The NGT dismissed an execution application as infructuous following a Supreme Court order setting aside the impugned tribunal order which lacked adequate notice to a mining proponent.
Execution Application dismissed as infructuous; Original Application restored and impleadment directed.
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.07
BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL CENTRAL ZONE BENCH, BHOPAL (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)
Execution Application No.04/2026(CZ) In
Original Application No.30/2025(CZ)
Maniram Saini Applicant(s)
Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing: 01.09.2026
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MR. SUDHIR KUMAR CHATURVEDI, EXPERT MEMBER
For Applicant (s): Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Adv. (in O.A. No.30/2025) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Adv. for State & RSPCB Mr. Vedant Gupta, Adv. for Intervener
ORDER
1. These appeals are directed against the order dated 04.08.2025 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone, Bhopal (NGT) as well as against the order dated 07.01.2026, dismissing the appellant's review petition against the order dated 04.08.2025. The appellant is a mining proponent involved in the mining and crushing of masonry stones in the mines situated in Gorir Modi Village, District Neem Ka Thana, Rajasthan. It seems that respondent No.4 filed an Original Application (OA) No.30/2025 (CZ) before the NGT without impleading the appellant as party respondent. inspection committee was appointed by the Tribunal in the said OA and when the inspection of the appellant's premises was carried out, the appellant came to know of the said OA. The appellant thereafter joined the proceedings but,
1
E.A. No.04/2026(CZ) Maniram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
seemingly, could not file an effective defence before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the OA was allowed against the appellant, which prompted it to file a review petition, which has also been dismissed by the subsequent order on the ground that the appellant was not a party to the OA.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. It seems to us that, in the interest of justice, one opportunity can be granted to the appellant to file its written statement/counter affidavit/plea of defence, followed by an adequate opportunity of hearing to both sides by the Tribunal.
3. Consequently, we allow the appeals in part, set aside the impugned order dated 04.08.2025 as well as the subsequent review order dated 07.01.2026. The learned Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties.
4. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”
2
E.A. No.04/2026(CZ) Maniram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
List the Original Application No.30/2025(CZ) on 27th October, 2026 .
Sheo Kumar Singh, JM
Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi, EM
01st September, 2026,
Execution Application No.04/2026(CZ) In Original Application No.30/2025(CZ) AK
3
E.A. No.04/2026(CZ) Maniram Saini Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an execution application is maintainable when the impugned order in the parent proceedings has been set aside by the Supreme Court.
Whether the appellant-spousal or third party who was impleaded must be granted an opportunity of hearing before the proceeding is re-opened.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maniram Saini
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Sheo Kumar Singh
Sudhir Kumar Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
An application to execute or enforce a tribunal order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
