Dismissed

Vikash Kumar Pathak v. State of Bihar

NGT24 Nov 2025IA No. 85/2025 in Original Application No. 209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The bench dismissed the Pollution Board's application to waive costs, finding its explanation unsatisfactory as it failed to demonstrate complaints against uncooperative officers, directing payment and recovery from officials.

What did the court decide?

Costs of Rs. 5,000/- waived application dismissed; costs payable by BSPCB to be recovered from officials for negligence.

Vikash Kumar Pathak vs State of Bihar — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.05

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶4

Original Application No.209/2024/EZ (I.A. No.85/2025/EZ)

¶5

Vikash Kumar Pathak Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Bihar Respondents

¶8

Date of hearing: 24.11.2025

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh and Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Advocates for the applicant (through VC).

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 (through VC).

¶12

Ms. Amrita Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.3 (through VC). Ms. Anamika Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.4 (through VC).

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Counter affidavit dated 12.08.2025 has been filed by respondent no.2-District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur which is taken on record.

¶15

Vide order dated 14.08.2025, costs of Rs.5,000/- were imposed on respondent no.3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) for not filing action taken report and BSPCB was granted further 10 days’ time to comply with the order dated 08.08.2025 and file action taken report. Costs were to be deposited within one week with the Registrar, Eastern Zone Bench of this Tribunal.

¶16

However, respondent no.3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) has not deposited the costs and has not filed action taken report.

¶17

¶18

On the other hand, respondent no.3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) has filed I.A. No.85/2025/EZ seeking waiver of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) imposed vide order dated 14.08.2025.

¶19

Respondent no. 3-BSPCB has sought waiver of costs on the following grounds:

¶20

2) That the Respondent No. 2 has been diligently performing its coordinating role as directed by this Hon’ble Tribunal and has extended all necessary assistance to the Fact Finding Committee in discharge of its duties. Copy of the Report has also been filed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Bihar State Pollution Control Board.

¶21

3) The delay in filing the action taken report/ affidavit was neither intentional nor deliberate.

¶22

4) That the BSPCB had filed the Joint Committee Report by way of an affidavit on 20.02.2025, which was taken on record. The said report confirmed illegal sand mining at three locations near Adher Ghat, Muzaffarpur, and names of three individuals, namely Sri Harendra Chaudhary, Sri Guddu Rai, and Sri Moti Mishra, were provided by locals. However, their complete addresses and other crucial details could not be ascertained at the time due to non-cooperation from local residents and the absence of official records from the local administration.

¶23

5) That the BSPCB has been making sincere and continuous efforts to identify the violators and impose environmental compensation as directed.

¶24

6) That in furtherance of this, the BSPCB wrote letters to the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, and the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, requesting them to provide the necessary details, including the names, proper addresses of the illegal miners, and the quantity of sand illegally mined, which are essential for quantifying and levying environmental compensation.

¶25

Copies of the said letters are annexed hereto and marked with Letter B colly.

¶26

7) That despite these repeated requests and the clear directions of this Hon’ble Tribunal, no response or information has been provided by the District Administration or the Police authorities to the BSPCB till date.

¶27

¶28

8) That the BSPCB is entirely dependent on the District Administration and the Police authorities for providing this specific information, as they are the investigating and groundlevel agencies with access to the requisite records and details from the FIR and their own inquiries.

¶29

9) That the BSPCB has no intention whatsoever to delay or avoid compliance with the orders of this Hon’ble Tribunal. The delay in filing a comprehensive Action Taken Report was solely due to the non-availability of this crucial information from the concerned departments, which is beyond the control of the BSPCB.”

¶30

Costs were imposed on respondent no.3-Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) vide order dated 14.08.2025 for reasons mentioned therein in detail. We do not find the explanation given by respondent no.3-BSPCB for not filing of action taken report till 14.08.2025 to be satisfactory. Respondent no. 3-BSPCB did not issue any direction to concerned officers or did not make any complaint against the officers who failed to provide the relevant information. No valid ground/justification for waiver of costs imposed vide order dated 14.08.2025 is made out. Consequently, I.A. No.85/2025/EZ for waiver of costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) imposed vide order dated 14.08.2025 is dismissed. The costs of Rs. 5,000/- may be deposited by respondent no. 3-BSPCB with the Registrar, Eastern Zone Bench at Kolkata within one month. However, it is clarified that respondent no. 3- BSPCB shall be at liberty to recover the costs paid by it from the officers/department which did not furnish the relevant information to it within specified time.

¶31

Respondent no. 3-BSPCB is directed to file action taken report within one month failing which further costs exemplary in nature may be imposed on respondent no. 3-BSPCB.

¶32

¶33

List on 02.02.2026 for final hearing.

¶34

A copy of this order may also be sent to Member Secretary, BSPCB

¶35

by e-mail for requisite compliance.

¶36

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶37

Ishwar Singh, EM November 24^th , 2025 Original Application No.209/2024/EZ (I.A. No.85/2025/EZ) R

¶38

Vikash Kumar Pathak v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikash Kumar Pathak v. State of Bihar

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

Sunil Kumar Yadav vs State of Rajasthan

Ashish Kothari vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ashish Kothari vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ashish Kothari vs the Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

K Selvaraj vs Ministry of Environment Forests Climate Change

Mukesh Gaikwad S/O Shri Shivaji Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Deputy Director General of Forests

Ms Sukdeep Poultry Farm vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "22 Saal Se Band Company Mein Kaat Diye 1 Hazaar Se Jyada Ped Noida Mein Van Vibhag Ne Jabt Kiya Kate Pedo Se Bhara Truck" Appearing in Navbharat Times Dated 11.06.2024 vs

Rakesh Kumar Mohanty vs State of Odisha

Urbashi Jena D/O Haramohan Bala Aged About 55 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Pradeep Singh Shekhawat vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Satam Patnaik vs State of Odisha through Chief Secretary of Odisha

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

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