Disposed

Sh Naresh Kumar vs

NGT7 Aug 2025Original Application No. 186/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of an application regarding illegal groundwater extraction after the project proponent sealed the borewell. The bench directed the DPCC to impose environmental compensation, following a recent Supreme Court judgment affirming their powers under the Water Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing DPCC to impose environmental compensation on respondent No. 7 for past violations; no further action required by the Tribunal.

Sh Naresh Kumar vs — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 08

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 186/2025

Sh. Naresh Kumar

Applicant

Versus

Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 07.08.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: None for the applicant. Respondents: Mr. Jyoti Mendiratta and Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advocates for respondent no. 1 and 4. Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur and Mr. Bir Inder Singh Gurm, Advocates for respondent no.3. Ms. Sakshi Popli, Advocate for respondent no. 5 (through VC). Respondent no. 7 in Person. None for respondents no. 2 and 6.

¶12

ORDER

¶13

The applicant-Mr. Naresh Kumar has sent a letter petition dated 25.01.2025 (Pages no. 1 to 6 of the paper book) by post to this Tribunal which has been treated and registered as O.A. No. 186/2025.

¶14

The relevant part of the letter petition enumerating grievances of

¶15

the applicant is reproduced as follows:-

¶16

“ Complaint against illegal extraction ground water by Sh. Hemant @ Bittu Address:- 1186, Doriwalan Near Sidhipura Police Chowki, Manakpura, Delhi-110005. X X X X I, beg to state that My name is Sh. Naresh Kumar S/o Late Sh. Chandan Singh, R/o:- 9492, Bagh Rao Ji, Kishanganj, Delhi 110006, and being residing there for the last several decades. That there is aqua problem of depletion ground water in our area and this is happening due to illegal extraction of ground water by water supply mafia, of which Sh. Hemant@Bittu is the kingpin.

¶17

¶18

That Sh. Hemant has illegally done borewell in his premises bearing no.1186, Doriwalan Near Sidhipura Police Chowki, Manakpura, Delhi-110005, and is extracting ground water at brisk pace and in huge quantitiy for the last about more than 7 8 months. It is submitted that he is supplying this illegally extracted ground water to the commercial establishments on the very large scale. It is further submitted that he has also established an illegal water purification plant in his premises. The latest photographs and the premises of Sh. Hemant @ Bittu are annexed herewith as annexure-P1.

¶19

That Sh. Hemant has connections not only in Delhi Police but in Delhi Jal Board also, and that is the reason why till date no action has been initiated either by Delhi Jal Board or the Delhi Police, against him despite of the fact that the police station / chowki is just a stone throw distance from the premises of Sh. Hemant @ Bittu.

¶20

That as per conservative estimate Sh. Hemant @ Bittu is extracting more than 5 Lakhs Litters of ground water daily and is supplying the same in the vicinity; the extent and the quantity of water extracted can very well be seen from the photographs and videography annexed herewith. That if no timely action is taken there is all likelihood that water table would breakdown and there would not be any ground water available in the area.

¶21

It is therefore requested to kindly look into the matter and to initiate legal proceeding against Sh. Hemant@Bittu.”

¶22

Vide order dated 13.05.2025, concerned authorities and project proponent were impleaded as respondents no. 1 to 7 and Joint Committee comprising of the representatives of Member Secretary, CPCB, Chief Executive Officer, DJB and the District Magistrate, (Central) Delhi was constituted with direction to visit the spot after giving notice to the project proponent, look into the grievances after joining the applicant and representative of the Project Proponent, verify the factual position, suggest appropriate remedial action and submit its report within one week.

¶23

In compliance thereof report dated 19.05.2025 of the Joint Committee (Page no. 29 of the paper book) has been enclosed with affidavit dated 20.05.2025 (Pages no. 23 to 29 of the paper book) filed by SDM, Karol Bagh on behalf respondent no. 4-District Magistrate (Central) Delhi.

¶24

¶25

Reply dated 20.05.2025 (Pages no. 7 to 22 of the paper book) has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. Short affidavit dated 05.08.2025 (Pages no. 30 to 34 of the paper book) has been filed by the respondent no. 3- DJB. Compliance report dated 06.08.2025 (Pages no. 35 to 39 of the paper book) has been filed by DPCC.

¶26

However, no response has been filed by the respondents no. 2, 6 and 7.

¶27

None has appeared for the applicant before this Tribunal in the course of hearing of the case and even today.

¶28

We have heard learned Counsels for the respondents and have gone through the material on record.

¶29

The relevant part of the report filed by respondent no. 4- District Magistrate, (Central) Delhi reads as under:-

¶30

“2. That accordingly, notices dated 17.05.2025 were issued to Sh. Hemant Kumar @ Bittu (Project Proponent) and Sh. Naresh Kumar (Applicant) informing them about the visit and inspection by the joint committee on 19.05.2025. Copy of the said notices is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-A.

¶31

3. That the Joint committee comprising of representatives of Member Secretary, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), the Chief Executive Officer, Delhi Jal Board (DJB) and the District Magistrate (Central), visited the site on 19.05.2025. Sh. Hemant Kumar @ Bittu (Project Proponent) and Sh. Naresh Kumar (Applicant) were also present at the time of inspection.

¶32

4. That, during the visit by the said joint committee, it was observed that:

¶33

i. That, in the site there existed an illegal borewell.

¶34

ii. As no water meter was not there, in the absence of it, it was not possible to know the amount of water that had been extracted illegally by the Project Proponent.

¶35

iii. The said illegal borewell was sealed after cutting the pipe and wooden stopper to ensure there is no further extraction of water and the electricity connection was also disconnected.

¶36

¶37

Copy of report of the joint committee dated 19.05.2025 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-B.

¶38

5. As regards the penalty/ environmental compensation leviable from the violator, DPCC may be directed to determine the same keeping in mind the usage of the offending borewell for 7-8 months.”

¶39

Respondent no. 7 had appeared before this Tribunal on 30.05.2025 along with his Counsel and undertaken to permanently close the borewell in question.

¶40

Respondent no. 7- Mr. Hemant alia Bittu has appeared before this Tribunal today and has submitted that he has permanently closed the borewell in question.

¶41

In their reports, respondent no. 4- District Magistrate, (Central) Delhi and respondent no. 5-DPCC had mentioned about taking of proceedings by the DPCC for imposition of environmental compensation on the project proponent.

¶42

Initially, the DPCC was directed not to proceed with imposition of EC in view of the pendency of the question of imposition of EC by SPCB/DPCC before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

¶43

The said question has now been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgement dated 04.08.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 757/2013 titled as Delhi Pollution Control Committee v. Lodhi Property Co. Ltd. Etc. DPCC with Civil Appeal No. 1977-2011 of 2013. In the above said Judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that SPCB/UTPCC has power to impose environmental compensation under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶44

¶45

Accordingly, DPCC may take appropriate action for imposition of EC on respondent no. 7-Project Proponent for past violations in accordance with the directions given in above mentioned judgement and subordinate legislation framed in compliance thereof.

¶46

In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and legal perspective, no further action is required to be taken by this Tribunal on the present original application which is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶48

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶49

August 07^th , 2025 Original Application No. 186/2025 AB

¶50

Sh Naresh Kumar vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh Naresh Kumar vs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Priyadarshini Colony Sector D Residence Welfare Society vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Mukesh Kumar Tiwari vs

Ravula Lingaswamy vs Union of India

K Mariappan vs the District Collector

Ravindra Laxman Pandit vs M/S Newkem Products Corporation

Mr. Nagesh Vinayak Dhamale vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Diwakar Singh Rana vs Pollution Control Board

Rohit Thakran vs State of Haryana

Deepank Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 39/2025 in Original Application No. 972/2024 of Dr Balwinder Singh vs

Pateshwari Prasad Singh vs

Makhai Pur vs

Makhai Pur vs

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 70/2025 in Original Application No. 784/2024 of Digambar Prasad vs