothing survives in this OA. She referred to the order dated 07.03.2025 whereby the Environmental Clearance granted to the Respondent No. 6 has been cancelled. She has further submitted that before passing the order of cancellation of Environmental Clearance two show causes notices were given to the Respondent No. 6 but no reply was filed.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the UP PCB also submits that the show cause notices were given to the Respondent No. 6 for imposition of

¶21

¶22

the environmental compensation but no response was filed. Hence the order dated 19.11.2024 has been passed imposing the environmental compensation of Rs. 34,52,475/- upon the Respondent No. 6.

¶23

Learned counsel for the State has also informed that RC has already been issued for recovery of the environmental compensation imposed by the UP PCB. He has further submitted that the penalty has been imposed by the District Magistrate by order dated 20.02.2023 for carrying out the illegal mining and three notices have been sent to the concerned District Magistrate for recovery of the said penalty.

¶24

Learned counsel UP PCB has informed that so far as Respondent No. 7 is concerned its CTO has expired in December, 2024. Learned counsel for the State has also informed that Respondent No. 7 is not presenting operating and its lease is going to expire within one month.

¶25