Dismissed

Shubham Gaur v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT5 Aug 2025Original Application No. 393/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an original application seeking exemption from scrapping policy and extension of life for BS-VI diesel vehicles, the National Green Tribunal dismissed the plea as contrary to Supreme Court orders enforcing 10-year age limits for diesel cars.

What did the court decide?

Direction to restrain respondents from enforcing scrapping policy or increasing vehicle life was denied.

Shubham Gaur vs Ministry of Environment Forest and… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 393/2025

¶5

Shubham Gaur Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 05.08.2025

¶9

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

¶10

Applicant : Mr. Ashish Jain, Mr. Deepak Panwar & Mr. Abhishek, Advs. for Applicant

¶11

ORDER

¶12

In this original application (OA), plea of the applicant is that he has purchased a diesel car with BS-VI norms on 22.01.2021. As per the registration certificate, car has the validity of 15 years but he was told by the car dealer that vehicle is valid for 10 years.

¶13

Applicant in the said factual background has sought a direction to restrain respondent nos. 1 and 2 from enforcing scrapping policy against BS-VI diesel vehicles based on the age criteria. He has further prayer for a direction to the respondents for increasing the prescribed life of new BS-VI diesel cars from 10 years to 15 years.

¶14

The issue if more than 10 years old diesel vehicles can be permitted to ply on roads in Delhi has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the order dated 29.10.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13029/1985, in the matter of M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors ., wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶15

¶16

“1. The Transport Departments of NCR will immediately announce that all the diesel vehicles more than 10 years’ old and petrol vehicles more than 15 years’ old shall not ply in NCR in terms of the order of the National Green Tribunal dated 07.04.2015. The order of the National Green Tribunal was challenged in this Court and the Civil Appeal was dismissed. Vehicles violating the order will be impounded. The list of such vehicles should be published on the websites of the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the Transport Departments of NCR. Similarly, a meaningful advertisement should be published in a local newspaper for the convenience of the owners of the vehicles.”

¶17

It is worth noting that the Tribunal by order dated 07.04.2015 passed in OA No. 21/2014, in the matter of Vardhaman Kaushik vs. Union of India & Ors . had directed that all the diesel vehicles which are more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles which are more than 15 years old shall not be registered in the NCR Delhi. The Civil Appeal against the above order of the Tribunal was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶18

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the order dated 01.11.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 13029/1985, in the matter of M.C. Mehta supra while considering the issue of the air pollution in Delhi has taken note of the above direction and observed as under:

¶19

“xxx ………………………………xxx……………………………………xxx

¶20

We have reminded learned counsel for the Government of Delhi that the National Green Tribunal had passed an order on 07.04.2015 prohibiting registration of diesel commercial vehicles which are more than 10 years old and petrol vehicles which are more than 15 years old on the roads of NCR, Delhi.

¶21

A civil appeal against that decision was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 15.05.2015.

¶22

Three and half years have gone by. It appears that the order passed by the National Green Tribunal and affirmed by this Court has not yet been complied with. We, therefore, request learned counsel to advise his clients to act with necessary promptitude.”

¶23

The relief which the Applicant is seeking in the present OA runs counter to the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court noted above.

¶24

¶25

Hence, no ground to entertain the OA is made out which is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶27

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶28

August 05, 2025 Original Application No. 393/2025 JG.

¶29

Shubham Gaur v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Gaur v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Vijaykumar Jethe vs the Manager Atul Stone Cruser

Santosh Shivnath Mote vs District Forest Officer Ahilyanagar Maharashtra

Maniram Saini & Ors. vs State of Rajasthan

Girija Prasad Patra vs State of Odisha

News Item Titled "472 Acres of Lake Land Encroached in Bengaluru But Only 17 Acres Reclaimed" Appearing in the New Indian Express Dated 29.07.2025 vs

Lakshmi vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ajayveer Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Munish Kumar Sharma vs Vkm Township Pvt. Ltd. through Its Promoters

MD Imran Ahmad vs Central Pollution Control Board

Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Ms Sunshine Rubber Industries vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Ms Sunshine Rubber Industries vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Madhuban Bapudham Welfare Society vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad