Dismissed

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

NGT14 Jul 2026IA No. 519/2026 in Review Application No. 4/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of a review application filed against an order directing inspection for pollution violations. The Tribunal held that, given parallel proceedings in the High Court on the same issues, it would not exercise its jurisdiction, citing principles of judicial propriety observed in prior precedents. It also declined to express opinions on issues related to blackmail or

What did the court decide?

The review application and original application No. 219/2026 were dismissed; pending interim applications also disposed of.

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 12

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Review Application No. 4/2026 (IA No 519/2026 & IA No 526/2026) In Original Application No. 219/2026

¶5

Modulus Cosmetics Pvt Ltd. & Anr.

¶6

Review Applicant(s)

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jatinder Singh and Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 14.07.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Review Applicant: Mr. Abhinav Mukherji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Mr. Manik Sethi, Mr. Shivam Prashar, Ms. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Archita Nigam & Mr. Vinayak Aren, Advs. for Review Applicant

¶12

Respondents/ Original Applicant: Mr. Rohit Singh, Applicant in Person in OA No. 219/2026

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This review application has been filed by the Applicant (Review Applicant - Respondents No. 1 and 2 in OA No. 219/2026) seeking review of the order dated 09.04.2026 passed in the OA.

¶15

In the OA, the Applicant had alleged that the review applicants were violating the environmental norms and they were causing pollution and discharging effluents in the storm water drain meeting river Swan. The Applicant had also made an allegation of causing air pollution by the review applicant units.

¶16

The Tribunal by the order dated 09.04.2026 had issued notice to the respondents in the OA and had directed the Himachal Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (HPSPCB) to carry out the inspection of the review applicant unit and ascertain the status of compliance of CTO conditions

¶17

¶18

by them and find out if they were causing any water or air pollution and submit the report.

¶19

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review applicants submits that the same issue is pending before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP No. 4935/2026 wherein the High Court has issued notice on 09.04.2026. He has submitted that it is the consistent view of the Tribunal that pending the proceedings before the High Court, the Tribunal refrains from exercising the jurisdiction and avoids parallel proceedings. In support of such a submission, he has relied upon the order of the Tribunal dated 24.11.2025 passed in OA No. 494/2025 in the matter of Nirmla Sharma vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors . He has further submitted that the original applicant is blackmailing the review applicant and in the defamation suit which has been filed by the review applicant, the original applicant has taken the defense based upon the order of the Tribunal passed in this matter and just prior to passing of the order by the Tribunal, the inspection was done by the HPSPCB and thereafter the CTO was renewed. In such circumstances, he has made a prayer to recall the order dated 09.04.2026 and has made a further prayer to dismiss the OA by emphasising that the parallel proceedings should not be allowed.

¶20

Respondent has submitted that the FIR which was registered at the instance of the review applicant has been cancelled by the P.S. Tahliwal as reflected in the communication dated 01.04.2026 (page 275). He has further submitted that the FIRs have been registered at the instance of the review applicant against the original applicants to suppress their voice and that there is no error apparent on the face of record, therefore, no case for review is made out.

¶21

Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the review applicant and the original applicant, we find that the Tribunal on 09.04.2026 based

¶22

¶23

upon the allegations made by the original applicant had issued notice and had directed the Respondent No. 3 - HPSPCB to carry out the inspection of the review applicant unit which otherwise is also the statutory responsibility of the HPSPCB. Hence, we do not find any error in this regard.

¶24

However, we take note of the fact that the CWP No. 4935/2026 has been filed against the review applicant by one of the residents of SubDistrict Haroli, District Una, Himachal Pradesh and the allegations in that writ petition are almost similar and the said writ petition has been entertained by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh by issuing notice by the order dated 09.04.2026. The Tribunal in the matter of Nirmla Sharma (supra) relying upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr . reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 973 has taken the following view:

¶25

“xxx ………………….xxx……………..……xxx….…………………xxx 109. In view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety. Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT. Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12th May 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order impugned herein.

¶26

110. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament) (supra), which read thus:

¶27

“13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed out that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the overs passed by the statutory tribunals.”

¶28

111. It can be seen from the perusal of the orders of the NGT itself that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in

¶29

¶30

seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which 8 in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside.”

¶31

In view of the above, we are of the view that since the High Court of

¶32

Himachal Pradesh has already entertained the writ petition on the same issue, therefore, we do not intend to exercise the parallel jurisdiction in the present OA.

¶33

So far as the other issues relating to blackmailing and misuse of the proceedings and not approaching the Tribunal with the clean hands is concerned, since the rival submissions have been made on these issues and the material has been produced, therefore, in view of the fact that parallel proceedings cannot continue, we do not intend to express any opinion on those issues.

¶34

In view of the above analysis, we dispose of the review application and dismiss the OA No. 219/2026. The pending I.A’s, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶35

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶36

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶37

July 14, 2026 Review Application No. 4/2026 (IA No 519/2026 & IA No 526/2026) In Original Application No. 219/2026 dv

¶38

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jatinder Singh and Ors. v. Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Selvaraj Duraiswamy vs the Union of India Rep. by Its Secretary to Government

Samita Rajendra Patil vs Jsw Steel Limited through Chairman

Rajendra Shah vs State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary Forest and Environment Department

Rajendra Shah vs State of Gujarat through Principal Secretary Forest and Environment Department

Chander Singh vs 1. Union of India

Chander Singh vs 1. Union of India

Omaxe Buildhome Ltd. vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

1. Haripada Manna S/O Late Paresh Chandra Manna Aged About 48YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Additional Chief Secretary Forest Environment and Climate Change Department

Arvind Goel vs State of Punjab

Arvind Goel vs State of Punjab

Arvind Goel vs State of Punjab

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.