Disposed

Sudhir Kumar Jha v. Gorakhpur Development Authority through Chief Secretary

NGT6 Feb 2025IA No. 572/2024 in Original Application No. 1057/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application alleging environmental violations including construction on a notified wetland and unauthorized floating restaurants at Ramgarh Taal Lake, the NGT issued notice to respondents and listed the matter for a reply.

What did the court decide?

Issue of notice to respondents; preliminary applications allowed; early hearing application dismissed.

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs Gorakhpur Development Authority… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 18

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 1057/2024 (I.A. Nos. 617/2024, 572/2024, 571/2024 & 502/2024)

Sudhir Kumar Jha

Applicant

Versus

Gorakhpur Development Authority

¶9

& Ors. Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 06.02.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Ms. Rupali Pawar & Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, Advs. for Applicant Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Swami, Adv. for R - 5 Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for R - 4 (Through VC)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this original application, the plea of the applicant is that Ramgarh Taal, a Lake is situated in City of Gorakhpur.

¶15

The applicant alleges that Gorakhpur Development Authority is constructing JSR Garden for which authority is enveiling the Ramgarh Taal Lake in contravention of the guidelines.

¶16

The submission of Learned Counsel for the applicant is that Ramgarh Taal is a notified wetland. In this regard, she has referred to notification dated 07.12.2020 (page 163) notifying Ramgarh Taal as wetland.

¶17

Further grievance of the Counsel for the applicant is that a company named Lake Queen has started the cruise in Ramgarh Taal and

¶18

¶19

is offering various services such as fine buffet, dining options for the customers and w.e.f. 19.09.2024 a new restaurant is inaugurated by the name of “Float” which is built in the shape of boat having three story with the entertainment facilities such as live music, party halls etc. and this restaurant is on the lake.

¶20

Applicant has also alleged that there is construction work in full swing near the lake by respondent no.6 K. K. Group. In support of the submission of such construction, the Counsel for the applicant has relied upon the photographs on page 226.

¶21

I.A. No. 571/2024 has been filed by the applicant seeking permission to place additional documents on record. On due consideration, IA is allowed.

¶22

Applicant has also filed IA No.502/2024 for the impleadment of the concerned parties involved in running the floating restaurant, cruise and construction near the lake. On due consideration, IA is allowed. applicant is directed to amend the cause title.

¶23

So far as IA No. 617/2024 an application for early hearing is concerned, the same has become infructuous with the lapse of time. Accordingly, dismissed as such.

¶24

I.A. No. 572/2024- is an application of condonation of delay in filing the application for impleadment and additional documents. Tribunal by order dated 12.08.2024, had permitted the applicant to place on record further material to show violation of the environmental norms in the course of construction. There was a delay in placing on record such material. Hence, this IA has been filed, which is allowed on due consideration.

¶25

¶26

Issue notice in the OA.

¶27

Ms. Priyanka Swami, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 5- State of UP and seeks four weeks to obtain instructions and file reply.

¶28

Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no. 4- UPPCB and seeks four weeks to file reply.

¶29

Applicant is directed to serve all other respondents including newly added respondents after amending the cause title and file affidavit of service before the next date of hearing.

¶30

List on 15.05.2025.

¶31

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶32

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶33

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶34

February 06, 2025 Original Application No. 1057/2024 (I.A. Nos. 617/2024, 572/2024, 571/2024 & 502/2024) JG..

¶35

Sudhir Kumar Jha v. Gorakhpur Development Authority through Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudhir Kumar Jha v. Gorakhpur Development Authority through Chief Secretary

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

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

1. Jharana Dehury Aged About 39 Years vs 1. Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Environment Forests and Climate Change

Tribunal on Its Own Motion Suo Motu Based on the News Item in the Indian Express Dt 03RD November 2023 Titled Tn Activists Allege Drinking Water Supplied from Madambakkam Lake in Tambaram Contaminated With Sewage Civic Body Disagrees vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Shri Omprakash Somani vs 1. State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Kissan Udey Samiti vs State of Haryana

Praveen Kumar Gautam vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajiv Aggarwal vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Sanjay vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Saira Begum vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs Gorakhpur Development Authority through Chief Secretary

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs Gorakhpur Development Authority through Chief Secretary

Sudhir Kumar Jha vs Gorakhpur Development Authority through Chief Secretary