Disposed

Mohammad Kamar S/O Shri Mohammad Faruk v. 1. M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Distillery Division

NGT8 Dec 2025Original Application No. 214/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Tribunal disposed of the non-prosecuted application regarding alleged untreated industrial effluent discharge by the respondent. It directed the UPPCB to inspect the unit, verify environmental clearance compliance, and submit a report within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing UPPCB to inspect the unit, ascertain compliance status, and submit a report within three months.

Mohammad Kamar S/O Shri Mohammad Faruk vs 1. M/S Dhampur… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 01

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 214/2025

¶5

Mohammad Kamar & Ors. Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Distillery Division & Ors.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 08.12.2025

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: None appeared

¶12

ORDER

¶13

This matter was listed earlier on 07.05.2025 and 12.09.2025 since no one had appeared, therefore, matter was adjourned on those dates. Today also no one is present for the applicant.

¶14

On perusal of the record, we have noticed that applicant has alleged that respondent no.1-M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills a Distillery Division is releasing untreated industrial effluents including waste, hazardous chemicals from the sugar mill and distillery unit. Such discharge of untreated industrial effluents allegedly had created health hazard and creating several health complications.

¶15

Applicant had also alleged reverse boring by the project proponent.

¶16

The Tribunal in the matter of OA No. 539/2019: Adil Ansari vs. M/s. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. & Ors. has considered this issue and by order dated 01.09.2021 had directed as under:

¶17

“157. We are further of the opinion that following directions are necessary for ensuring compliance of environmental norms by the units:-

¶18

¶19

i.) All the Units must ensure continuous running of ETPs even during the non-crushing season for the adequate maintenance of required bio-mass so that the ETP is able to take the load/shock when it receives the pollution load/effluent at the start of the crushing season.

¶20

ii.) All the Units in question must provide for separate Energy Meter for entire ETP setup including its accessory units with data logging facility which shall be inspected by UPPCB and CPCB from time to time.

¶21

iii.) UPPCB must ensure Interlocking of Pollution Control Devices with production processes (one way but not vice-versa) so as to ensure that whenever ETPS/PCDs are intentionally closed, the production also comes to halt.

¶22

iv.) Regular inspections should be carried out by the statutory. authorities in both halves of the crushing season and also at least once in non-crushing season.

¶23

v.) Since the Asmoli Unit falls in the critical zone with respect to ground water withdrawal, an assessment of water recharge needs to be carried out by CGWA or UPGWB before issuance of NOC.

¶24

The Statutory Authorities are directed to ensure the above directions strictly so that industries may run without causing damage or loss to the environment as well as to the local inhabitants and farmers residing nearby the Units.”

¶25

Having regard to the nature of the allegation made in the original application and considering the fact that applicant had not come-forward to prosecute it, we are of the view that status of compliance needs to be ascertained by respondent no.5-UPPCB.

¶26

Hence, we dispose of the OA directing the Member Secretary, UPPCB to get the inspection of the unit done, ascertain the status of compliance of environmental clearance and other clearance conditions concerning the environmental norms and submit the report before the Registrar General of the Tribunal within three months via email at judicial- [email protected], preferably in the form of a searchable PDF/OCR-supported PDF and not in the form of an Image PDF. If it is found necessary, the matter will be listed for consideration before the bench again.

¶27

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶28

¶29

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶30

December 08, 2025 Original Application No. 214/2025 Jg.

¶31

Mohammad Kamar S/O Shri Mohammad Faruk v. 1. M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Distillery Division

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Kamar S/O Shri Mohammad Faruk v. 1. M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Distillery Division

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

Anmol Singh vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Malta Chinni S/O Nookaraju vs Central Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Sanjay Nautiyal vs

News Item Titled "Andekhi: Khanan Maafia Khuleaam Kar Rahe Visfot Janjeevan Asurakshit Dahshat: Mandiron-Schoolo Tak Gunj Rahe Dhamake Kaksha Mei Kaamp Jaate Hai Bachche" Appearing in the Rajasthan Patirka Dated 24.11.2025 vs

Babu Lal Jajoo vs Principal Secretary Department of Local Self Government

Rajan v vs State of Kerala

Mohid Shah vs Ms Avicenna Stones and Minerals Private Limited through Its Director

Bhagwan Singh vs

News Item Titled "Andekhi: Khanan Maafia Khuleaam Kar Rahe Visfot Janjeevan Asurakshit Dahshat: Mandiron-Schoolo Tak Gunj Rahe Dhamake Kaksha Mei Kaamp Jaate Hai Bachche" Appearing in the Rajasthan Patirka Dated 24.11.2025 vs

M/S Neeta Polycots vs the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

M/S Neeta Polycots vs the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas

R S Resource Management Consulting Pvt. Ltd. vs Commission for Air Quality Management

Bhagwan Singh vs

Girdhari Lal Constructions Private Limited vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas