The NGT dismissed the original application as premature. The court found no cause of action since the consent to operate (CTO) from the UP PCB had not yet been issued and the respondent's application was pending.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Item No. 04
Court No. 1
BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Original Application No. 587/2025
Rakesh Bansal
Applicant
Versus
State of UP & Ors.
Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 20.11.2025
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER
Appellant: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Nandita Bansal & Ms. Chandrika Upadhyaya, Advs.
ORDER
and considering the undisputed position that the CTO has not yet been
1
issued by the UP PCB and the application made by the Respondent No. 5 for CTO is pending, we find the Applicant has no cause of action to approach the Tribunal at this stage. The application is premature which is accordingly
dismissed.
Prakash Shrivastava, CP
Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
November 20, 2025 Original Application No. 587/2025 A
2
Rakesh Bansal
State of UP & Ors.
Prakash Shrivastava
A. Senthil Vel
As recorded by the court registry
An original application before a tribunal, most commonly a service dispute before the Central or a State Administrative Tribunal.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
