Dismissed

Sanjiv Kumar Kumra v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board

NGT18 Aug 2026Appeal No. 63/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an appeal challenging a closure order issued by the Haryana State Pollution Control Board against the appellant for operating without necessary clearances. The court held the order was lawful as the appellant had no CTE/CTO and had received due notice.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sanjiv Kumar Kumra vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 21 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Appeal No. 63/2025 (IA No 658/2025 & IA No 659/2025)

Sanjiv Kumar Kumra

Appellant

Versus

Haryana State Pollution Control Board Respondent

¶8

Date of hearing: 18.08.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Appellant. Ms. Rema Raina & Mr. N.K. Sharma, Advocates for Appellant

¶11

Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Advocates for respondent no. 1 - HSPCB

¶12

ORDER

¶13

By this appeal, filed under Section 16(C), 16(f) read with Section 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, the appellant has challenged the closure order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the respondent-Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB).

¶14

Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that prior to passing of the order, no show cause notice was received by the appellant and the closure order was pasted on the main gate of the unit. There are about 400 such units operating in the area without Consent To Operate (CTO) and Consent To Establish (CTE). Therefore, order is required to be set-aside.

¶15

Learned Counsel for respondent-HSPCB opposing the appeal, has submitted that appellant was operating without CTE or CTO and action has been taken in compliance of the action taken report dated 13.01.2026 filed in O.A. No.61/2025. The show cause notice was given to the appellant

¶16

¶17

and the appellant is operating violating the environmental norms in the non-confirming area.

¶18

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned order reveals that the field officer of the respondent-Board had visited the appellant unit on 15.04.2025 and found the appellant to be established and operating without obtaining CTE and CTO from the Board and the unit had not installed the APCM.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the appellant, during the course of hearing has not disputed the fact that appellant does not have the CTE and CTO to run the unit.

¶20

The impugned order also reveals that show cause notice for closure was issued to the appellant on 12.05.2025.

¶21

The respondent, in para 5 of the reply affidavit, has stated that the show cause notice was duly received by Sh. Hari Singh, caretaker of the unit. A copy of the show cause notice dated 12.05.2025 has been placed on record by respondent along with its reply.

¶22

In the rejoinder, appellant has not disputed that the Hari Singh was the employee of the appellant and has taken the plea that Hari Singh has left the job without any information to the owner. In such circumstances, we find that due opportunity was given to the appellant.

¶23

So far as the plea of the appellant that 400 such units are operating illegally in the area is concerned, it has been pointed out by Learned Counsel for respondent-PCB that along with the action taken report filed by the PCB in O.A. No. 61/2025 dated 13.01.2026 (annexure-5 to the reply of the PCB), the respondent-Board had placed on record before the Tribunal the details of all such units which were operating illegally. He has referred to the relevant extract of table-2 of the said reply to show that the name of the appellant had figured in that list. He has pointed out that the

¶24

¶25

said list/ reply is running more than 600 pages, containing the details of several such industries. Therefore, only relevant extract has been filed. He has also informed that action has been taken against all the such units which were operating illegally.

¶26

Hence, we do not find any merit in the plea of the discrimination raised by the appellant. Even otherwise, if the appellant unit has been found to be operating illegally without requisite clearances such as CTE and CTO from the PCB, necessary action is required to be taken. 11. The respondent-HSPCB, while passing the impugned order, has exercised the power under Section 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act,1981.

¶27

In view of the undisputed position that appellant does not have any CTE or CTO from the respondent-HSPCB, we find that no error has been committed by the respondent-HSPCB in passing the impugned closure order.

¶28

Thus, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

Pending IAs are also disposed of.

¶30

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶31

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶32

August 18, 2026 Appeal No. 63/2025 (IA No 658/2025 & IA No 659/2025) JG.

¶33

Sanjiv Kumar Kumra v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sanjiv Kumar Kumra v. Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Full Throttle Automative vs Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board

Ajay R Jani vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Gargi Black Stone Quarry Works vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

K Sasikumar vs 1. State Environment Impact Assessment Authoritytamilnadu

Vijaykumar Karsanbhai Gadhavi vs Union of India

Vijaykumar Karsanbhai Gadhavi vs Union of India

Go Green Foundation Trust vs Union of India

Ia No. 814/2025 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 130/2025 of Vedanta Limited vs State of Tamilnadu

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 130/2025 in Appeal No. 87/2018 of Vedanta Limited vs State of Tamilnadu

Municipal Corporation Chandigarh vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Sumitra Saini vs Delhi Development Authority

Pankaj Kumar vs

Nitin Anand vs Ministry of Railways