Allowed

Btw India Private Limited v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

NGT11 Aug 2026IA No. 596/2026 in Appeal No. 89/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BTW India Private Limited appealed against the closure of its food manufacturing unit by the CAQM for using wood fuel. After an interim inspection confirmed compliance with biomass norms and no wood was found, the Tribunal permitted resumption of operations subject to further corrective measures and an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Permitted the appellant to resume operation of the unit subject to compliance of undertaking and further controls.

Btw India Private Limited vs Ministry of Environment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 13

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Appeal No. 89/2026 (IA No 596/2026)

¶5

BTW India Private Limited Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas & Ors.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 11.08.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nakul Sachdeva, Mr. Shreyansh Rathi, Mr. Sagar Arora, Ms. Shrinkhla Tiwari, Mr. Abhinandan Sharma & Mr. Karan Sharma, Advs. for Appellant

¶12

Respondents: Mr. Abhishek Atrey & Mr. Navneet Gupta, Advs. for CAQM Mr. Rahul Khurana & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Adv. 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) read with Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Appellant has challenged the closure direction issued by the CAQM under Section 12(2)(xi) of the CAQM Act, 2021, by the order dated 05.08.2026.

¶15

The plea of the appellant in the appeal is that it is engaged in manufacture and supply of packaged food products under the brand BTW. The appellant has established a food manufacturing facility at plot No. 2248-B, Sector-38, Phase-II, Mega Food Park, Rai, Industrial Area Sonipat Haryana. The unit of the appellant was inspected by the Flying Squad team of CAQM on 24.07.2026 and it was found that “the stack emission reports were for PNG boilers and not for the biomass boilers which had started

¶16

¶17

operation from April, 2026. On the day of inspection, biomass is operating on wood”.

¶18

The Flying Squad had provided the inspection report to the appellant and had also directed the appellant to show cause within five days. Thereafter the impugned order dated 05.06.2026 was passed. The impugned order records the reason for closure as under:

¶19

“WHEREAS , it was observed that wood is being used as fuel in the boiler of the unit in violation of Direction no, 65 of CAQM, which has been reportedly in operations since April, 2026. Further, no stack emission report was provided for the said boiler. As per photographic evidence submitted during inspection wood logs were also present in the unit.”

¶20

The Tribunal by order dated 07.08.2026 had issued the following interim direction in this appeal:

¶21

“4. Having regard to the submissions made by Counsel for the parties and considering the nature of order which is under challenged and the fact that the Appellant is a food manufacturing industry making supplies to government agencies, we pass the following interim order:

¶22

i. The CAQM will inspect the appellant unit in the forenoon of the next working day, i.e., 10.08.2026 and will ascertain the stand of the Appellant that use of wood as fuel has been stopped in the boiler.

¶23

ii. Till the next date of hearing, the electricity of the Appellant unit will not be disconnected.”

¶24

In compliance of the above direction the CAQM has inspected the appellant’s unit and the inspection report has been produced by the counsel for the CAQM today. The detailed observation of the inspecting team in the inspection report are as under:

¶25

“ 14. Detailed Observation:-

¶26

i . The unit is engaged in food and food-processing activities.

¶27

ii . In compliance with the Hon’ble NGT order dated 07.08.2026, the unit was inspected on 10.08.2026 to ascertain discontinuation of use of wood as fuel in the boiler.

¶28

iii . The unit has two gas-fired boilers of 600 kg/hr capacity each, two gas-fired Thermic Fluid Heaters (TFHs) of 10 lakh kcal/hr and 4 lakh kcal/hr capacity, respectively,

¶29

¶30

and one biomass-fired boiler of 1.5 TPH capacity. Unit has installed cyclone with wet Scrubber as APCD on biomass fired boiler.

¶31

iv . At the time of inspection, the unit was found nonoperational. The unit stated that the operations were discontinued in compliance with the closure directions issued by the CAQM.

¶32

v . During the inspection, no wood was observed in the boiler section. however, Biomass briquettes were found available in the boiler section.

¶33

vi . The unit also submitted a purchase order dated 07.08.2026 for procurement of biomass briquettes.”

¶34

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has three boilers out of which two were operating in PNG and on account of short supply of PNG the third boiler was using wood and this boiler is permitted to use permissible biomass other than wood. She has submitted that immediately after the Flying Squad visit, the wood which was stored in the premises for use in the boiler has been returned back to the seller and the appellant undertakes not to use the wood in the boiler and only permissible biomass other than wood in terms of the CTO conditions will be use in that boiler.

¶35

The impugned order in paragraph 6 provides for the conditions of resumptions of operation of the unit as under:

¶36

“6. For consideration of resumption of operations in the unit, the following needs to be complied with:

¶37

(i) After taking due corrective and preventive measures, in respect of the non-compliances/violations as noted in the closure direction, the project proponent shall report the same to the Regional Officer Sonipat of the Haryana State Pollution Control Board, also under advise to the headquarter office of the UPPCB.

¶38

(ii) The Regional Officer, HSPCB shall thereafter verify the corrective and preventive measures initiated by the unit / project proponent and submit a report in this context to the HSPCB headquarter office along with a recommendation for levying of EC charges, as per extant Guidelines, duly taking cognizance of Standard Schedule for EC charges issued by the Commission vide order dated 01.01.2025 & 05.06.2025.

¶39

¶40

(iii) The HSPCB shall review the report of the Regional Officer in this context to ascertain effectiveness of actions initiated for compliance, levy appropriate EC charges on the Unit for all categories of violations as noted in this direction and realise the same, from the proponent. A recommendation towards resumption of activities in the industrial unit etc. may be made to the Commission by the HQ office of the HSPCB.

¶41

(iv) The Project Proponent shall thereafter also report compliance of all the requisites as above to the Commission, in the form of an affidavit. The indicative procedure and guidelines for processing of the cases for resumption, including the format for the affidavit may be accessed from the Commission's website www.caqm.nic.in >> Closures/Resumptions >> GUIDELINES FOR RESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS IN CLOSED UNITS.

¶42

(v) In exercise of powers of the Commission under Section 14 of the Act, the Member Secretary, HSPCB shall also initiate action for prosecution under section 14 of the Commission for Air Quality Management in National Capital Region and Adjoining Areas Act, 2021 against the said unit.”

¶43

In terms of the aforesaid, the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) is required to verify the corrective and preventive measures and levy the EC for violation. So far as the corrective and preventive measures are concerned, they have already been reflected in the report and submissions before the Tribunal today. So far as levy of EC is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the HSPCB has submitted that the final order of levying the EC by following the due process of law complying with the principles of natural justice will be passed within four weeks.

¶44

It is been pointed out that in somewhat similar circumstances, the Tribunal had disposed of the Appeal No. 66/2025 in the matter of M/s Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. Pilkhuwa vs. Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR and Adjoining Areas & Ors. by order dated 11.11.2025 and DACC International Pvt. Ltd. v. Commission for Air Quality Management in NCR & Adjoining Areas by the order reported in 2026 SCC OnLine NGT 172.

¶45

Having regard to the fact that the appellant is now complying with the norms and the inspection has been carried out by the CAQM noting

¶46

¶47

the corrective measures and also the fact that the exercise of levy of Environmental Compensation will be completed by the HSPCB within four weeks and the unit is a food manufacturing unit which has its raw material and semi finish products in the process and considering the statement of counsel for the appellant recorded above, we dispose of this appeal by permitting the appellant to resume the operation of the unit subject to the compliance of undertaking of the appellant noted in paragraph 5.

¶48

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶49

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶50

August 11, 2026 Appeal No. 89/2026 (IA No 596/2026) HK

¶51

Btw India Private Limited v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Btw India Private Limited v. Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

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

Shahanavaj Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

Shahanavaj Khan vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Bihar

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Rspl Limited vs State of Gujarat

Residents Welfare Society Shyam Kunj vs NCT of Delhi

1. Alaka Mishra W/O- Harekrushna Mishra Aged About 75 Years vs 1. State of Odisha Additional Chief Secretary Revenue and Disaster Management Department Govt. of Odisha

Ajay Kant Rohit vs State of Bihar

Lakhyajyoti Gogoi vs Moefcc

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Neeraj Chhachhar vs

Narender Kumar vs State of Haryana

Btw India Private Limited vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jitender vs