Disposed

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2025 in Original Application No. 3/2024 of Phoolwati v. Jai Prakash

NGT10 Feb 2025Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2025 in Original Application No. 3/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal reviewed a compliance report regarding environmental compensation for illegal groundwater extraction. Finding the report casual and lacking details on site ownership, consent, and plant survival measures, the Court directed the respondent to protect trees with guards and maintain them for five years.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to protect 200 plants by installing tree guards and maintain them for five years.

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2025 in… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No.08

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Miscellaneous Application No.17/2025 IN Original Application No.03/2024

¶5

Phoolwati Applicant Versus

¶6

Jai Prakash & Ors. Respondents

¶7

Date of hearing: 10.02.2025

¶8

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

¶9

A pplicant: None for the applicant.

¶10

Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Advocate for HSPCB.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Mrs. Phoolwati resident of H. No. 133, Rajendra Park, Nangloi, New Delhi had sent letter petition to this Tribunal, which was treated and registered as O.A. No. 03/2024, complaining about illegal extraction of ground water by Jai Prakash S/o Chandre, resident of Village Dattaur, Tehsil Sampla, District Rohtak, Haryana.

¶13

The above said OA was disposed of by this Tribunal by order dated 02.07.2024. The relevant part of the order reads as under:-

¶14

“10. It is stated at the bar by both learned counsel that RO plant as such has been removed from site and now it is not functional. 11. It is also said that one tube-well which is lying defunct shall be closed or sealed and appropriate action shall be taken by Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak within 15 days from today.

¶15

¶16

12. So far remaining tube-wells are concerned, it has been made clear before us that same are being used for the purpose of agriculture and supply of drinking water and not for commercial purposes.

¶17

13. For past violations in running of RO plant by extraction of groundwater without nay permission from the Competent Authority, in our view respondent 5 is liable to pay environmental compensation by application of principle of ‘Polluter Pays’. However, looking to facts and circumstances explained by respondent 5 in his reply, we direct in the interest of justice that respondent 5 shall plant 200 indigenous trees in the village within one month. The same shall be treated to be compliance to the principle of ‘Polluter Pays’. We also direct Gram Panchayat, Dattaur and Divisional Forrest Officer, Rohtak to help respondent 5 in plantation activity.

¶18

14. Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and Regional Officer, HSPCB of the concerned area shall verify compliance of this order with regard to various directions as contained above and submit a compliance report within one month after expiry of above period granted for compliance of above directions with Registrar General of this Tribunal, who, if finds necessary, may place matter before the Bench for further orders.

¶19

15. With the above directions, application is disposed of.

¶20

16. A copy of this order be forwarded to Gram Panchayat, Dattaur, Divisional Forrest Officer, Rohtak, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and Regional Officer, HSPCB, Rohtak by email for compliance.

¶21

Pursuant thereto report dated 07.10.2024 of the Joint Committee

¶22

has been filed by Regional Officer, HSPCB, Rohtak. The relevant part of the report is reproduced below:-

¶23

“COMPLAINCE REPORT ON BEHALF OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ROHTAK AND REGIONAL OFFICER, HARYANA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, ROHTAK IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED 02.07.2024

¶24

2. That Sh. Gaurav S/o Respondent 5 namely Sh. Jai Parkash 5 has the compliance report of order dated 02.07.2024 to RO,HSPCB, Rohtak. The site was visited on 30.8.2024 by the joint Committee consisting of following officers:

¶25

(i) Sh. Sachin Kumar, AEE, HSPCB Rohtak Region (Representative of HSPCB) (ii) Sh. Dalvir Rana, Hydrologist, Ground Water Cell, Rohtak, representative of Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak

¶26

3. That during inspection, following observations were observed: The site/area has been visited on 30.8.2024 for verification of compliance of order dated 02.07.2024 in OA No. 03/2024 titled as Phoolwati Vs Jai Parkash w.r.t the compliance report dated 20.8.2024 submitted by Sh. Gaurav S/o Sh. Jai Parkash. During visit it has been found that Sh. Gaurav S/o Respondent 5 namely Sh. Jai Parkash has planted 200 indigenous trees in compliance of Hon'ble NGT order dated 02.07.2024 Sh. Gaurav S/o Sh. Jai Parkash has received 200 nos. indigenous trees from Sampla

¶27

¶28

Nursery of Forest department (copy of receipt attached). The trees have been found planted on the following locations Hanuman Mandir, Village Dattour Parshuram Mandir, Village Dattour Laxmi Chand Park, Village Dattour Sachiwvalaya of village Dattour.

¶29

4. The locations are having boundary walls also. There is availability of water for plantation. The plantation has been verified and found correct.

¶30

5. The compliance report dated 20.8.2024 received from Sh. Gaurav S/o Respondent 5 Namely Sh. Jai Parkash is annexed as Annexure-R/1.

¶31

6. Verification report dated 30.8.2024 and site photographs are Annexure-R/2.”

¶32

Considering the further orders by this Tribunal to be necessary the matter has been listed before the Bench by registering the report as M.A. No. 17/2025.

¶33

We have gone through the compliance verification report filed on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and the Regional Officer, HSPCB, Rohtak. The compliance verification report seems to have been prepared casually. The aspects as to whether the plantation has been carried out at sites in question with consent of the owners of the land; whether plantation has been carried out at the proper sites; and whether the plants will survive amidst the wild growth surrounding them have not been looked into and adverted to in the compliance verification report. Vide order dated 02.07.2024 the Gram Panchayat Dattaur and Divisional Forest Officer Rohtak were directed to help respondent no. 5-Jai Prakash in plantation activity but the compliance verification report also does not provide the information as to what help was provided by Gram Panchayat Dattaur and Divisional Forest Officer Rohtak to respondent no. 5-Jai Prakash in plantation activity. The compliance verification report also does not mention to whom the sites belong where plantation has been done and what measures have been taken for protecting the plants and maintaining the same for ensuring their survival. While verifying compliance

¶34

¶35

verification reports such aspects should be looked into by the concerned authorities particularly Regional Officer of the HSPCB.

¶36

However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, respondent no. 5-Jai Prakash is directed to protect all 200 plants by installing tree guards and also to maintain the same for five years and the present MA is disposed of with directions as mentioned above.

¶37

A copy of this order be sent to the Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak and the Regional Officer, HSPCB, Rohtak by email for ensuring requisite compliance by respondent no. 5-Jai Prakash.

¶38

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶39

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶40

February 10^th , 2025 M.A. No.17/2025 M

¶41

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2025 in Original Application No. 3/2024 of Phoolwati v. Jai Prakash

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 17/2025 in Original Application No. 3/2024 of Phoolwati v. Jai Prakash

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

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 20/2023 in Original Application No. 1/2023 of Dr B Dash vs Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2024 in Original Application No. 178/2022 of News Item Published in the Hindu Dated 27 Feb 2022 Titled " Tourism Has Brought Economic Prosperity to the Himalayan Region But the Environmental Cost Has Been Catastrophic" vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 13/2025 in Original Application No. 546/2023 of Puran Singh vs Vinod Sokhal

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 11/2024 in Original Application No. 139/2024 of Alpesh Desai vs State of Gujarat through Gujarat Pollution Control Board

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 14/2024 in Original Application No. 30/2020 of K Hiroji Rao Farmer vs Union of India through Its Secretary Moef & Cc

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 131/2024 in Original Application No. 246/2023 of Satya Narayan Singh vs Forest Department Firozabad

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 22/2023 in Original Application No. 06/2016 of Subhas Datta S/O Late Baneswar Datta vs State of West Bengal through Chief Secretary

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 151/2024 in Original Application No. 188/2022 of Dr Anil Kumar vs

Kissan Udey Samiti vs State of Haryana

Praveen Kumar Gautam vs State of Uttarakhand

Praveen Kumar Gautam vs State of Uttarakhand

Hari Dewangan vs

Sanjay Sharma vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Narender Singh vs