Partly allowed

Parmjeet Singh v. 1. Union of India

NGT3 Sept 2026IA No. 667/2026 in Original Application No. 780/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of Vakalatnama by the applicant's counsel, reduced the previously imposed cost on the State of Uttarakhand to Rs. 25,000, and permitted additional documents placed on record by the State of Uttarakhand.

What did the court decide?

Vakalatnama withdrawal allowed; cost reduced to Rs 25,000; additional documents allowed on record; matter listed.

Parmjeet Singh vs 1. Union of India — NGT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Item No. 23 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 780/2024 (I.A. Nos. 623/2026, 667/2026, 294/2024 & 616/2024)

¶4

Parmjeet Singh Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of hearing: 03.09.2026

¶8

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

¶9

Applicant: Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Ms. Nandita Bansal & Ms. Chandrika Upadhyaya, Advs. for Applicant (Through VC) Mr. Jarnail Singh, Applicant in Person (Through VC)

¶10

Respondents: Ms. Richa Kapoor & Ms. Atika Singh, Advs. for MoEF & CC Mr. Mukesh Verma & Ms. Vatsala Tripathi, Adv. for UKPCB (Through VC) Mr. Adiraj Bali & Ms. Ravina Rathore, Advs. for the State of Uttarakhand Ms. Payal Bhatia Mohanty, Adv. for SEIAA (Through VC) Mr. Aditya Dewan, Ms. Bani Dikshit & Mr. Uddhav Khanna, Advs. for R - 10

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Sh. Gaurav Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant seeks

¶13

permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama on behalf of the applicant. The prayer is allowed.

¶14

The applicant appeared virtually and has sought a week’s time to file the rejoinder.

¶15

IA No. 667/2026 has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 seeking waiver of the cost and recall of the order dated 20.11.2025. The Tribunal by order dated 20.11.2025, had imposed the cost upon the State of Uttarakhand because after hearing the arguments of counsel for the applicant at length, when the turn of reply by counsel for the State of

¶16

¶17

Uttarakhand came, an adjournment was sought instead of advancing arguments in reply. Therefore, the Tribunal had imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon the State of Uttarakhand while adjourning the matter. Thereafter, IA No. 85/2026 was filed for waiver of cost by the counsel for the State of Uttarakhand, but when the IA came up for consideration on 17.07.2026, the counsel for the State of Uttarakhand had no instructions and it was stated by him that no such application was filed by the State of Uttarakhand. Therefore, it was rejected. Now again a second application for waiver of cost has been filed. Considering the circumstances noted above, we find that there was a valid reason existing for imposition of cost.

¶18

However, considering the submission made by the counsel for the applicant, the application is partly allowed by reducing the cost to Rs. 25,000/- and extending the time to deposit the cost. Let the cost of Rs. 25,000/- be deposited by the State of Uttarakhand with the National Green Tribunal Bar Association within two weeks.

¶19

IA No. 623/2026 has been filed by the respondent No. 10 seeking permission to place on record the additional documents. IA is not opposed by any of the parties. On due consideration, IA No. 623/2026 is allowed and the additional documents are taken on record. It will be open to all the concerned parties to file their replies/additional documents within two weeks in response to the documents of the respondent No. 10 which have been taken on record.

¶20

List on 25.11.2026.

¶21

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶22

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶23

September 03, 2026 Original Application No. 780/2024 (I.A. Nos. 623/2026, 667/2026, 294/2024 & 616/2024) HK

¶24

Parmjeet Singh v. 1. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmjeet Singh v. 1. Union of India

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

News Item Titled "Nayar River Is Vanishing - a Yatra Reveals Conservation Goes Beyond Science and Policy" Appearing in the Down to Earth Dated 03.06.2025. vs

Ajitesh Pratap Tiwari vs Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam

Abhay Sharma vs

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Protection of Environment and Public Service Committee through Its Chairman Mr. Bhagwanbhai B. Solanki vs Union of India through the Secretary

Amit Sharma vs

Vivasayeegal Mattrum Suthrusuzhal Paathukapu Sangam Erode Represented by Vijayakumar vs Sunraja Oil Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Suresh Kumar Shah vs State of Madhya Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Pradeep Norula vs State of Haryana

Vijay Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajitesh Pratap Tiwari vs Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam

Devanshu Bose vs State of Uttar Pradesh

M/S Hotel Rock Stone vs Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board

Parmjeet Singh vs 1. Union of India