Disposed

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

NGT7 Apr 2026IA No. 38/2026 in Original Application No. 155/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT Eastern Zone Bench rejected an application for exemption of the RMC Commissioner from personal appearance and impleaded JUIDCO. The court directed the Commissioner to file affidavits on remedial steps within two months. After forfeiting further adjournments, the respondents were granted one last opportunity to file responses upon payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Commissions of RMC and JUIDCO were directed to appear before it; response of the RMC Commissioner was ordered; the Registry was directed to implead JUIDCO as respondent no. 5.

Rajeev Kumar vs State of Jharkhand — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

Court No.1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING WITH HYBRID MODE)

¶4

Original Application No.155/2025/EZ (I.A. No.38/2026/EZ)

¶5

Rajeev Kumar Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Jharkhand & Ors. Respondents

¶8

Date of hearing: 07.04.2026

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE MR. ISHWAR SINGH, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant: Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate for the applicant (through VC). Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2 (through VC). Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 3 (physically in EZB). Mr. Ramendu Agarwal, Advocate (physically in EZB) along with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Ranjan, PCS, Assistant Commissioner for respondent no.4- Ranchi Municipal Corporation.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

The applicant has filed present application under Sections 14, 15

¶12

and 18 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 seeking the following

¶13

reliefs:-

¶14

“I. Direct the Respondents to submit a detailed and verifiable status report on all STPs associated with the Harmu River, including capacity, performance metrics, and timelines for making them fully operational;

¶15

II. Direct immediate stoppage of discharge of untreated sewage and mandate in situ treatment or interim diversion until STPs become operational;

¶16

III. Issue directions for setting up a high-level monitoring committee comprising independent experts, local environmental NGOs, and technical officers to oversee restoration and pollution abatement;

¶17

IV. Mandate the Respondents to conduct fortnightly water quality testing and publish results in public domain for transparency and accountability;

¶18

¶19

V. Pass any other order(s) or directions which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, environmental protection, and sustainable development.”

¶20

The applicant has submitted that over the past two decades, the

¶21

river has suffered extensive encroachment, reduction in width of the river, and severe pollution due to dumping of solid waste, plastic, continuous discharge of untreated domestic sewage. Though under rejuvenation project multiple STPs were constructed by Ranchi Municipal Corporation but untreated sewage continues to be discharged through newly formed drains and illegal inlets into the Harmu River. Media reports and on-ground evidence indicate that the constructed STPs are either non-functional, under performing, or completely defunct and sewage continues to be discharged directly into the river.

¶22

Vide order dated 03.09.2025, notice of application was issued to the respondents requiring them to file their responses within two months. However, responses have not been filed by respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 despite adjournments having been granted on 24.11.2025 and 27.01.2026.

¶23

Affidavit was filed by respondent no. 4 which was stated to be lying in defect as on 27.01.2026.

¶24

Vide order dated 27.01.2026, the Commissioner, RMC was directed to remain present before this Tribunal physically or through VC with the relevant record.

¶25

The defect has been cured and counter affidavit has been re-filed

¶26

by RMC which is taken on record.

¶27

However, Commissioner, RMC has not appeared before this Tribunal and I.A. No. 38/2026/EZ has been filed by the Commissioner, RMC for exemption from personal appearance on the ground that the Counsel for RMC could not appear before this Tribunal on 27.01.2026 due to lack of instructions and also due to some medical emergency. The

¶28

¶29

Counsel for RMC also informed that the website of this Tribunal was not working due to which he could not login on multiple occasion and could not know the defects in the counter affidavit and could not cure the defects earlier. The RMC had engaged Counsel to represent it before this Tribunal and had done whatever it could to protect its right. Nonappearance of the Counsel may be condoned and such absence would not recur in future.

¶30

We have gone through the I.A. and find that the abovesaid I.A. has not been filed by the Commissioner, RMC himself. The application has been filed by Assistant Municipal Commissioner, RMC and is supported by his affidavit only. The reasons assigned in the I.A. for exemption from personal appearance of the Commissioner, RMC are not supported by any material. Consequently, no valid ground for exemption of the Commissioner, RMC from personal appearance before this Tribunal is made out. Accordingly, I.A. No.38/2026/EZ is dismissed.

¶31

We find that despite directions given by this Tribunal vide order dated 15.10.2020 in O.A. No. 92/2015(EZ), requisite remedial steps have not been taken by RMC. Even, after expiry of more than six months of the filing of the present Original Application, requisite remedial steps have not been taken and only plea has been taken that the Rejuvenation and Conservation of Harmu River Project is now being executed by the Jharkhand Urban Infrastructure Development Company Limited (JUIDCO) under the Urban Development and Housing Department, Government of Jharkhand. 10. RMC cannot abdicate/bypass its statutory obligations for proper management, treatment and disposal of sewage and RMC and Commissioner, RMC cannot be absolved from the liability/consequences of non-compliance in this regard.

¶32

¶33

In the facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner, RMC is directed to take remedial measures within two months and file additional response within two months giving details of remedial measures so taken and also to appear before this Tribunal physically or through VC with all relevant records on the next date of hearing fixed.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also consider presence of JUIDCO to be essential for just and proper adjudication of the substantial environmental questions involved and accordingly, JUIDCO is impleaded as respondent no. 5.

¶35

The Registry is directed to amend the memo of parties and issue notice to respondent no. 5 requiring it to file its response at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed and ensure its representation before this Tribunal on that date.

¶36

In the present case, responses have not been filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 despite three effective opportunities having been granted for this purpose. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits period of 90 days for filing of written statement and grant of three adjournments. In view of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 are not entitled to grant of any further adjournment for filing of their responses and their defense is liable to be struck out, yet in the interest of justice, we consider it appropriate to grant them one more opportunity for filing their responses subject to payment of costs of Rs. 10,000/- each by respondents no. 1 to 3 respectively.

¶37

The costs shall be deposited with the learned Registrar of this Tribunal at Kolkata within one month.

¶38

Responses may be filed by respondents no. 1 to 3 at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.

¶39

¶40

List on 02.07.2026 for further hearing.

¶41

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶42

Ishwar Singh, EM

¶43

April 07^th , 2026 Original Application No.155/2025/EZ (I.A. No.38/2026/EZ) SN

¶44

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

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

Deepank Kumar Sharma vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Manav Uthaan Manch through Its Authorised Signatory Hemant Kumar Madhavdas Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra

Mukesh Gaikwad S/O Shri Shivaji Gaikwad vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change through Deputy Director General of Forests

Society Fdevelopment of Human Resource vs State of Haryana

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

Shailesh Kumar Singh vs the State of West Bengal through Principal Secretary

Jabbar Ali Paeda vs Department of Environment

Ia No. 31/2026 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 32/2024 of Saroj Mishra Aged 56 Years S/O N. Mishra vs 1. State of Odisha Represented through Addl Chief Secretary of Department of Forest Environment and Climate Change

Sibnath Chakraborty vs State of West Bengal through the Chief Secretary

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