Allowed

Sri. B. Raghupathy v. Union of India

NGT9 Apr 2026IA No. 280/2026 in Original Application No. 595/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed an application to amend the respondent description in OA 595/2018 due to the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. Related applications OA Nos. 1195 to 1197/2024 were listed for future prosecution.

What did the court decide?

The application to change the respondent description was allowed; the applicant was directed to carry out the amendment in the cause title.

Sri. B. Raghupathy vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 08 to 11

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 595/2018 (IA NO 280/2026)

¶5

Sri. B. Raghupathy Applicant Versus Union of India Respondent(s)

¶6

WITH

¶7

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1195/2024

¶8

M/S New Ark Project Applicant Versus Environmental Officer Karnataka State Pollution Control Board Respondent(s)

¶9

WITH

¶10

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1196/2024

¶11

M/S New Ark Project Applicant Versus Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Respondent(s) WITH

¶12

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 1197/2024 Sri K. S. Satish Applicant Versus Commissioner Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike Respondent(s)

¶13

Date of hearing: 09.04.2026

¶14

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

¶15

Applicant: Mr. Ramprasad, Adv. for Applicant in OA 595/2018 (Through VC)

¶16

¶17

Mr. Saket Gogia & Ms. Gauri Pande, Advs. for Applicants in OA No. 1195 & 1196/2024 Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Mr. Piyush M. Dwivedi, Ms. Eisha Krishn, Mr. Surya Gupta, Ms. Satvika Krishnan, Mr. Anubhav Anand & Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, Advs. for Applicant in OA 1197/2024

¶18

Respondents: Mr. Ramprasad, Adv. for R - 3 in OA 11951197/2024 (Through VC)

¶19

Mr. Sanjay Upadhyay, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Mr. Piyush M. Dwivedi, Ms. Eisha Krishn, Mr. Surya Gupta, Ms. Satvika Krishnan, Mr. Anubhav Anand & Mr. Abhishek Dwivedi, Advs. for R - 11 in OA 595/2018

¶20

Ms. Garima Jain & Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv. for R - 4 in OA 595/2018 & for R - 1 & 2 in OA 11961197/2024

¶21

Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for CGWA in OA No. 595/2018 (Through VC)

¶22

Mr. Darpan K.M & Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Advs. for the State of Karnataka (Through VC) Mr. Saket Gogia & Ms. Gauri Pande, Advs. for R - 12 in OA No. 595/2018

¶23

Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv. for R - 3, BDA in OA 595/2018 (Through VC)

¶24

Mr. Devraj Ashok, Adv. for KSPCB in OA 1195/2024 (Through VC)

¶25

Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, Adv. for R - 8 in OA 595/2018 (Through VC)

¶26

ORDER

¶27

O.A. No. 595/2018

¶28

IA No. 280/2026 has been filed by the applicant seeking permission

¶29

to change the description of the respondent no. 4 on account of the

¶30

enactment of the Greater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024. The description of respondent no. 4 proposed to be changed is as under :-

¶31

"4. BENGALURU SOUTH CITY CORPORATION (BSCC)

¶32

Having office at 9th Main Road, 9th Cross Road, 2^nd Stage, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011 Represented by its Commissioner Email: [email protected] UNDER:

¶33

GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY (GBA)

¶34

N.R. Square, Corporation Circle Bangalore-56001 Represented by its Chief Commissioner

¶35

Email: [email protected]"

¶36

¶37

Learned counsel appearing for the original respondent no. 4 does not dispute the submission hence, IA No. 280/2026 is allowed and the applicant is directed to carry out the amendment in the cause title of the original application.

¶38

Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 submits that she is appearing for respondent no. 4 whose description has not been changed therefore no separate notice is required.

¶39

Respondent no. 4 has filed the reply dated 08.04.2026.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks four weeks’ time to file the rejoinder.

¶41

OA No. 1195/2024

¶42

This original application has been registered on account of transfer of Writ Petition No. 21491/2019 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru and the transfer has taken place in terms of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.08.2024 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8416-8417/2019 and connected appeals.

¶43

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant (the writ petitioner) submits that the cause title of the writ petition was amended before the Hon’ble High Court and respondent no. 3 was impleaded.

¶44

Respondent nos. 1 to 3 seeks four weeks’ time to file the reply. Rejoinder if any, can be filed by the applicant within 8 weeks.

¶45

It has been pointed out that learned counsel for the applicant that no replies were filed by the respondents before the Hon’ble High Court. OA No. 1196/2024

¶46

This original application has been registered on transfer of Writ Petition No. 35568/2019 from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supre Court.

¶47

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no reply were filed by the respondent before the Hon’ble High Court.

¶48

¶49

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that she is appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2 whose description has been corrected by this order and no separate notice is necessary to them.

¶50

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 seeks four weeks’ time to file the reply.

¶51

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 also seeks four weeks’ time to file the reply.

¶52

OA No. 1197/2024

¶53

This original application has been registered on account of transfer of Writ Petition No. 46518/2019 filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru that the transfer has taken place in terms of the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 09.08.2024 passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 8416-8417/2019 and connected appeals.

¶54

He seeks permission to correct the description of respondent nos. 1 and 2 on the same line which has been permitted by this order in original application no. 595/2018.

¶55

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that she is appearing for the respondent no. 1 and 2 whose description has been corrected by this order and no separate notice is necessary to them.

¶56

List on 24.07.2026.

¶57

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶58

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶59

April 09, 2026 Original Application Nos. 595/2018, 1195/2024, 1196/2024 & 1197/2024 PN

¶60

Sri. B. Raghupathy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. B. Raghupathy v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joe Fernandez vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

News Item Titled Bhojpur Bangrasia Fourlane Sadak Nirmaan Shuru Pedo Ki Shifting Ke Naam Par Ho Rahi Katai Appearing in Nav Duniya News Paper Dated 31ST October 2025 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Sri Aurobindo Integral Education and Research Centre Sundargarh through Its Secretary Sh Niranjan Mohanty vs Union of India

Jaishree Bansal vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Saarthak Gupta vs Goa State Pollution Control Board

Gaurav Prakash vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Kamal Kumar Rathi vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Its Chief Secretary

Gaurav Prakash vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Deepak Awasthi vs

Jaishree Bansal vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Jaishree Bansal vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Rasikh Rasool Bhat vs Government of Ut of Jammu and Kashmir through Chief Secretary

Sudhir Prakash Shukla vs Kanpur Development Authority

News Item Titled "Probe Under Way as Firecracker Explosion Kills Two in Kozhikode" Appearing in the Hindu Dated 06.04.2026 vs