Disposed

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

NGT2 Dec 2025IA No. 762/2025 in Appeal No. 71/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT allowed an appeal challenging a closure order issued for operating without a Consent to Operate. The Court permitted the appellant to submit compliance material to the Authority for a decision on resumption within two days and directed the Pollution Control Board to initiate Environmental Compensation proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Permitted appellant to approach CAQM for decision on resumption within two days upon submission of compliance material.

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 71/2025 (I.A. No. 762/2025)

¶5

M/s Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd.

¶6

Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Respondent

¶9

Date of hearing: 02.12.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Appellant: Mr. Rahul Khurana & Mr. Hasil Jain, Advocates

¶12

Respondent: Dr. Abhishek Atrey and Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advs. for R – 1

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this Appeal filed under section 18 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 (CAQM Act, 2021), appellant has challenged the closure direction dated 19.09.2025 issued under section 12 (2) (xi) of the CAQM Act, 2021. The counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the appellant and without complying with the principles of natural justice and the appellant has subsequently obtained the Consent to Operate (CTO) on 15.11.2025 and has also purchased compliant DG set.

¶15

Learned counsel for the CAQM on advance notice has submitted that the inspection was carried out by the team on 21.08.2025 and violations were noted and it was also found that the appellant unit falls in the red category and was having the DG set of 125 KVA and was operating without the CTO.

¶16

¶17

The impugned order itself in paragraph 6 mentions the condition of resumption of operation by the unit. If the unit is complying with all the norms and has cured the deficiencies / lapses pointed out by the CAQM in the impugned order, then necessary action of resumption is required to be taken. The stand of the appellant is that the deficiencies have now been cured and the appellant unit should be allowed to operate.

¶18

Learned counsel for the CAQM has assured that if the appellant approaches CAQM during the course of the day by appropriate representation along with the material disclosing that the appellant is complying with all the norms, the needful in terms of clause 6 of the impugned order will be done by the CAQM within two days.

¶19

In such circumstances, we dispose of the appeal permitting the appellant to approach the CAQM during the course of the day by submitting a detailed representation with all the supporting material. On receipt of the same, CAQM will take appropriate decision in terms of clause 6 of the impugned order within two days.

¶20

In terms of clause 6 (ii) of the impugned order the Environmental Compensation (EC) is required to be levied by the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB). Hence, the UPPCB will immediately initiate action for imposition of EC for the past violation by following the Principles of natural justice. However, we make it clear that the pendency of the action for imposition of EC will not come in the way of the CAQM in passing the appropriate order in terms of clause 6.

¶21

Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Member Secretary, UPPCB for necessary compliance.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

¶25

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶26

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶27

December 2, 2025 Appeal No. 71/2025 (I.A. No. 762/2025) AS

¶28

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

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

Pareshbhai K Thummar vs Seiaa

(I) Mohammad Ilyas (Ii) Md. Saraj (Iii) Arun Kumar Ladia vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa)

Rajesh Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Debaditya Sinha vs Mirzapur Thermal Energy Up Private Limited

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

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

Prahlad Dhakad vs Principal Secretary Environment and Climate Change Department

Abhijeet Bansal vs State of Punjab

Ms Sukdeep Poultry Farm vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Ms Sukdeep Poultry Farm vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Rakesh Kaushal vs

News Item Titled "a Fire That Fails to Die Down" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 07.11.2025 vs

M/S Rama Natural Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

News Item Titled "on Revamp Priority List Satpula Lake Being Filled Up With Raw Sewage from Drain" Appearing in the Times of India Dated 06.04.2024 vs