Disposed

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 142/2024 in Original Application No. 458/2022 of Sheshan Tyagi vs

NGT25 Apr 2025Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 142/2024 in Original Application No. 458/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed grievances regarding air pollution from DG sets and unauthorized groundwater extraction at a real estate project in Ghaziabad. The Tribunal directed authorities to air quality monitoring and groundwater regulation, and ordered the UP Pollution Control Board to examine sewage disposal non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Directing UPPCB to conduct air quality checks; UPGWMRA to examine groundwater extraction legality; UPPCB to examine STP and sewage discharge issues.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 142/2024 in… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item Nos. 05 and 06

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 142/2024

¶5

¶6

Original Application No. 458/2022

¶7

Sheshan Tyagi Applicant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondents

¶10

WITH

¶11

Misc Application in Disposed of Cases No. 143/2024

¶12

In Original Application No. 460/2022

¶13

Gaurav Soni Applicant

¶14

Versus

¶15

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Respondents

¶16

Date of hearing: 25.04.2025

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶18

Applicant: None

¶19

Respondents: Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, Rajawat, Ms. Anjali Sharma and Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi, Advocates for Respondents no.1 to 3. Ms. Nitya Prabhakar, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Malak Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.4 Mr Gi. Gi. C. George and Mr. Sunil Dhami, Advocates for respondent no.5 Mr. Shantwanu Singh, Advocate for respondent no.6

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Since both these matters are connected, arising out of the common complaint against the same project proponent i.e., M/s. M.R. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Officer City-2, village- Noornagar, Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad, hence, are being dealt with collectively by this order.

¶23

The cognizance was taken by Tribunal in both the matters suo-moto in view of law laid down by Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401 on the basis of letter petitions received from Sheshan Tyagi and Gaurav Soni against M/s. M.R. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd.

¶24

The complainants have stated that project proponent has developed Officer City-2 at Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad and installed two DG sets. Both DG sets are very old, create lot of air pollution and project proponent have not installed any pipe on it. One DG set was installed as back up and for extra load during summer and it is also releasing smoke on the height of 7 ft. from the ground floor. As per the norms of Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPPCB’ ), the stack height should be minimum 3.5 meter about the nearest building but that has not been observed. The air pollution is causing health hazards to the local residents in the residential area.

¶25

Tribunal took cognizance of both the matters on 29.07.2022 and formed an opinion that the grievance made in letter petitions may effectively be addressed at the first instance by the authorities at the District level and thus, Tribunal constituted Joint Committee comprising UPPCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad who were directed to verify the

¶26

¶27

factual position, look into the grievance of the applicants and take remedial action in the matter in accordance with law after following due process.

¶28

Joint Committee was also directed to furnish action taken Report within two months with Registrar General of this Tribunal and it was also provided that Registrar General, if finds, that any further order is required, shall place the matter before the Bench along with the report.

¶29

Original Application was disposed of with the above directions.

¶30

Joint Committee did not submit Report as per directions contained in the order dated 29.07.2022, hence, Registrar General placed the matter before Tribunal and both the matters were considered on 25.11.2024.

¶31

Taking a serious view of the matter of non-compliance of directions of Tribunal by UPPCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad and observing that non-compliance of Tribunal’s order constitutes an offence under Section 26 of National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NGT Act, 2010’ ), Tribunal granted a further opportunity to concerned authorities to submit Report within two weeks. It was also observed that in case report is not submitted, pursuant to further opportunity granted by Tribunal, Member Secretary, UPPCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad shall appear in person on the next date.

¶32

A factual status/action taken Report dated 17.12.2024 has been filed through an affidavit sworn by Indra Vikram Singh, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad submitting Joint Committee Report. The observations made by Joint Committee and its recommendations are stated in para 5 of the said affidavit which reads as under:

¶33

“5. That during the inspection the Joint Committee observed as under:

¶34

¶35

I. There are total two DG sets having capacity 500 KVA and 250 KVA respectively for uninterrupted power supply in case of power failure.

¶36

II. Both DG sets are equipped with acoustic enclosure with stack height of 08 meters above roof top of building, which is adequate as per norms.

¶37

A Copy of the norms of CPCB has been attached herein as Annexure A/3.

¶38

III. As per unit representative both dg sets have to be converted into dual fuel (70% PNG +30% HSD) but at the time of inspection no evidence/work order is provided by representative of M/s M.R. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd., (Officer City-2), Rajnagar Extension, Ghaziabad.

¶39

IV. As per direction No-76 issued by Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas regarding regulation of DG sets, both DG sets should be converted into dual fuel (70% PNG +30% HSD) or Retro Fitted Emission Control Device (RECD) should be installed.

¶40

6. That the recommendations of the Joint Committee were as follows:

¶41

I. Project must ensure installation of dual fuel kit (70% PNG +30% HSD) or Retro Fitted Emission Control Device (RECD) in compliance of direction No-76 issued by Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas regarding regulation of DG sets.

¶42

II. Project proponent should obtain consent to operate from UPPCB under the Water (Prevention Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention. Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶43

III. Environmental Compensation (EC) should be imposed against project proponent for non-compliance of direction No-76 as per “Standard Schedule for Environmental Compensation (EC) Charges in Closure Directions issued by the Commission”.”

¶44

Both these matters were considered by Tribunal on 18.12.2024. The above report, it appears from record, was submitted after the time provided under Office Order dated 04.09.2024 and, therefore, could not be placed before Tribunal on 18.12.2024.

¶45

¶46

Since there was non-compliance on the part of authorities concerned, Tribunal found it appropriate to issue notice to Member Secretary, UPPCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad requiring them to file Report, showing action taken and also to show cause as to why appropriate action for non-compliance of Tribunal’s order be not taken against them.

¶47

Thereafter, District Magistrate, Ghaziabad filed an affidavit dated 06.02.2025 stating that Joint Committee comprising officers of UPPCB and Additional District Magistrate, Ghaziabad visited the site on 16.12.2024 and inspection report was prepared. In the light of the findings of Joint Committee recorded in the inspection dated 16.12.2024, UPPCB issued a letter dated 16.12.2024 to project proponent i.e., M/s. M.R. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd. requiring it to install dual fuel kit (70% PNG + 30% HSD) or Retro Fitted Emission Control Device (RECD) as per direction no. 76 dated 29.09.2023 issued by Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas. UPPCB taking cognizance of the past violations in running DG sets, in contravention of the norms, also proposed imposition of environmental compensation and issued a show cause notice dated 29.01.2025, requiring the project proponent to show cause as to why environmental compensation of Rs.65,70,000/- be not imposed upon it.

¶48

Compliance affidavit dated 28.02.2025 was also filed by UPPCB wherein the facts similar to what were mentioned in the action taken report of District Magistrate, Ghaziabad were reiterated, hence we are not providing details thereof.

¶49

However, we may mention that UPPCB also gave details of the method of computation of environmental compensation of Rs.65,70,000/mentioned in show cause notice dated 29.01.2025 and the said methodology reads as under:

¶50

¶51

“The calculation of the said environmental compensation is as follows:

¶52

I. VIOLATION PERIOD:

¶53

(a) The violation with respect of the DG Sets in the present matter persisted for 137 days (from 01.01.2024 to 13.10.2024).

¶54

(b) That additionally, the violation during the GRAP period was for 41 days (from 14.10.2024 to 28.12.2024).

¶55

Π. BASIS OF CALCULATION:

¶56

(a) That as per the Order dated 01.01.2025 issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management in the National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas, the penalty for the violations of DG Set regulations is Rs. 15,000/- per day for each DG Set with a capacity exceeding 125 KW but less than 800 KW.

¶57

(b) That the formula prescribed for calculating environmental compensation (EC) is as follows:

¶58

Total EC per DG Set Rate per Day*N (No. of Days of Violation)

¶59

(c) That with respect to the GRAP period, the relevant portion of the said Order dated 01.01.2025 has been reproduced herein for ready reference:

¶60

“.....B. For violations observed during the periods of restrictions imposed under GRAP, the rates for EC shall be doubled, (except for cases under ‘C’ below)....”

¶61

III. TOTAL CALCULATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPENSATION:

¶62

That on the basis of the aforementioned order, the total environmental compensation for the period 01.01.2024 to 28.12.2024 has been calculated as under:

¶63

_EC=N (30,000) + N (60,000) =13730,000+4160,000 =Rs. 65,70,000/-”_**

¶64

Another compliance affidavit was submitted by UPPCB vide e-mail dated 05.03.2025 wherein besides reiterating the facts relating to the issue of letter dated 16.12.2024 and show cause notice dated 29.01.2015, it was further stated that project proponent submitted reply dated 25.02.2025 stating that Dual Fuel Kits have been installed on both DG sets of the

¶65

¶66

capacity of 500 KVA and 250 KVA. The proof in the form of purchase order dated 09.01.2025 and Installation Certificate dated 24.02.2025 were also placed on record which were part of the project proponent’s letter dated 25.02.2025. Further, UPPCB made an inspection on 27.02.2025 to verify the stand taken by project proponent and found that dual fuel kit on both the DG sets were installed as per regulatory norms. It was also reported that the project proponent has applied online Consent to Operate under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Water Act, 1974’ ) and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Air Act, 1981’ ) on 27.02.2025 and the applications are under consideration before the concerned authority of UPPCB.

¶67

UPPCB also passed final order dated 28.02.2025 confirming imposition of environmental compensation of Rs.65,70,000/-. The reply contained with regard to inspection dated 27.02.2025 and final order dated 28.02.2025 is reproduced as under:

¶68

“12. Subsequently, a site inspection of the said site in question was conducted by the UPPCB on 27.02.2025, in the presence of Mr. Suryakant Sharma (Manager).

¶69

The observations of the said inspection are as under:

¶70

It was observed that the project has a total of two DG sets with capacities of 500 KVA and 250 KVA, respectively.

¶71

A dual fuel kit (70% PNG 30% Diesel) has already been installed on both DG sets as per regulatory norms.

¶72

As per office records, the project entity has applied online for consent to operate under the Water and Air Acts 27.02.2025, and the application is currently under consideration.

¶73

Conclusion & Recommendations as per the said site inspection are as under:

¶74

Considering the above facts and the project’s reply dated 25.02.2005, it is recommended that:

¶75

The environmental compensation of Rs. 65,70,000 imposed for the default period mentioned in the show cause notice be upheld.

¶76

¶77

The show cause notice dated 29.01.2025 be disposed of accordingly.

¶78

A Copy of the inspection report dated 27.02.2025 has been annexed herewith ANNEXURE A-7.

¶79

13. Furthermore, the Chief Environmental Officer, Circle-1, Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Lucknow has written a letter dt. 28.02.2025 to the Project Proponent. That vide the said letter the environmental compensation of Rs. 65,70,000/- (Sixty-Five Lakh Seventy Thousand Rupees Only) was confirmed against the Project Proponent. That project proponent was directed to deposit the amount within one week.

¶80

A Copy of the letter dated 28.02.2025 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-8.”

¶81

Tribunal considered the above compliance reports on 07.03.2025.

¶82

It appears that during the course of the arguments on 07.03.2025, complainants raised some new grievances with regard to extraction of ground water, non-construction of Sewage Treatment Plant and discharge of domestic sewage in storm water drain. On the said aspects, Tribunal found it appropriate to obtain response of the concerned authorities and accordingly impleaded State of UP through Secretary, Environment as respondent 1; District Magistrate, Ghaziabad as respondent 2; UPPCB as respondent 3; Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad as respondent 4; U.P. State Ground Water Authority as respondent 5; and project proponent-M/s. M R Proview Realtech Pvt Ltd. as respondent 6.

¶83

Respondents 1 and 3 were represented by Learned Counsels before Tribunal hence it directed Registry to issue notices to respondents 2, 4, 5 and 6 permitting them to file their responses.

¶84

Pursuant to above order dated 07.03.2025, respondent 4 i.e., Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad through its Executive Engineer, Water Supply Ghaziabad has submitted compliance affidavit dated 21.04.2025.

¶85

¶86

It is said that site was inspected by officers of respondent 4 on 16.04.2025

¶87

and the observations made during the inspection are as under:

¶88

“6. Upon such inspection, the following facts were observed:

¶89

i The sewer connection for the said group housing project was laid by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (“ GDA ”) on 30.03.2019, and a copy of the receipt confirming the same was produced by the project entity during inspection.

¶90

ii. The project entity operates two submersible tube wells for water supply, however, they do not possess a valid No Objection Certificate (“ NOC ”) for the same from the appropriate authority. This fact was ascertained during the physical visit to the premises.

¶91

iii. The said group housing project falls under the jurisdiction of the GDA, and not under the administrative or statutory jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad Municipal Corporation. Therefore, necessary regulatory and enforcement action in the matter lies with in the domain of the GDA and other competent authorities.”

¶92

Respondent 4 also said that it has no direct role or jurisdiction in establishment, regulation or approval of infrastructure facility including sewage treatment system and ground water extraction.

¶93

UPPCB has submitted its response vide e-mail dated 24.04.2025 stating that the officials of UPPCB visited the site on 04.04.2025 and findings recorded in the said inspection are as under:

¶94

“ A. Description of the said site

¶95

The said project is a group housing project with a plot area of 26,775.31 sq. meters and a built-up area of 1,31,011.84 sq. meters, comprising 1100 multi-storey flats and commercial shops, etc.

¶96

B. Grant of Consent To Establish (CTE)

¶97

The Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board had earlier issued a Consent to Establish to the Project Proponent vide letter dated 29.05.2013.

¶98

A Copy of the NOC dt. 29.05.2013 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-2.

¶99

The said CTE was subject to several specific conditions. However, a compliance report detailing adherence to those

¶100

¶101

conditions has not been submitted by the Project Proponent till date.

¶102

C. Domestic Effluent Generation and Flow Meter Absence

¶103

That an application dt. 27.02.2025 for the CCA under Air Act, 1981 and Water Act, 1974 was submitted by the Project. Proponent. That as per the said application the total estimated generation of domestic effluent from the project is 408 KLD. That the said application has been rejected by the board. A Copy of the application for CCA dt. 27.02.2025 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-3.

¶104

A Copy of the rejection letter has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-4.

¶105

That no water flow meter has been installed at the site to monitor the actual quantity of effluent being discharged. This 56 MLD. Therefore, the domestic sewage from the said site undergoes treatment at the 56MLD STP before final discharge into the Hindon River . That an analysis of the 56 MLD was conducted by UPPCB and the parameters of the said STP were found to be within prescribed norms.

¶106

A Copy of the analysis report has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-5.

¶107

A Copy of the sewer connection permission issued by GDA has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-6.

¶108

Hence, while construction of an in-house STP of 500 KLD capacity at the said site is still pending, it is important to note that sewage from the said unit is not being discharged untreated. It is presently routed through a common sewage treatment plant operated by GDA.

¶109

F. Environmental Compensation Order

¶110

That the UPPCB, through its letter dt. 28.02.2025, imposed an environmental compensation of Rs. 65,70,000/- (Rupees SixtyFive Lakh Seventy Thousand only) against the Project Proponent.

¶111

As of the date, no information or receipt confirming the deposition of the said compensation has been provided by the Project Proponent.

¶112

6. That subsequently, the UPPCB vide letter dt. 09.04.2025 directed the Project Proponent as under:

¶113

Furnish a time-bound action plan for the installation and commissioning of the full 500 KLD STP, along with a monitoring mechanism for effluent discharge.

¶114

Install a functional flow meter immediately to measure and report the daily volume of domestic wastewater generated.

¶115

Submit a proof of payment or an explanation regarding the nonpayment of the imposed environmental compensation.

¶116

¶117

Submit a response within one week on receipt of this letter.

¶118

That the response to the aforesaid letter is still awaited. A Copy of the letter dt. 09.04.2025 has been annexed herewith as ANNEXURE A-7.”

¶119

The compliance report of UPPCB has also said that for recovery of environmental compensation, it has sent a letter dated 21.04.2025 to District Magistrate, Ghaziabad with request to take steps for recovery of the said amount in accordance with law and after recovery, remit the amount to Regional Office, UPPCB, Ghaziabad for its appropriate utilization.

¶120

District Magistrate, Ghaziabad has submitted its response vide e- mail dated 24.04.2025 and in fact, it is reiteration of UPPCB’s inspection Report dated 24.04.2025, in para 7 of its reply, which we are not repeating.

¶121

However, para 8 of Report of UP Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPGWMRA’ ) who also carried out physical inspection of the site, has been mentioned and the findings recorded by UPSGWA read as under:

¶122

“The key findings of the said report are as under:

¶123

The project comprises a high-rise society with 858 apartments and 31 individual double-storied houses. Only 58 apartments were found to be unoccupied.

¶124

The inspection revealed the presence of three existing borewells and one new borewell under drilling at the site.

¶125

A total of five rooftop rainwater harvesting structures were observed at the site.

¶126

That the inspecting officer during the inspection directed the Project Proponent to ensure the cleaning of all rainwater harvesting structures before and after the monsoon season for effective rainwater recharge.

¶127

That based on the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs’ benchmark of 135 liters per capita per day (LPCD) for urban water supply in housing societies (assuming an average of 5 people per apartment), and considering the reported occupancy, the Project Proponent is estimated to be abstracting

¶128

¶129

approximately 582 KLD of groundwater, which appears to be without the necessary NOC.”

¶130

It is also said that UPGWMRA has issued a notice dated 01.04.2025 to the project proponent directing it to obtain necessary No Objection Certificate (hereinafter referred to as ‘ NOC’ ) from the concerned authority for extraction of ground water after submitting relevant documents within 30 days from the date of notice dated 01.04.2025.

¶131

Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad also through its Junior Engineer (Water), City Zone-II carried out inspection on 16.04.2025 and submitted its report to District Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide letter dated 17.04.2025 stating as under:

¶132

“• The sewer line connection for M/s M.R. Proview Realtech Pvt. Ltd., Developer of Officer's City 2, Raj Nagar Extension, Ghaziabad, was established by the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) on 30.03.2019.

¶133

For the water supply, the Project Proponent has installed two private submersible tube wells for which they do not possess any No Objection Certificate (NOC). This information was obtained during the site visit.

¶134

The aforementioned group housing project falls under the jurisdiction of the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) and has not yet been handed over to the Municipal Corporation, Ghaziabad. Therefore, the Nagar Nigam opined that necessary action in this matter should be taken by the Ghaziabad Development Authority.”

¶135

With regard to recovery of environmental compensation, District Magistrate has said that it has directed Additional District Magistrate F/C, Ghaziabad to take steps for recovery of the said amount without any further delay.

¶136

UPGWMRA i.e., respondent 5 has also submitted its response dated 22.04.2025 stating that provisions regulating extraction of ground water have been made in State of UP in UP Ground Water (Management and 12

¶137

Regulation) Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPGWMR Act, 2019’ ) which has been implemented on 02.10.2019. UPGWMRA was established vide notification dated 13.11.2019 and District Ground Water Management Councils for each district were constituted vide notification dated 21.01.2020. The requisite permission at district level has to be issued by District level authorities. The notice dated 01.04.2025 has been issued by respondent 5 to project proponent stating that extraction of ground water is illegal and it must obtain NOC by submitting relevant documents within 30 days but no response has been received from project proponent. It is also said that the physical inspection was conducted at the site on 09.04.2025 by the Nodal Officer, District Ground Water Management Council, Ghaziabad and he found total 3 borewells at the site. Further there were five Roof Top Rain Water Harvesting Structures present on the site. The facts stated about borewells and rain water harvesting systems in para 11 and 12 read as under:

¶138

“11. That it is respectfully submitted that there are total number of 03 borewells were found at the site with the following status;

¶139

Table 1 Total borewell found installed at PP site

¶140

S.No.	Particular	Remarks/status
1	Borewell 1	Installed near garbage collection area and no flowmeter installed. Diameter of housing pipe is 06 inches.
2	Borewell 2	Installed in kids play park and no flowmeter installed. Diameter of housing pipe is 04 inches.
3	Borewell 3	Installed next 10 park arca, Non- functional/abandoned fully covered within concrete chamber and informed that it is being sealedfor security reasons.
4	New borewell being drilled	Another borewell was being drilled next to the non-functional/abandoned borewell 3, the same is suspended by the nodal officer at the time of inspection.

¶141

¶142

12. That it is further submitted that total number of 05 roof top rain water harvesting structures were present on site in following manner:

¶143

Table 2 Rainwater harvesting structure and location

¶144

S.No.	Particular	Location
1	RWH 1	At the Entry Gate
2	RWH 2	Near Borewell 1
3	RWH 3	Near Kids’ Park
4	RWH 4	Near individual Plot
5	RWH 5	At the Exit Gate

¶145

It is most respectfully submitted that inspecting officer directed Project Proponent that all the rain water harvesting structures to be cleaned pre and post monsoon season to ensure proper recharge of rainwater.”

¶146

It is also said that Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs has suggested 135 liters per capita per day as the benchmark for urban water supply including housing societies for an average of 5 people in an apartment and based on the above benchmark, it is believed that approximately 582 KLD ground water is being extracted illegally i.e., without permission from UPGWMRA by project proponent.

¶147

We have heard Learned Counsel Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon, Mr. Harshvardhan Singh, Rajawat, Ms. Anjali Sharma and Ms. Gargi Chaturvedi, for respondents 1 to 3, Ms. Nitya Prabhakar, Proxy Counsel for Mr. Malak Bhatt, for respondent.4, Mr Gi. Gi. C. George and Mr. Sunil Dhami for respondent 5 and Mr. Shantwanu Singh for respondent 6.

¶148

So far as the issue with regard to non-compliance of Air Act, 1981 by not installing DG sets in compliance of the norms is concerned. Mr. Bhanwar Pal Singh Jadon appearing for UPPCB and District Magistrate, Ghaziabad have said that the dual fuel kit system has been installed and requisite conditions have been complied. However, we do not find that in the functioning of the generator sets, air quality of the area has been found complying with the norms, hence, for this purpose, we direct UPPCB to

¶149

¶150

conduct a periodical check of the air quality and if finds that there is any violation, take appropriate action in accordance with law without any further delay.

¶151

With regard to extraction of ground water for drinking and domestic purposes by the residents in the society, Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 6 submitted that as per the guidelines issued by Central Ground Water Authority, no permission is required but we find that on record, it is the stand of UPGWMRA that the permission is required but Learned Counsel appearing for UPGWMRA could not place any relevant provision before us during the course of the arguments. Since there is dispute on this aspect, let this issue be examined by UPGWMRA after complying with principle of natural justice giving opportunity of hearing to project proponent and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two months. If it finds that requirement of NOC was necessary and there was violation on the part of project proponent, appropriate action for past violation shall be taken in accordance with law and that too, after giving due opportunity of hearing to project proponent and further extraction of ground water shall be allowed only after if project proponent obtain NOC if so required and as per decision of UPGWMRA.

¶152

With regard to other requirements like discharge of waste with regard to non-construction of STP and discharge of domestic sewage in storm water drain, we find that no specific material has been placed by UPPCB in its reply on this aspect and these matters have not been examined. Hence, we find it appropriate that UPPCB shall examine the matter on these aspects, after making inspection of the site and take a final decision after giving opportunity of hearing to project proponent and if it finds any violation on the part of project proponent, appropriate preventive,

¶153

¶154

prohibitive, remedial and punitive action shall be taken in accordance with law within two months.

¶155

Compliance Reports by the concerned authorities in respect to the directions given above, shall be submitted with the Registrar General of this Tribunal within next 15 days after expiry of the period mentioned hereinabove.

¶156

If Registrar General finds that any further order is required in the matter, the concerned report shall be registered as a separate Original Application and place before the Bench concerned.

¶157

With the above directions, both the M.A.s are disposed of.

¶158

Sudhir Agarwal, JM

¶159

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶160

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶161

M.A. in Disposed of Cases No.142/2024 In O.A. No.458/2022 &

¶162

M.A. in Disposed of Cases No. 143/2024 In O.A. No.460/2022 April 25, 2025 R

¶163

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 142/2024 in Original Application No. 458/2022 of Sheshan Tyagi vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 142/2024 in Original Application No. 458/2022 of Sheshan Tyagi vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 5/2025 in Appeal No. 33/2017 of M/S Rajdeep Biotech through Its Officer in Charge vs Cpcb through Member Secretary

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 88/2024 in Original Application No. 651/2023 of Krishna Nand Yadav vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 47/2025 in Original Application No. 651/2023 of Krishna Nand Yadav vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 33/2025 in Original Application No. 400/2022 of Dheeraj Goel vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 49/2025 in Original Application No. 620/2023 of Prashant Sharma vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 38/2024 in Original Application No. 257/2023 of Balbir Dass vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 51/2025 in Original Application No. 940/2024 of Gaurav So Sh Ratan Lal vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 18/2025 in Original Application No. 702/2024 of Baljinder Singh vs

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

Manoj Singh vs Principle Chief Conservator of Forest

Dimpal Kumar vs State of Punjab

Prof. Soumya Ranjan Mishra vs

Neelam Rani and Ors. vs

Neelam Rani and Ors. vs