Allowed

Shankarlal Prajapat v. State of Madhya Pradesh

NGT15 Jul 2026IA No. 530/2026 in Original Application No. 875/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal granted the applicant four weeks to examine the MPPCB inspection report. It allowed an application to correct a typographical error in a previous order regarding Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) adoption by private respondents.

What did the court decide?

Four weeks time granted to examine the report; IA No.530/2026 allowed to correct paragraph 9 of the earlier order.

Shankarlal Prajapat vs State of Madhya Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.14 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 875/2019 (IA No 530/2026)

¶4

Shankarlal Prajapat Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of hearing: 15.07.2026

¶8

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

¶9

Applicant: Mr. Tarun Cummra, Adv. for Applicant Respondents: Mr. Raghav Sharma, Advocate for MPPCB (Through VC) Mr. Rajat Jariwal, Mr. Manish Barua & Mr. Dev Vijay Chand, Advocates for R – 4 and 5 Mr. Manish Nair, Mr. T.G.N. Nair, Mr. Gaurav Singh Chouhan & Ms. Samyukta H. Nair, Advocates for M/s Lanxess India Private Ltd.

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Inspection report dated 13.07.2026 has been filed by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 24.03.2026.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that he has received a copy of the report today only and seeks four weeks’ time to examine the report and file objections, if required. Prayer is granted.

¶13

I.A. No.530/2026 has been filed by the respondent no.6 seeking correction in the order dated 24.03.2026.

¶14

Learned Counsel for respondent no.6 submits that in paragraph no.9 of the order dated 24.03.2026, on account of a typographical error, the submission of the private respondents is wrongly recorded that these

¶15

¶16

units have not adopted ZLD, whereas the stand of the private respondents is that these units have adopted the ZLD. He has also referred to the paragraph no. 5.1 of the report of the MPPCB dated 13.07.2026 wherein it has been mentioned that these units have installed zero discharged waste water treatment plant. In view of this, IA No.530/2026 is allowed. Hence, paragraph no. 9 of the order dated 24.03.2026 stands corrected as follows:

¶17

“9. The stand of the counsel for the Private-Respondents is that these units have adopted ZLD, therefore, the MPPCB will ascertain the compliance of the ZLD condition by these units. MPPCB will also provide information with regard to the disposal of mercury waste by the unit and the status of mercury levels as on today in the soil and water. Further MPPCB will also provide details with regard to the health study which is being undertaken in the Nagda region as indicated at Para 5 of the Joint Committee Report.”

¶18

The stand of Learned Counsel for the private respondents is that these units have adopted the ZLD. Therefore, MPPCB will ascertain the compliance.

¶19

List on 25.09.2026

¶20

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶21

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶22

July 15, 2026 JG.

¶23

Shankarlal Prajapat v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankarlal Prajapat v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sureshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (Proprietor of Jay Ambe Mining and Minerals) vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

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

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

Charan Singh vs

Adil Ansari vs M/S. Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. Asmoli

Varun vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Paryavaran Vikash Sangh through Parmanand Rana vs State of Haryana

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

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

Chander Singh vs 1. Union of India

Omaxe Buildhome Ltd. vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Chander Singh vs 1. Union of India