Partly allowed

Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

NGT8 Sept 2026IA No. 315/2026 in Appeal No. 113/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed an interim application seeking a stay on an order by the Environment Appellate Authority requiring a new odour study and bank guarantee. The court noted the absence of a fixed standard for measuring odour, which prima facie rendered the order erroneous. The application was allowed with a direction to stay the operation of the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Stay of operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Environment Appellate Authority during the pendency of the appeal.

Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Gujarat — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

(Pune Bench)

¶2

Item No.14

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL WESTERN ZONE BENCH, PUNE

¶4

[THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING (WITH HYBRID OPTION)]

¶5

APPEAL NO.113 OF 2026 (WZ) I.A. NO.315 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶6

M/s Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd.

¶7

…..Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Gujarat & Ors.

¶10

….Respondents

¶11

Date of hearing: 08.09.2026

¶12

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. SUJIT KUMAR BAJPAYEE, EXPERT MEMBER

¶13

Appellant : Mr. Devan Parikh, Senior Advocate along-with Mr. Jugal Bharat Chauhan, Advocate Respondents : Mr. Parth H. Bhatt, Advocate for R-1 Mr. Chintan Dave, Advocate for R-2 to 4/GPCB Mr. Maulik Nanavati, Advocate for R-5/Appellant Authority Mr. Aniruddha S. Kulkarni, Advocate for R-13/CPCB Mr. Pushkal Mishra, Advocate for R-14/MoEF&CC

¶14

ORDER

¶15

We find that in the array of parties of the present appeal, Respondent Nos.6 to 12 have been impleaded by their names, who are the Members of the Appellant Authority. Learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati, appearing for Respondent No.5-Environment Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat is opposing the impleadment of the members of the Appellant Authority by their names, to which the learned senior counsel for the appellant has agreed to delete them from the array of parties. We direct him to file an amended memo of parties forthwith.

¶16

Page 1 of 8

¶17

From the side of Respondent No.1- State of Gujarat through the Chief Secretary, learned counsel Mr. Parth H. Bhatt has put in appearance and submitted that he has not filed objection to the interim relief application/I.A. and has filed reply only to the main appeal.

¶18

From the side of Respondent Nos.2 to 4- GPCB, learned counsel Mr. Chintan Dave has put in appearance and submitted that he has also not filed objection to the interim relief application/I.A. and has filed reply only to the main appeal.

¶19

From the side of Respondent No.5- Environment Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, learned counsel Mr. Maulik Nanavati has put in appearance and submitted that he has filed combined reply to the main appeal as well as to the interim relief application/I.A. and a copy of the same has already been served upon the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he does not want to file objection against this reply affidavit.

¶20

From the side of Respondent No.14- MoEF&CC, learned counsel Mr. Pushkal Mishra has put in appearance and submitted that Respondent No.14 is a formal party, therefore, he does not want to file reply affidavit in this matter.

¶21

Today, learned counsel for the appellant submits that pleadings are complete and this matter may be listed for final hearing but he is pressing for interim relief to be considered today itself. We allow his request.

¶22

I.A. NO.315 OF 2026 (WZ)

¶23

This I.A. has been moved by the appellant with the prayer that the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned Judgment and

¶24

Page 2 of 8

¶25

order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the Respondent No.5-Environment Appellant Authority be stayed.

¶26

In the body of this I.A., it is submitted that the impugned order is prima facie contrary to law, arbitrary, non-speaking and passed in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority has failed to deal with the detailed oral submissions and written submissions filed by the Appellant, including the objections specifically raised regarding the non-supply of the Gujarat Pollution Control Board's written submissions dated 12.03.2026, the application dated 09.07.2026 seeking therein permission to place the workers’ health report on record, and several other material contentions.

¶27

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the impugned order is vitiated by institutional and official bias because the Officers belonging to the very authority, whose order was under challenge, participated in deciding the legality of that order. It is further submitted that pursuant to the earlier Notice of Direction dated 24.10.2024, the Appellant had already undertaken a detailed odour control study through a recognized Schedule-I Environmental Auditor. In fact, the appellant had also implemented the NABET recommendations, after implementing every recommendation contained therein, obtained an Adequacy Certificate certifying complete compliance and furnished a Bank Guarantee of ₹10,00,000/- as directed by the Respondent Board. Despite complete compliance, the Respondent Board has again directed the Appellant to undertake another odour study through IIT, NEERI or any other institute of national repute and further directed the Appellant to furnish another Bank Guarantee of ₹10,00,000/without assigning any scientific or legal justification. The impugned order mechanically approves these arbitrary directions despite the admitted compliance already made by the appellant.

¶28

Page 3 of 8

¶29

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the impugned order has been passed without there being any scientific evidence whatsoever demonstrating that the Appellant has caused any odour nuisance or violated any prescribed environmental standards. No odour intensity assessment, ambient air quality analysis, scientific sampling, dispersion modelling or objective technical assessment was ever undertaken by the Respondents in accordance with the CPCB Guidelines on odour pollution before issuing the impugned directions. In spite of such absence of any recorded violation of the consent conditions, the Respondent Board proceeded to issue the impugned notice, clearly demonstrates predetermination and colourable exercise of statutory power. The impugned orders are, therefore, based merely upon conjectures, surmises and unverified complaints, rather than scientific evidence.

¶30

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the industrial activity undertaken by the appellant is neither unique nor exceptional. Numerous craft paper manufacturing units across the State of Gujarat carry on identical manufacturing activities with identical pollution control systems. The Appellant has installed pollution control equipment, meeting and even exceeding the standards ordinarily adopted by similarly situated industries and has consistently cooperated with the Gujarat Pollution Control Board. Every observation made by the authorities has been immediately complied with and every lawful direction has been implemented without default. The selective insistence upon additional studies and repeated Bank Guarantees only against the Appellant, while similarly situated industries continue to operate under identical conditions, constitutes hostile discrimination and arbitrary exercise of statutory power.

¶31

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the record itself demonstrates that the impugned proceedings have been initiated and continued under

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

external pressure from certain interested individuals of the nearby village, rather than upon objective environmental assessment. Earlier allegations regarding adverse health effects were independently examined by the District Administration through medical examination of the employees of the Appellant's unit, wherein no employee was found to be suffering from any respiratory or pollution-related ailment attributable to the operations of the Appellant.

¶34

It is further submitted in this I.A. that during the pendency of proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court and despite the understanding that no coercive action would be taken upon the statement made by the Respondent Board, the Respondent Board illegally extinguished the Appellant's existing Bank Guarantee of ₹10,00,000/- without issuing any notice, without recording breach and without lawful justification. Such conduct demonstrates the punitive approach adopted by the Respondents and furnishes additional justification for grant of interim protection by this Tribunal.

¶35

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the appellant operates a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) industrial unit after taking substantial investment in pollution control infrastructure, environmental safeguards and sustainable manufacturing systems. The unit provides direct employment to approximately 110 workers, apart from supporting numerous dependent families. The Appellant continues to remain willing to adopt any additional pollution control technology, that is required and is being followed by the similarly situated industries. However, if the impugned order is permitted to operate during the pendency of the present Appeal, the Appellant would be compelled to undertake unnecessary technical studies, furnish another substantial Bank Guarantee and remain exposed to further coercive proceedings including closure of the industrial unit, which would cause

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

irreparable financial loss, seriously prejudice to the livelihood of more than one hundred employees and render the statutory Appeal itself infructuous.

¶38

It is further submitted in this I.A. that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting interim protection. The Appellant continues to operate under a valid Consent issued by the statutory authorities and has already implemented extensive pollution control mechanisms at considerable financial cost. No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the Respondents, if the impugned order is stayed during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶39

Respondent No.5- Environment Appellate Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat has filed reply affidavit dated 03.09.2026, wherein in para no.54, reply to the Interim Application is contained, wherein the contentions made in the Interim Application are denied. The grant of a stay would be no benefit to the appellant beyond deferring the very scientific evaluation whose absence forms the foundation of the appellant's own case, while the villages of Sametra, Laxmipura (Khara), Gokalgadh and Mareda would, in the meanwhile, remain without the benefit of any expert assessment of the adequacy of the odour control measures installed at the unit. No case of irreparable injury is made out and the balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the appellant.

¶40

Learned counsel for Respondent No.5 has merely stressed the fact that the ground, that there is no standard fixed for measuring the odour so far and yet the impugned order has been passed, is not set up by the appellant in the main appeal. Therefore, no order is required to be passed in favour of the appellant.

¶41

On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order dated 27.11.2024 passed by this Tribunal in

¶42

Page 6 of 8

¶43

Original Application No.70 of 2023 (WZ) [Earlier Original Application No.229 of 2023 (LP)] (Rajiv Sinha vs. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board & Anr.) , wherein the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) was directed to frame the rules of odour pollution and its control. But so far, the same has not been done. Therefore, it is urged by him that the impugned order should be stayed till the final disposal of the present appeal.

¶44

Our attention is also drawn by the learned counsel for the appellant to the impugned order, wherein following is held:-

¶45

“Upon consideration of the documents placed on record, and the submissions made by both parties, this Authority finds that the Gujarat Pollution Control Board has acted within the scope of its statutory powers under Section 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. The material on record demonstrates that the impugned Notice of Direction dated 01.09.2025 and the Speaking Order dated 21.11.2025 were issued pursuant to odour nuisance, inspection reports, and after affording the appellant adequate opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principles of natural justice and the directions of this Authority dated 29.10.2025.

¶46

The record reveals that the respondent Board adopted a progressive regulatory approach by granting repeated opportunities for compliance before issuing the impugned directions. The Board's decision to require any independent scientific odour study was reasonable, precautionary, and intended to ensure effective Environmental Protection.

¶47

Accordingly, this Authority finds no reason to interfere with the impugned Speaking Order dated 21.11.2025. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed. The impugned Speaking Order is affirmed.”

¶48

In view of above, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is upheld on the ground that there was no ground to interfere because the same was found to be a speaking order passed by

¶49

Page 7 of 8

¶50

Respondent- Gujarat Pollution Control Board under Section-31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

¶51

The query, which was made by us from the learned counsel for Respondent No.5, is as to whether there is any standard specified for measuring the odour, to which it is still responded to in the negative. So, we are of the opinion that there is no yardstick fixed to measure the odour and also there was no such condition that CC&A laid down. Therefore, such kind of order prima facie appears to be erroneous, but a detailed discussion is required on this. During the argument, it transpired that there are several rulings passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court which need to be considered before passing the final order. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to grant interim relief to the appellant directing that the impugned order shall not be given effect till further orders.

¶52

I.A. NO.315 OF 2026 (WZ) stands disposed of.

¶53

Registry is directed to list the main matter for final hearing on 07.01.2027.

¶54

Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, JM

¶55

Dr. Sujit Kumar Bajpayee, EM

¶56

September 08, 2026 APPEAL NO.113 OF 2026 (WZ) I.A. NO.315 OF 2026 (WZ) P.Kr.

¶57

Page 8 of 8

Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Twilight Craft Papers Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

Amit Sharma vs

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Suresh Kumar Shah vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Fishing Boat Owners Association vs Kerala Coastal Zone Management Authority

Atul Kumar Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Atul Kumar Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through the Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs M/S Simar Port Pvt. Ltd. through the Managing Director

Dipak Dhansukhbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

Dipak Dhansukhbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat

Dipak Dhansukhbhai Patel vs State of Gujarat