Disposed

Harjeet Singh v. Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

NGT2 Jul 2026IA No. 496/2026 in Original Application No. 343/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Order correcting the title of an original application regarding SEIAA vs. a waste management company. Grants introduction of Additional Address and directs filing of responses before further hearing on interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Application to add address allowed; responses to be filed before next hearing; interim relief arguments postponed.

Harjeet Singh vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.04

¶2

Court No. 2

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 343/2026 (I.A. No. 445/2026, I.A. No. 446/2026 & I.A. No. 496/2026)

Harjeet Singh

Applicant

Versus

State Environment Impact Assessment Authority & Ors. Respondents

¶9

Date of hearing: 02.07.2026

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Pinaki Mishra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Saubhagya Agarwal and Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocates for the applicant.

¶12

Respondents: Ms. Anubha Dhulia, Advocate for respondents no. 1,3,5, 6 and 8. None for respondent no. 2.

¶13

Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for respondent no. 4 (through VC). Mr. Nitin Dahiya and Mr. Muzzammil Ahmed, Advocates for respondent no. 7.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 raising grievances regarding environmental clearance granted by respondent no.1State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttarakhand to respondent no.7-National Biomedical Waste Solutions Pvt. Ltd., for establishment of a Common BioMedical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) and Plastic Waste management Facility at Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand on the grounds of suppression of material facts, false and misleading declarations, non-consideration of forest and wildlife sensitivity, absence of lawful gap analysis, and continuing environmental illegality.

¶16

It has been brought to our notice that in the Original Application, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Uttarakhand has been

¶17

¶18

impleaded as respondent no. 1 but while mentioning title of the case in the cause lists dated 27.05.2026 and 02.07.2026 instead of mentioning the name of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttarakhand, name of Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board was mentioned as respondent no. 1 which was also repeated in order dated 27.05.2026. The Registry is directed to correct the title of the case by mentioning name of State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Uttarakhand as respondent no. 1 instead of mentioning the name of Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board. Order dated 27.05.2026 is also ordered to be corrected accordingly. Correction be also made in copy of order dated 27.05.2026 uploaded on the website of this Tribunal.

¶19

I.A. No. 496/2026 has been filed by the applicant seeking amendment of the memo of parties for incorporation of the fresh/ additional address of respondent - 7 and permission to effect service thereon.

¶20

For the reasons mentioned, I.A. No. 496/2026 is allowed and additional/fresh address of respondent no. 7 is ordered to be added in the memo of parties.

¶21

It has been brought to our notice that in order dated 27.05.2026, while adjourning the case to 02.07.2026 for period of less than two months, respondents were granted two month’s time for filing of their responses due to inadvertent typographical mistake. Due to this reason, responses have not been filed by the respondents so far.

¶22

Mr. Nitin Dahiya and Mr. Muzzammil Ahmed, Learned Counsel have appeared for respondent no. 7 and they seek short adjournment for filing of their Valakatnamas and also response on behalf of respondent no. 7.

¶23

Mr. Pinaki Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that at the time of grant of Environmental

¶24

¶25

Clearance, respondent no. 7 had misrepresented the facts by mentioning that no environmental sensitive area like National park, Sanctuary, Biosphere reserve Wild Life corridor, Tiger/Elephant reserve existed in the 10 Km radius whereas Reserved Forest abuts within 200 mtrs. and elephant corridor has also been notified and the wild animals including the elephants frequently come in the subject forest area. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has further submitted that the EC conditions regarding development of the green belt and preparation and approval of site specific conservation plan and wildlife management plan have not been complied with by respondent no. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant has accordingly stressed for grant of ad interim injunctive relief.

¶26

We have already observed in order dated 27.05.2026 that opportunity of being heard is required to be given to the respondents before passing of any interim order granting injunction as prayed for.

¶27

Responses to the O.A. and replies to I.A. No. 445/2026 may be filed by the respondents at least one day before the next date of hearing fixed.

¶28

List on 29.07.2026 for further hearing.

¶29

Arguments on I.A. No. 445/2026 for grant of interim relief will also be heard on that date.

¶30

Arun Kumar Tyagi, JM

¶31

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶32

July 2^nd , 2026 Original Application No. 343/2026 (I.A. No. 445/2026, I.A. No. 446/2026 & I.A. No. 496/2026) SN

¶33

Harjeet Singh v. Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjeet Singh v. Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

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

Sandeep Singh vs

Ghulam Mohammad Wani vs Abdul Gani Sheikh

Harjeet Singh vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Raja Muzaffar Bhat vs Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

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

Devarat Kumar Sahini vs