Allowed

Pawan Kumar Banta v. State of Himachal Pradesh

NGT2 Jul 2026IA No. 122/2026 in Original Application No. 341/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed applications seeking impleadment of new applicants and withdrawal by the original applicant regarding alleged illegal environmental clearances and construction violations. The Tribunal allowed impleadment and withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

Allowance of impleadment (IA No. 122/2026) for Shagun Sharma and Ajay Kumar; allowance of withdrawal (IA No. 121/2026) for the original applicant.

Pawan Kumar Banta vs State of Himachal Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Court No. 1

¶2

Item No. 14

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 341/2024 (IA No 121/2026, IA No 122/2026, IA No 485/2026, IA No 138/2024, IA No 228/2024, IA No 229/2024, IA No 674/2024, IA No 676/2024)

Pawan Kumar Banta

Applicant

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 02.07.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. A.R. Takkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Unnati Anand & Mr. Manan Takkar, Advs. for Applicant

¶13

Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Ms. Eisha Krishn, Ms. Huma Fareed, Mr. Anubhav Anand, Mr. Vishavjeet Chaudhary, Mr. Arindam Bharadwaj & Ms. Mehaak Jaggi, Advs. for R - 7 Mr. Divyanshu Kumar Srivastava, Adv. for R - 1, 3, 5, 6 & 10 (Through VC) Mr. Vaibhav Srivastava, AAG with Mr. Ashish Joshi, Adv. for R - 2 Ms. Gurinderjit Kaur, Adv. for R - 8 (Through VC) Mr. Narender Pal Singh, Adv. in I.A. 122/2026

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This original application was filed by the Original Applicant alleging that the Respondent No. 7 – M/s Nirvana Woods & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. had illegally constructed 11 storeyed hotel/9 storeyed hotel, serviced 1 BHK apartments/15 serviced villas for commercial purposes on an area situated at Mohal Kiyari and Rirka, Tehsil and District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent No. 7 had done the construction without any environmental clearance. His further plea was that the project proponent had earlier obtained the environmental clearance containing the condition no. 4 that in case of any change in the scope of the project, a fresh appraisal of SEIAA would be required. The Applicant had alleged that

¶16

¶17

though the scope of the project was changed and there was change in area, but no fresh appraisal was done by SEIAA and no fresh EC was obtained.

¶18

The Tribunal on 03.09.2024 considering the grievance of the Applicant had issued notice in its OA. Thereafter, the replies and rejoinders have been filed.

¶19

IA No. 121/2026 has been filed by the Original Applicant seeking withdrawal of the original application on the ground that meanwhile the Respondent No. 7 had obtained the requisite permissions from the concerned authorities.

¶20

Another IA being IA No. 122/2026 has been filed by the two Applicants, namely, Shagun Sharma and Ajay Kumar seeking impleadment on the ground that the serious issue of violation is involved. Therefore, the Applicants in IA No. 122/2026 should be allowed to be impleaded and prosecute this OA.

¶21

The Respondent No. 7 has filed the reply to IA No. 122/2026 and has opposed this IA.

¶22

With consent, IA No. 121/2026 and IA No. 122/2026 are heard today.

¶23

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants in IA No. 122/2026 has submitted that all the pleadings are complete, the matter is at the final stage of hearing and he will not file any fresh pleadings and will argue the matter finally without seeking any adjournment. He has further submitted that the EC has been illegally transferred in favour of the Respondent No. 7 and that the MoEF&CC also has issued the communication dated 08.04.2026 to the Deputy Director General of Forest, Himachal Pradesh mentioning the serious issues of violation of norms.

¶24

¶25

He submits that the violation in this case needs to be examined in the matter and, therefore, the OA should not be dismissed as withdrawn simply because the Original Applicant wants to withdraw it due to his ill health.

¶26

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 7 opposing the IA for impleadment has submitted that the IA has been filed after two years with the delay and the IA is barred by time, therefore, it cannot be entertained. He has further submitted that the RTI application on page 1482 was filed by the advocate not proper and in view of the communication dated 08.04.2026 the proceedings have been taken up by the MoEF&CC, therefore, the matter may be remitted to the MoEF&CC for concluding those proceedings. He has also submitted that the SEIAA has extended the EC against which the appeal lies and that remedy is available. He has also submitted that if the Original Applicant withdraws, the matter can be otherwise taken up by the Tribunal in suo motu exercise of power.

¶27

Learned Counsel appearing for the PCB has submitted that there is a serious environmental issue involved in the matter which needs to be examined by the Tribunal in this OA.

¶28

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

¶29

So far as IA No. 121/2026 is concerned, the Original Applicant wants to withdraw the OA. He has simply stated that since during the pendency of the OA, requisite permissions have been granted to the project proponent, therefore, he wants to withdraw the OA. Counsel for the Applicant in IA No. 121/2026 has also submitted that there are health issues due to which the original applicant wants to withdraw the OA.

¶30

¶31

Even if the Original Applicant is correct and subsequently permission has been granted to the project proponent, the issue of past violation, if any, remains open. That apart, we do not want to go deeper in to the reason for withdrawal of the OA, but if the original applicant’s health does not permit him to prosecute this OA, some other person interested in prosecuting the OA can be substituted in his place. The record reflects that a serious allegation of environmental violation has been made against the Respondent No. 7. The communication which has been sent by the MoEF&CC dated 08.04.2026 also mentions the allegation of serious violations of environmental issues on which the clarification from Deputy Director General of Forest, Himachal Pradesh was sought. The relevant part of the said communication is as under:

¶32

“This has reference to the representation by Shri Ajay Kumar against the illegal transfer of Environmental clearance(EC) dated 01.04.2026 which was originally granted in favour of M/s Homeland Exotica and subsequently transferred in the name of M/s Nirvana Woods and Hotels Pvt. Ltd by SEIAA, Himachal Pradesh (Copy enclosed). The content of the representation is self-explanatory.

¶33

2. In this regard, the applicant has requested to take cognizance of the serious irregularities highlighted and initiate appropriate action in accordance with law. A preliminary examination of the matter raises serious concerns especially related to illegal transfer of an EC which itself was surrendered, covering 'violation case' as a transfer case indicating contempt of the orders of Hon'ble SC, change in scope and nature of the project especially when there is change in project area itself etc. In view of seriousness of the matter above, it is requested to furnish a detailed factual status report along with supporting documents covering major issues identified as below and/any other issues in the representation:

¶34

1. Illegal transfer of EC: EC originally granted to M/s Homeland Exotica and subsequently transferred to M/s Nirvana Woods and Hotels Pvt Ltd. by SEIAA, H.P. vide order dated 27.05.2025.

¶35

2. Construction of project completed without obtaining prior EC: Construction of the project by M/s Nirvana Woods and Hotels Pvt Ltd was commenced, substantially carried out and nearly completed without obtaining prior EC; mischaracterized as a mere case of transfer.

¶36

3. Project (M/s Nirvana Woods and Hotels Pvt Ltd) have been dealt under the violation category: The action of SEIAA, HP in granting transfer of EC to a project whose construction had already been commenced and substantially progressed

¶37

¶38

without obtaining prior EC is in violation of Ministry's notification dated 14.03.2017 as well as OM dated 07.07.2021 as the project can only be considered under the "violation category" and must be dealt strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein.

¶39

4. Change in scope of project: The modification in nature, scale, configuration or usage of the project could not have been undertaken without seeking and obtaining fresh EC in accordance with the applicable legal framework. There occurred a fundamental and substantive alteration in the very substratum of the project including not only change in identity of project proponent but also a complete transformation in the nature, scope, scale and character of the project itself.

¶40

5. Repeated requests made by Sh. Sunil Kumar Sood (earlier owner of project): Sh. Sunil Kumar Sood itself repeatedly approached the Secretary (Environment) and Chairman, SEIAA, Shimla as well as the Director, SEIAA, Shimla, seeking cancellation/surrender of the EC dated 01.04.2016 granted in favour of Homeland Exotica, (whose sole proprietor was Mr. Sunil Kumar Sood) vide letter dated 15.10.2019, 18.12.2019, 02.01.2020 and 14.03.2020.

¶41

6. Illegal renewal of Consent to Establish regularizing prolonged violations: The Consent to Establish dated 03.03.2017 granted by HPPCB was valid up to 02.03.2018 and a ShowCause notice dated 15.02.2019 was issued by PCB for no renewal by any fresh consent. In such circumstances, the subsequent action of PCB renewing the expired CTE on 15.09.2025 with retrospective effect from 02.03.2018 after nearly eight years is illegal.

¶42

3. This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.”

¶43

It has been pointed out by Counsel for the Applicant in IA No. 122/2026 that even the required clarification has not been sent by the Deputy Director General of Forest, HP to the R.O., MoEF&CC till now.

¶44

So far as the objection about limitation raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 7 is concerned, the limitation prescribed under sections 14 and 15 is in respect of filing of the OA. If at the final hearing stage of the OA for some reason, the original applicant wants to withdraw and some other arrangement is to be made by the Tribunal, such as permitting other interested applicant to prosecute it or to appoint Amicus or to request the Legal Services Authority to appoint an advocate

¶45

¶46

to assist the Tribunal or to taken up the matter suo motu , the issue of limitation would not arise.

¶47

That apart, it is also noticed that the pleadings are complete in the matter and the OA is at the final stage and the Counsel for the Applicant in IA No. 122/2026 has assured that he would not file any fresh pleading and will not take unnecessary adjournment in the matter.

¶48

In the abovesaid circumstances, we are of view that IA No. 122/2026 deserves to be allowed and the Applicants in IA No. 122/2026 are entitled to be impleaded as the original applicants in the OA which is accordingly allowed.

¶49

IA No. 121/2026 is allowed and the original Applicant is permitted to withdraw from the OA.

¶50

List the OA for hearing on 17.09.2026.

¶51

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶52

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶53

July 02, 2026

¶54

Original Application No. 341/2024 (IA No 121/2026, IA No 122/2026, IA No 485/2026, IA No 138/2024, IA No 228/2024, IA No 229/2024, IA No 674/2024, IA No 676/2024) dv

¶55

Pawan Kumar Banta v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Kumar Banta v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gaurav Singh vs Fairmine Carbons Pvt. Ltd.

Gaurav Singh vs Fairmine Carbons Pvt. Ltd.

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Dhananjay Bajirao Jambhale vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Vishnu Kumar Vaishnav vs Chief Secretary Govt of Rajasthan

Soumen Chakraborty vs the Principal Secretary Environment Department Government of West Bengal

Gaurav Sharma vs Radha Soami Satsang Beas Dera Baba Jaimal Singh Registered Society Beas through Its Secretaries

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Tejinder Pal Singh vs State of Haryana

Pawan Kumar Banta vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Charan Singh Saini vs State of Uttarakhand