Dismissed

Anuj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

NGT10 Nov 2025Review Application No. 17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of a review application challenging an order that found compliance regarding industrial norms. The court held that new reports filed during the review confirmed compliance, dismissing the plea that the earlier order erred in not addressing green cover and nallah development. The review application was dismissed with no case for review made out.

What the court decided

AI extract

Anuj Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 20

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Review Application No. 17/2025 In Original Application No. 530/2023

Anuj Kumar

Review Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 10.11.2025

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. AFROZ AHMAD, EXPERT MEMBER

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Prakash Pandey, Adv. for Applicant in R.A. 17/2025 (Through VC) Respondents: Mr. Manish Singhvi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manish Jain, Mr. Jugul Kishore Gupta, Mr. Vikas Kumar Verma, Mr. Salman Siddiui & Ms. Annu Jain, Advs. for R - 7 & 8 Mr. Pradeep Misra & Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Advs. for UPPCB (Through VC) Mr. Mukesh Verma & Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Advs. for UKPCB (Through VC) Mr. Dhruv Tamta & Mr. Nishchay Dutt, Advs. for the State of Uttarakhand Mr. Saurabh Balwani, Adv. for CPCB

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this review application, the Applicant in OA No. 530/2023 is seeking review of the common order dated 20.05.2025 passed in OA No. 530/2023, 495/2023 and 369/2024. In the OA the Applicant had raised the grievance about the non-compliance and violation of norms by the Respondents No. 7 and 8. The Tribunal had considered the report of the joint Committee reflecting the compliance status and also the report filed by the CPCB in respect of the compliance of 24 recommendations made by the joint Committee and had also considered the subsequent report of the CPCB dated 09.05.2025 and had reached to the conclusion that in substance the deficiencies pointed out by the joint Committee were

¶15

¶16

complied with. Some doubt was expressed about the correctness of allegation of burning spent wash powder and issue of installation of incinerator boiler to protect the ground water pollution and its feasibility. Therefore, direction to the CPCB and UP PCB was issued for carrying out the joint inspection and submitting the report within two months. The OA was accordingly disposed of.

¶17

Learned counsel for the review Applicant submits that in the OA the relief relating to developing the green area and concrete nallah from industry premises to Hadwada drain was claimed which has not been considered by the Tribunal.

¶18

The OA has been decided considering the arguments advanced and the report sought and submitted by the concerned Committee. So far as the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that the above two issues have not been examined by the Tribunal, we find that the fresh report dated 06.01.2025 has been filed by the joint committee in this review application stating as under:-

¶19

“II. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct respondent no 7 to develop concreate Nala from industry premises to Hadwa drain.

¶20

i. उद्योग परिसि से लगे लक्सि ड्रेन को हड़वा नाला तक पक्का नाला ककये जाने के सम्बन्ध में उद्योग प्रतततनतध द्वािा अवगत किाया गया कक लक्सि ड्रेन को पक्का ककये जाने के सम्बन्ध में नगि पातलका परिषद , लक्सि से आवश्यक अनुमतत चाही गयी थी। अतधशासी अतधकािी , नगि पातलका परिषद , लक्सि द्वािा अवगत किाया गया कक लक्सि बाड़ ग्रस्त क्षेत्र होने के कािण बाढ़ / बिसाती पानी की तनकासी लक्सि ड्रेन से होती है। ऐसी दशा में लक्सि नाले के अन्दि हयूम पाईप अथवा इसे कवर्ड ककया जाना नगि कहत में उतचत प्रतीत नहीीं होता है। (सींलग्नक- 06) ।

¶21

ii. उद्योग द्वािा उद्योग परिसि से लगे लक्सि ड्रेन के अतधकाींश क्षेत्र को पक्का ककया गया है। शेष लगभग 100 मी० का क्षेत्र में लक्सि ड्रेन को पक्का ककया जाना है। उक्त हेतु उद्योग प्रबींधक को इस आशय का तनदेश तनगडत ककया जाना उतचत होगा कक तीन माह के अन्तगडत अवशेष भाग में पक्के नाले का तनमाडण ककया जाये।

¶22

¶23

III. That Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct to respondent no 7 to develop green area acre area.

¶24

मै० आि०बी०एन०एस० शुगि तमल्स तल० , कर्स्टलिी यूतनट एवीं शुगि तमल , सींयुक्त रूप 50 एकड़ भूतम में स्थापपत हैं , जजसमें से 8 है० भूतम कृपष कायों में प्रयुक्त की जाती है। उद्योग द्वािा लगभग 15 है 0 भूतम हरित पजटटका पवकतसत ककये जाने हेतु आिजक्षत है। उद्योग परिसि की हरित पजटटका के रूप में वृक्षािोपण तथा पेड़-पौधे पवकतसत ककये गये हैं। ”

¶25

The reply on behalf of the CPCB dated 07.11.2025 has been filed disclosing the compliance on the above two issues by the unit in paragraph 6 and 7 of their reply. The Respondents No. 7 and 8 have also filed their separate reply dated 30.10.2025 disclosing the compliance in this regard.

¶26

The above report/reply clearly reveals that there is no default in compliance by the unit in question about maintaining the green belt and constructing the drain. Hence, we find that the order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record and no case for review is made out.

¶27

The Review Application is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶29

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶30

November 10, 2025 Review Application No. 17/2025 In Original Application No. 530/2023 A

¶31

Anuj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anuj Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sureshkumar Sardarbhai Patel (Proprietor of Dharti Quarry Works) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Perry Fernandes vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Mr. Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Janardhan P Mesta vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (Seiaa) Karnataka

Shailesh Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Lalitkumar Namdeo Chaudhari vs State of Maharashtra

Suresh M Pujari vs Lonavala Municipal Council

Indotech Waste Solution vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

S K Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi vs Ministry of Mines

Gopal Chandra Vanwassi vs Ministry of Mines

Hawa Singh Khobra vs State of Haryana

Veena Kumari vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Renu Kumar vs Municipal Corporation