Partly allowed

M/S Jai Maa Santoshi Industries v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (Caqm)

NGT1 Jul 2026IA No. 490/2026 in Appeal No. 62/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal considered an appeal challenging a closure order and two interlocatory applications. The Tribunal allowed condonation of delay, permitted additional documents with a condition to file legible copies at the hearing, and listed the appeal for further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of delay allowed; additional documents taken on record with condition to file legible copies at hearing; appeal listed for hearing on 28.07.2026.

M/S Jai Maa Santoshi Industries vs Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (Caqm) — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 20

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 62/2026 (IA No 422/2026, IA No 423/2026, IA No 424/2026, IA No 489/2026, IA No 490/2026)

¶5

M/s Jai Maa Santoshi Industries Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (CAQM) & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 01.07.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Appellant: Mr. Kushank Sindhu & Mr. Parth Kaushal, Advs. for Appellant

¶11

Respondents: Dr. Abhishek Atrey & Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advs. for CAQM

¶12

Mr. Rahul Khurana & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Advs. for R - 2 to 4

¶13

ORDER

¶14

By this Appeal filed under Section 18 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 (CAQM Act, 2021), the Appellant has challenged the closure order dated 11.12.2025 issued by the CAQM under section 12 (2) (xi) of the CAQM Act, 2021.

¶15

IA No. 422/2026 has been filed by the Appellant seeking condonation of delay of 37 days in filing this appeal. It has been pointed out by Counsel for the Appellant that the delay took place because the Appellant was making representations to the different authorities and was waiting for the outcome of those representations. He has also referred to the reasons which have been disclosed in the IA seeking condonation of delay.

¶16

¶17

A perusal of the IA reveals that the Appellant was prevented from filing this appeal within time before the Tribunal on account of the bonafide reason and the delay is unintentional. Hence, IA No. 422/2026 is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶18

IA No. 489/2026 has been filed by the Appellant seeking permission to place on record the additional documents. Along-with this IA, IA No. 490/2026 has been filed by the Appellant seeking exemption from filing the certified/legible copies of the documents enclosed alongwith IA No. 489/2026. On due consideration, IA No. 489/2026 is allowed and the additional documents filed by the Appellant are taken on record.

¶19

IA No. 490/2026 is allowed subject to the condition that the Appellant will place on record the legible copies of the documents on which he wants to rely upon at the time of hearing of the appeal.

¶20

It has been pointed out that the issue of transfer of CTO from the earlier owner/operator of the unit, namely, Shri Ram industries in favour of the present Appellant is pending before the HSPCB and Appellant also has objection in respect of levy of environmental compensation for 699 days by the order of the HSPCB dated 30.06.2026.

¶21

Learned Counsel for the HSPCB submits that the comprehensive reply will be filed within two weeks.

¶22

List for hearing on 28.07.2026.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶25

July 01, 2026 Appeal No. 62/2026 (IA No 422/2026, IA No 423/2026, IA No 424/2026, IA No 489/2026, IA No 490/2026) dv

¶26

M/S Jai Maa Santoshi Industries v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (Caqm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Jai Maa Santoshi Industries v. Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas (Caqm)

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

Madhura Rajesh Tawde vs Mczma Member Secretary

Mr Sanjay Relan vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

Veerabhadrappa vs the District Collector

Janaksinh Khushalsinh Parmar vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

International Environment Sansad through Its President vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Rajeev Kumar vs State of Jharkhand

Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Pawan Kumar Banta vs State of Himachal Pradesh

Varun Gulati vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ramesh Sanka vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ramesh Sanka vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram