Dismissed

Nirmal Tripathi v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

NGT5 Feb 2026IA No. 69/2026 in Execution Application No. 6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an execution application seeking compliance of an order dated 31.05.2023, which had been disposed of due to inadequate particulars. The court held no case for execution existed as the Tribunal did not issue specific directions.

What did the court decide?

Execution application dismissed with liberty to file a proper Original Application with supporting material if environmental norms are violated.

Nirmal Tripathi vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 02 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Execution Application No. 06/2026 In Original Application No. 368/2023 (I.A. No. 69/2026)

¶4

Nirmal Tripathi Applicant Versus

¶5

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Deoria & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶6

Date of hearing: 05.02.2026

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER

¶8

Applicant: Mr. Shashank Rai, Mr. Himalaya Sharma & Mr. Saikat Gangopadhyay, Advocates

¶9

ORDER

¶10

1. By this execution application, the applicant is seeking compliance of

¶11

the order dated 31.05.2023 passed in OA No. 368/2023.

¶12

The Tribunal had passed the following order: -

¶13

“5. Grievance in this application is against illegal construction in and encroachment of green belt and agricultural land in water logged area, the park and other open area within the regulated area of Deoria city in UP. The area is said to be under the over bridge at Gorakhpur road, opposite the house of Dr. D.M. Gupta.

¶14

6. We have considered the matter. The particulars in the application are not adequate to enable the Tribunal to deal with the matter. We thus consider it appropriate to direct that the matter may be looked into and appropriate action taken in accordance with law by the District Magistrate, Deoria in coordination with any other concerned Department or Authority.

¶15

The application is disposed of.

¶16

A copy of this order be forwarded to the District Magistrate, Deoria for compliance by email.

¶17

The applicant may furnish a set of papers to the District Magistrate, Deoria and file an affidavit of service within one week.”

¶18

3. The above order reflects that the OA filed by the applicant was not

¶19

having the adequate particulars to enable the Tribunal to deal with the matter. Therefore, the Tribunal had disposed of the OA without entering

¶20

¶21

into merits of the controversy and without issuing any direction but only observing that the matter may be looked into and appropriate action may be taken in accordance with law by the District Magistrate, Deoria.

¶22

In such circumstances, we are of the view that no case of execution of such an order arises. The Execution Application is accordingly dismissed, however with liberty to the applicant to file a proper OA along with all the supporting material in case if there is any violation of the environmental norms.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶25

February 5, 2026 Execution Application No. 06/2026 in Original Application No. 368/2023 (I.A. No. 69/2026) AS

¶26

Nirmal Tripathi v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmal Tripathi v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suo Motu Activists Local Residents Question Legality of Tourism Development Work at Ooty Lake vs the District Collector Nilgiris

Sarang Yadwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation through Municipal Commissioner

M/S Rameshwar Stone Supplier vs Seiaa

Nilkanth Stone Industries vs Seiaa

Sayyed Mohammed Sabir Usman vs Union of India through Secretary Moef & Cc

1. Jhadeswar Pradhan S/O Rasanand Pradhan Aged About 60YEARS vs 1. State of Odisha Represented by Chief Secretary Government of Odisha

Arvind Singh vs Union of India

Mahavir Singh vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Haider Ali vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Haider Ali vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Haider Ali vs Haryana State Pollution Control Board

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

Imran Ali vs Ministry of Environment

Smriti Tripathi vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board