Dismissed

Gram Panchayat Village Ghasokhana Maur Bathinda v. State of Punjab

NGT10 Jul 2025Original Application No. 330/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application seeking injunction and re-alignment of sewage pipeline in residential area was dismissed as work was already complete and no immediate hazard existed. Tribunal directed monitoring instead of injunction.

What did the court decide?

OA dismissed; liberty to approach again if contamination occurs; leakage monitoring directed as precaution.

Gram Panchayat Village Ghasokhana Maur Bathinda vs State… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 04

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 330/2025

¶5

Gram Panchayat Village GhasoKhana Maur Bathinda

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 10.07.2025

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant Mr. Chritarth Palli & Mr. Agam Aggarwal, Advs. for Applicant ORDER

¶13

In this Original Application (OA), grievance of the applicant is against laying of an underground sewage pipeline through the residential area of Village Ghaso Khana, Tehsil Maur, District Bathinda.

¶14

Applicant alleges that respondents are proceeding to lay the sewer line parallel to drinking water pipeline, therefore, this physical proximity of untreated pipeline to drinking water source may give rise to imminent risk of intermixing on account of leakage, bursting, pipe corrosion, poor maintenance etc.

¶15

In the OA, applicant has prayed for following reliefs:

¶16

“a. Direct the Respondents to permanently injunct from commissioning the sewerage pipeline laid through the internal roads, abadi area, and residential portions of Village GhasoKhana, in order to prevent contamination of groundwater and protect the health and environment of the village residents;

¶17

b. Direct the Respondents to re-align the sewerage pipeline along a feasible and environmentally safer route, such as the originally proposed alignment along the Bathinda-Mansa main road or the

¶18

¶19

alternative route parallel to the railway line, which bypasses the residential zone and avoids proximity to drinking water pipelines;

¶20

c. Direct the constitution of a joint expert committee to inspect the site and assess the risks of groundwater contamination from the impugned alignment;

¶21

d. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just, fit, and necessary in the interest of justice, environmental”.

¶22

Record reflects that applicant had earlier approached the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15354 of 2025 (O/M) seeking a direction restraining the respondents to lay the same underground pipeline for sewage water. The High Court by order dated 27.05.2025 had dismissed the Writ Petition by observing as under:

¶23

“xxx…8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a series of cases as in State of Punjab and another Versus Gurdial Singh and others, (1980) 2 SCC 471 and Shukla V.S. and others Versus NHAI and others, 2013 KHC 2619 has held that a writ court exercising public law remedy of judicial review may not be justified in considering the feasibility of alternative elements in the absence of any established plea of manifest mala fides etc.

¶24

9. Considering the statement made before this Court that the department of railways has already denied the permission for taking the pipeline through/underneath the railway line; the proposal for taking the underground pipeline from point 'X' to point 'Z', as reflected in site plant (Annexure P-7), prima facie appears to be justified.

¶25

10. That apart, art, what should be the best route/alignment for laying down of underground pipeline is to be decided by the experts on the subject and on their report, by the appropriate Government. This Court cannot sit in judicial review over the experts' opinion as regards the nature of the route/alignment proposed for laying down underground pipelines.”

¶26

Instead of challenging the aforesaid order of the Learned Single Judge, applicant had approached the Tribunal substantially for the same relief.

¶27

¶28

During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the applicant has admitted that work of laying of the pipeline is already complete. He submits that sewage flow has not started in that sewer pipeline and if, after the sewer pipeline comes in use and it creates any contamination in drinking water or any health hazard, applicant can approach the Tribunal with all the relevant material but at this stage, merely, on the basis of the apprehension, no direction is needed specially when the work of laying of the sewer pipeline is already complete and High Court of Punjab and Haryana had found the proposal for taking underground pipeline on the concerned area as reflected in the site plan to be justified. However, as preventive and precautionary measures, leakage monitoring can be done by the authorities concerned.

¶29

In such circumstances, no case for interference at this stage is made out. OA is accordingly dismissed. however, with liberty to the applicant to approach the Tribunal again in case if any environmental issue arises after flowing the sewage in the pipeline in question.

¶30

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶31

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶32

July 10, 2025 Original Application No. 330/2025 JG.

¶33

Gram Panchayat Village Ghasokhana Maur Bathinda v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat Village Ghasokhana Maur Bathinda v. State of Punjab

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

Madhukar Vishnu Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Green Space through Its President Mr Praveen Dlima vs State of Goa

Babul Ali vs State of West Bengal

Hemant Kumar vs State of Bihar

Ranjan Singh vs Bihar Pollution Control Board

Jeetu Yadav vs Up State Pollution Control Board through Its Member Secretary

Savitri Nagar Gram Vikas Manch vs District Magistrate (South)

Surendra Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through the Secretary

Jeetu Chaudhary vs

News Item Titled "Activist Questions Forest Dept,S U-Turn Over Mining in Karnataka,S Tumakuru" Appearing in Deccan Herald Dated 10.06.2025. vs

Dr Amit Kumar vs Union of India

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Forest

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 62/2024 in Original Application No. 43/2023 of Dinesh Kumar vs

Nakul Kumar Gupta vs Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board