Disposed

Sonya Gosh v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

NGT11 Feb 2026IA No. 94/2026 in Execution Application No. 39/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in Execution Applications concerning Delhi Ridge protection substituted the Tribunal's Oversight Committee with the Delhi Ridge Management Board due to Supreme Court directions. While the notification under the Indian Forest Act was issued late, the direction for an action plan regarding remaining encroachment remains unfulfilled.

What did the court decide?

The Oversight Committee was substituted by the Delhi Ridge Management Board. Prayer B (action plan) was not granted at this stage. The application was disposed of, and the matter was listed for furthe

Sonya Gosh vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item Nos. 04 to 06

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Execution Application No. 32/2024 In

¶5

Original Application No. 10/2014

¶6

Pavit Singh Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶9

WITH

¶10

Execution Application No. 39/2024 (I.A. No.94/2026) In Original Application No. 58/2013

¶11

Sonya Gosh Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors.

¶14

Respondent(s)

¶15

WITH

¶16

Original Application No. 1188/2024

¶17

News Item titled "Why efforts to reclaim the Ridge -Delhi’s lungs - is no Easy task" appearing in the Indian Express dated 09.09.2024.

¶18

Date of hearing: 11.02.2026

¶19

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

¶20

Applicant: Ms. Karishma Maria, Adv. for Applicant in E.A No. 32/2024 Mr. Raj Panjwani, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Aayushman Aeron, Adv. in E.A No. 39/2024

¶21

Respondents: Mr. Aman Panwar, Mr. Siddhant Buxy, Mr. Abhinav Kumar & Mr. Manav Kaushik, Advs. for GNCTD, Forest Department Ms. Suhasini Sen, Ms. Masooma Rizvi & Ms. Raushni Kaura, Advs. for MoEF & CC Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for DM South Ms. Puja S. Kalra & Mr. Virendra Singh, Advs. for MCD Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for Delhi Police Ms. Malvika Kapila, Adv. for DDA in E.A. 39/2024 (Through VC)

¶22

ORDER

¶23

By this Execution Application (EA), applicant is seeking compliance

¶24

of the order dated 15.01.2021 passed in OA No.144/2015 and connected

¶25

¶26

OA Nos. 58/2013, 116/2015 and MA No.258/2015. In those connected matters, issue examined by Tribunal relates to protection of Delhi Ridge. The Tribunal by order dated 15.01.2021 had disposed of the OAs by directing as under:-

¶27

“ 16. In view of above, we direct that the Delhi Government through the Chief Secretary, Delhi to ensure that requisite Notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is issued within three months in respect of the area about which there is no controversy. Further actions to be taken by the Delhi Government may include suitable protection by fencing/wall and vigilance. Identification of the remaining area and action plan for removing the encroachments be ensured within next three months. Execution of the action plan will be primarily under the Chief Secretary Delhi, who is also the Chairman of the Ridge Management Board.

¶28

17. We direct constitution of an Oversight Committee (OC) to be headed by DG Forest, MoEF&CC, Government of India with the Secretaries Revenue and Forest, Delhi Govt., the PCCF, Delhi, the concerned Deputy Commissioners, Delhi and the nominees of Police Commissioner, Delhi and the Forest Survey of India, Dehradun as members. Main function of the OC will be to oversee progress with regard to the removal of encroachments from the Ridge, its protection by way of fencing/boundary wall and preparation of management plan for its restitution. The Committee will be free to co-opt any other authorities/Experts. The Nodal agency will be the PCCF, Delhi for coordination and compliance. First meeting of the Committee may be held within one month and thereafter review may be undertaken periodically preferably at least once in a month till the action plan is executed.”

¶29

In terms of the above, notification under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 was required to be issued within three months in respect of the area about which there was no controversy. The said notification has been issued on 24.10.2025 and has been published in Delhi Gazette dated 30.10.2025. Therefore, the said direction of the Tribunal has been complied with though not within the time fixed by the Tribunal.

¶30

I.A. No.94/2026 has been filed by respondent no.2 for placing on record the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11.11.2025, as further modified by order dated 12.11.2025 passed in IA No.117204/2024(CEC Report No. 5/2024) in Writ Petition (Civil)

¶31

¶32

No.202/1995 in the matter of T. N. Godaverman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India & Ors. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue of protection of the ridge has taken note of the fact that multiple authorities were supervising the ridge, therefore, to avoid the said multiplicity, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has formed the Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) by observing and directing as under:-

¶33

“Multiple Authorities Supervising the Ridge

¶34

23. Apart from the DRMB, several other authorities have also been examining the issues pertaining to the Ridge. For instance, one Sonya Ghosh approached the National Green Tribunal17 by way of an OA bearing No. 58/2013 (Sonya Ghosh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others18) seeking notification of the Ridge under Section 20 of the Forest Act. The learned NGT by order dated 15th January 2021 directed the Chief Secretary to notify the undisputed area within a period of three months and stated that there should be an action plan for removal of encroachments. The learned NGT also appointed an Oversight Committee to be headed by the Director General, Forests, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change19 with other members, to oversee progress with regard to removal of encroachments from the Ridge.

¶35

24. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of the learned NGT in Sonya Ghosh (supra) :

¶36

"17. We direct constitution of an Oversight Committee (OC) to be headed by DG Forest, MoEF&CC, Government of India with the Secretaries Revenue and Forest, Delhi Govt., the PCCF, Delhi, the concerned Deputy Commissioners, Delhi and the nominees of Police Commissioner, Delhi and the Forest Survey of India, Dehradun as members. Main function of the OC will be to oversee progress with regard to the removal of encroachments from the Ridge, its protection by way of fencing/boundary wall and preparation of management plan for its restitution. The Committee will be free other to co-opt any authorities/Experts. The Nodal agency will be the PCCF, Delhi for coordination and compliance. First meeting of the Committee may be held within one month and thereafter review may be undertaken periodically preferably at least once in a month till the action plan is executed."

¶37

25. It was noticed by this Court vide an order dated 6th August 2025 passed in the present proceedings that apart from the DRMB, numerous other bodies were also constituted by the orders passed by this court, the High Court of Delhi and the learned NGT which were also entrusted with the task of monitoring the issue with regard to Ridge areas.

¶38

26. This Court by the said order was referring to the following different bodies/committees/authorities:

¶39

¶40

i. Oversight Committee constituted vide order dated 15th January 2021 passed by the learned NGT in Sonya Ghosh (supra)18;

¶41

ii. Centrally Empowered Committee constituted vide Judgment dated 30th November 2021 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Ashok Kumar (supra)8;

¶42

iii. High-Powered Committee under order dated 8th February 2023 passed by this court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) 13.

¶43

iv. Committee under order dated 8th February 2023 passed by this court in T.N.Godavarman (supra) 13 to identify the Morphological Ridge.

¶44

27. Noticing that a number of committees were monitoring the issue with regard to the Delhi Ridge area resulting in duplication of work, overlap of jurisdiction and even conflicting outcomes, this court passed the aforesaid order on 6th August 2025. It will be appropriate to refer to the following paragraphs of the said order: "1. We find that insofar as the issues concerning the Delhi Ridge are concerned, several committees are currently monitoring the issues. The authorities are required to seek permission from several committees/Bodies for land diversion, which, at times, results in conflicting orders.

¶45

2. We, therefore, direct the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to take all the stake holders on board, including the Government of NCT of Delhi, the CEC and the various Committees/Bodies appointed by this Court or the High Court of Delhi and to come out with a proposal wherein one uniform body can be entrusted with monitoring the issues relating to the Delhi Ridge.”

¶46

The above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court provides the following

¶47

statutory backing to DRMB:-

¶48

“Statutory Backing of the DRMB

¶49

41. As has been observed by us hereinabove, the DRMB has been acting without any statutory authority. The Original Notification dated 6th October 1995 was issued only pursuant to this court's order dated 29th September 1995 in M.C.Mehta (supra)14 and that too without any statutory backing for the Board. We are, however, of the considered view that without a statutory backing, it will not be possible for the Board to function effectively.

¶50

42. A statutory backing will firstly ensure that the fundamental principles of administration would directly apply to the Board. Secondly, a statutory authority working under Section 3(3) of the EP Act would be subject to the jurisdiction of the NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010. Thirdly, the accountability and transparency required of a statutory body, such as publication of reports on websites, being subject to the RTI Act22 etc., would be ensured by the Board being an Authority under Section 3(3) of the EP Act.

¶51

¶52

45. It can thus be seen that if the DRMB is given statutory status, its orders can be judicially scrutinized either by the learned NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act and by this court by way of appeal under Section 22 of the said act or by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶53

47. The MoEF&CC has opposed giving statutory status to the DRMB. It has expressed apprehension that if the Central Government issues a notification, there will be an overlap of other authorities. However, we do not find any substance in the said submission of MoEF&CC. The very purpose of the earlier orders passed by this court and the present judgment is to avoid having multiple authorities considering the issue with regard to the Delhi Ridge. We, therefore, propose to direct the DRMB to be a single-window authority insofar as issues concerning Delhi Ridge are concerned. Like the CEC, if the DRMB is also given a statutory status, it will be in a position to function effectively and also be accountable and answerable.”

¶54

In compliance of the above order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, MoEF&CC has issued the notification dated 01.12.2025 (page 2014) under Sub-Section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, constituting the Delhi Ridge Management Board.

¶55

In view of the constitution of Delhi Ridge Management Board and in view of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Oversight Committee (OC) constituted by the Tribunal vide para 17 of the order dated 15.01.2021 is substituted by Delhi Ridge Management Board (DRMB) and work of that Oversight Committee is to be done/conducted by DRMB.

¶56

In paragraph 16 of the order dated 15.01.2021 passed in OA No.144/2015, Tribunal in addition to the direction for issuing notification for the area about which there was no controversy, had also directed to identify the remaining area and action plan for removing the encroachment and to ensure the same within next three months. The said direction has not been complied with till now.

¶57

In view of the above subsequent development and also in view of the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph 42 of the order,

¶58

¶59

we deem it proper to implead the Delhi Ridge Management Board through Member Secretary.

¶60

The application is directed to serve the newly added respondent and also amend the cause title of the petition.

¶61

IA No. 94/2026-In view of the above, we find that prayer A made in IA No.94/2026 does not survive. So far as, prayer B is concerned since a part of the direction contained in paragraph 16 of the order of the Tribunal dated 15.01.2021 remains to be complied with. Therefore, prayer B cannot be granted at this stage.

¶62

IA No.94/2026 is accordingly disposed of.

¶63

List on 18.05.2026.

¶64

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶65

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶66

February 11, 2026 Execution Application No. 32/2024 & connected matters JG.

¶67

Sonya Gosh v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonya Gosh v. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

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

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Mamta Sharma vs Gram Sabha

Surjeet Singh vs the Member Secretary State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Paryavaran Parisar

Rajender vs Union of India

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

K.S. Mohan vs the Corporation of Coimbatore

Judith vs Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority

K. Balamurugan vs the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority

Rajender vs Union of India

Rajender vs Union of India

Rajender vs Union of India

Aziz Khan vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee (Dpcc)

Vikas Singh vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Dr Amit Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh