Dismissed

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT5 May 2025Original Application No. 212/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant alleged pollution from a crematorium in Lucknow. The National Green Tribunal dismissed the original application, holding that no case was made out at this stage and directing the applicant to approach the UPPCB with a proper representation and supporting material if any grievance regarding impermissible activities exists.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 05 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 212/2025 (I.A. No. 344/2025)

¶4

Anil Kumar Srivastava Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

¶7

Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 05.05.2025

¶9

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

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Abhishek Yadav & Mr. Saurabh Yadav, Advs. for Applicant

¶11

ORDER

¶12

In this original application, the Applicant had alleged that there is a crematorium situated in Vinamra Khand-2, Gomti Nagar, at Khasra No. 200 Village Takhwa Kathauta, Tehsil and District Lucknow. The allegation of the Applicant is in respect of pollution caused by that crematorium by burning the traditional wood pyre and affecting the nearby residents. The record reflects that a PIL on the same subject was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench being Writ Petition No. 9927 (M.B.)/2012 (PIL Civil) and the said PIL was dismissed by order dated 13.05.2013. The Applicant has quoted relevant part of the order of the High Court in PIL as under:

¶13

“Although cremation ground/Kabristan may cause inconvenience to the residents of newly constructed colony, but we are not persuaded to hold that shifting of cremation ground/kabristan is in public interest.

¶14

The Writ petition is, therefore dismissed.”

¶15

The Applicant had also filed the Writ Petition No. 189 (M/B) of 2015 before the High Court at Lucknow Bench which was disposed of by order

¶16

¶17

dated 09.01.2015 with a direction to the concerned respondents to decide the pending representation/applications in accordance with law. Though the representation of the Applicant has been subsequently rejected by the order dated 15.07.2015 by the Vice Chairman, Lucknow Development Authority, but a copy of the said order has not been placed on record, but it has been handed over to us during the course of argument when the query was put to him. The said order is a reasoned order and it also records the reasons that the Applicant had subsequently purchased the plot near the crematorium inspite of the knowledge. That apart, the order rejecting the representation has not been challenged by the Applicant.

¶18

In such circumstances, we are of the view that at this stage, no case is made out to entertain the OA by the Tribunal. If the Applicant has any grievance in respect of pollution being caused by any impermissible activity in the crematorium, then he would be at liberty to approach the UPPCB by submitting a proper representation alongwith the supporting material. If such a representation is filed, we are hopeful that the same will be considered in accordance with law.

¶19

The Counsel for the Applicant has also placed reliance upon the order of the Tribunal dated 12.04.2022 passed in OA No. 333/2021, but considering the facts noted above, we find no ground to interfere in this OA which is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶21

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶22

May 05, 2025 Original Application No. 212/2025 (I.A. No. 344/2025) dv

¶23

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anil Kumar Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumaresan Sooluran vs Tamilnadu State Coastal Zone Management Authority

1. Srikanta Kumar Pakal S/O- Sindhubas Pakal vs 1. State of Odisha through Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Abhishek Dutt vs Delhi Jal Board

Dr Sanjay Kulshresthra vs Ministry of Road Transport and Highways

Yashweer Singh vs Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

News Item Titled "Land Sharks Swallow Ecr Beaches in Chengalpattu Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 15.04.2025" vs

News Item "Unchecked Urbanisation Pushing Deepor Beel Into Environment Crisis: Experts Appearing in the Assam Tribune Dated 22.04.2025" vs

News Item Titled "Villagers Seek Halt on Illegal Road Construction Appearing in the Arunachal Times Dated 22.04.2025" vs

Ia No. 337/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 52/2025 of Madan Sen S/O Late Jagdish Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ia No. 336/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 52/2025 of Madan Sen S/O Late Jagdish Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 52/2025 in Original Application No. 742/2024 of Madan Sen S/O Late Jagdish Prasad vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Amarjit Singh vs the State of Punjab

Anil Kumar Srivastava vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ranu Bala vs Mo.Efcc