Dismissed

Bablu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT20 Jul 2026Original Application No. 1356/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal upheld that the mining leaseholder lacks valid environmental clearance. The Tribunal directed the State Pollution Control Board to finalize environmental compensation proceedings within three months and appointed a joint committee to ensure backfilling of deep pits within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to UPPCB to finalize compensation proceedings in three months; appointment of joint committee to ensure backfilling of pits within six months.

Bablu vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Mining and Natural Resources | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 27

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 1356/2024

Bablu

Applicant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 20.07.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Rahul Khurana, Mr. Hasil Jain & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Advs. for Applicant

¶13

Respondents: Ms. Priyanka Swami & Ms. Dippt Anubhuti, Advs. for SEIAA, UP

¶14

Mr. Ankit Verma, Adv. for the State of UP (Through VC) Mr. Amit Shukla, Adv. for UPPCB (Through VC) Mr. Shailesh Kumar Pathak, Mr. Shivam Tripathi & Mr. Ankush Mittal, Advs. for R - 6

¶15

ORDER

¶16

In this original application, the Applicant had alleged that the Respondent No. 6 had indulged in illegal mining in violation of the Environmental Clearance (EC) condition. Further allegation was made by the Applicant that the Respondent No. 6 had undertaken hazardous, unscientific, reckless and dangerous mining and had excavated pits upto the depth of 40-50 meters having slopes greater than 75 degrees. In paragraph 14 of the OA, the Applicant had narrated the details of the violations by the Respondent No. 6. The Applicant had also alleged that the EC was issued to the Respondent No. 6 by District Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (DEIAA) in 2016. Therefore, in terms of the order of the Tribunal dated 13.09.2018 in the matter of Satyendra Pandey v. MoEF&CC & Ors. in OA No. 186/2016, the reappraisal of the EC was required by State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), but

¶17

¶18

no such reappraisal was sought and the time limit fixed for the reappraisal had expired.

¶19

In compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 10.12.2024, the Joint Committee had filed the report on 31.01.2025. The Tribunal by the order dated 04.02.2025 had given opportunity to all the concerned parties to file objection to the report of the Joint Committee. The replies by the respondents including Respondent No. 6 have been filed.

¶20

With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the OA is heard finally.

¶21

Learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submits that the EC was granted to the Respondent No. 6 by DEIAA which has not been appraised by SEIAA and the time limit has expired and there is no EC in favour of the Respondent No. 6. He has further submitted that fresh EC was applied by the Respondent No. 6 which was granted but on account of suppression of the material it has been subsequently cancelled. He has further submitted that the Joint Committee has found the violations and the action has been initiated by the UPPCB for levying environmental compensation, therefore, within a timebound period the process should be completed.

¶22

Learned Counsel appearing for the SEIAA, UP has submitted that the Respondent No. 6 had not applied for reappraisal of the EC granted by DEIAA to SEIAA, UP but he had applied for fresh EC which was initially approved by the SEIAA, UP by the order dated 05.05.2025, but subsequently it came to the knowledge of the SEIAA, UP that the material facts were suppressed, therefore, fresh proceedings were initiated and the Project Proponent – Respondent No. 6 had requested for withdrawal of his application proposal. In view of this, by the order dated 23.09.2025 the EC

¶23

¶24

has been rejected. She has further submitted that this order has duly been uploaded in the Parivesh Portal.

¶25

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 submits that in the show cause notice improper calculation of environmental compensation has been made and that the Respondent No. 6 has not done any excessive mining. In support of such a submission he has placed reliance upon the reply to the show cause notice given to the UPPCB on 28.05.2025. He has further submitted that there was a stay in PIL No. 18769/2017 granted by the High Court of Allahabad, therefore, no mining has been done.

¶26

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

The Tribunal by the order dated 10.12.2024 considering the allegation made by the Applicant had issued notice to the Respondents and had formed a Joint Committee by directing as under:

¶28

“8. To ascertain the correctness of the allegations made in the OA, we appoint a Joint Committee comprising the representative of the Member Secretary, CPCB, RO, MoEF&CC, Lucknow and the District Magistrate Sonbhadra, who will act as the Coordinating Agency. The Joint Committee will visit the site will ascertain the extent of mining that has been done, the depth and the area covered by the said mining and the persons/entities responsible for it. The Joint Committee will submit the report before the Tribunal within eight weeks.”

¶29

In compliance of the direction of the Tribunal, the Joint Committee had visited the site on 22.01.2025 and had noticed various violations by the Respondent No. 6 in carrying out the mining operations. The observations made by the Joint Committee during the field visit are recorded in the Joint Committee report filed before the Tribunal on 31.01.2025 as under:

¶30

“2. Field Observations :

¶31

¶32

Observations based on Joint Committee inspection and available records are as follows:

¶33

i. Shri Arun Kumar, project proponent (PP) has been obtained Environmental Clearance (EC) from DEIAA for Dolostone mining project vide letter dated 20.05.2016 at Gata No. 5471.5472 Ka, 5424, 5425, 5426, 5427 Ka, 5428 & 54299 Village-Billi Markundi, Tehsil-Robertsganj, Sonebhadra, UP having leased area of 4.99 Acres. Copy of the EC is attached as Annexure-II.

¶34

ii. PP has not provided any information regarding to permission from SEIAA-UP for Environmental Clearance (EC).

¶35

iii. PP has obtained valid consent to operate (CTO) form Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) from 04.01.2024 to 31.12.2027 under Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 & Air (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 for the mining of 40000 cubic meter Building stone per year. Copy of the Consent to Operate is attached as Annexure-III.

¶36

iv. During the joint visit, representative of Uttar Pradesh pollution Control Board informed that PP has not applied consent to operate to UPPCB for the period of 07.09.2015 to 03.01.2024 .

¶37

v. PP obtained mining permission vide letter dated 07.09.2015 from District Mining Department, Sonbhadra for the period of 10 years which is valid till 06.07.2025. Copy of the mining permission is attached as Annexure-IV.

¶38

As per the MM 11 Directorate of Geology and Mining Uttar Pradesh the project proponent has excavated quantity given below table from 2019 to 2025. Copy of the MM 11 is attached as Annexure-V.

¶39

vii. The mining department has not provided any excavation information for the duration of 07.09.2015 to 2019 by Sh. Arun Kumar (PP).

¶40

viii. Mining officer Sonbhadra has inspected the mining lease area on 07.06.2023 and found that project proponent has mined beyond the mining permitted area & violation of EC conditions and show cause notice issued vide letter dated 12.06.2023. Copy of the inspection report and show cause notice is attached as Annexure-VI

¶41

ix. Mining Department has declared total 8 pillar in the mining lease area with geo coordinate for total lease area 4.99 hectare, but during visit of joint committee has observed that only one pillar (Pillar H) is installed. List of the Pillar with geo coordinate is attached as Annexure-VII.

¶42

x. It was observed that PP has conducted the mining outside mining lease area, which is verified by Joint

¶43

¶44

Committee physically and KML file provided by the Mining Department is attached as Annexure-VIII.

¶45

xi. PP has submitted the mining plan on 23.05.2021 to Directorate of Geology and Mining. Uttar Pradesh for the mining of Dolostone for lease period of 31.05.2016 to 30.05.2026 Copy of the Mining plan is attached as Annexure-IX.

¶46

xii. Joint committee observed that the no mining activity going on the lease during inspection.

¶47

xiii. Joint Committee observed that the project proponent (PP) not complying the following conditions of mining plans which include: -

¶48

1. Mining will be done within the mining boundary, limits of 7.5m wide strip all along the lease boundary will left out

¶49

2. Bench height will be kept at 6m

¶50

3. Width of ultimate bench will not he less than bench height, however, working bench will have a width around 12-15m

¶51

4 The run-off mine will be dispatched to crusher and then job site

¶52

5. Development includes only removal of top weathered layer and soil patches if any

¶53

6. Top soil if any will be scraped out and used maintaining the road.

¶54

7. Overall slope of pit shall be maintained 45degree & No proper Ramp wi observed during the visit

¶55

8. Lessee will be well equipped with all required equipments as stated in LOI such as computer, Printer, Weight bridge, CCTV Camera etc.

¶56

xiv. PP has operated one bore well on site without having NOC from State Ground Water Department, however, PP has informed that he has applied for the NOC on dated 10.01.2024. Copy of the application is attached as Annexure-X.

¶57

xv. During visit joint committee has observed that the huge water logging approx. 12-15 m in the lease mining area and mining done beyond the boundary. As observed during visit the pits were excavated upto depth of 35-45 m.

¶58

xvi. PP has informed that they are pumping out the water stored in mine pit to nearby area by using two submersible pumps, without any permission.

¶59

¶60

xvii. Joint Committee has observed that the PP has not conducing water sprinkling in mining area as well as on road for the dust suppression.

¶61

xviii. Joint Committee observed that there was no fencing/boundary around the leased mining area

¶62

xix. Joint Committee has observed that the PP has not developed green belt within/near mining area,

¶63

xx. It was observed that the ITI college is around 100 meter away from the mining site the copy of the lakhpal report is attached as Annexure-XI.

¶64

xxi. The information provided by the local Police Department that there was no any causality/death record during the mining activity in said mining lease area during year 2021. Copy of the letter is attached as Annexure-XII.

¶65

xxii. PP has installed 01 no. 160 KVA enclosed type DG set with acoustic enclosers without appropriate stack height and without NOC from Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board.

¶66

xxiii. During visit the PP has not provided the health checkup record of the worker involved is mining activity.

¶67

xxiv. It was observed that the project proponent is not submitting any annual environmental statement/Form-V to state pollution control board.

¶68

xxv PP has not conducted any monitoring of Effluent/Ambient Air by third party.

¶69

xxvi. Joint committee observed that in this mining area due to mining activities huge dust emissions occurred and all trees / greeneries are covered with white mining dust.

¶70

xxvii. Joint committee has collected surface water samples of the mining pit and analysis of samples carried out in Lab of CPCB RD Lucknow & UPPCB, Lucknow, the results are as below. Copy of the lab report is attached as Annexure-XIII.

¶71

S. No.	_Parameter _	Unit	Analysis Results
1	_pH _	-	7.29
2	_BOD _	_mg/L _	6.60
3	_COD _	_mg/L _	_28.1 _
4	TSS	_mg/L _	88.2
5	Heavy metals	mg/L	Cr-ND, Ni-ND. Cd-ND. Pb-0.0734. Fe- 0.2933

¶72

ND-Not Detected

¶73

xxviii. Joint committee observed that almost all mining lease in said area doing mining in same way which causes huge dust emission and resulted deposition of dust upon trees and nearby plantation/vegetations.”

¶74

¶75

The factual information on the issues raised by the Applicant has

¶76

been disclosed by the Joint Committee in its report as under:

¶77

“3. Factual information of the issues raised by the applicant:-

¶78

*Sr.* *No.*	*Issues Raised by Applicant*	*Factual Information as on* *22.01.2025*
1	The project proponent has dug up more than 40-50 meter deep pit resulting in water logging in large scale in the mining pit	During visit joint committee has observed that the huge water logging approx. 12-15 m in the lease mining area and mining done beyond the boundary. As observed during visit the pits were excavated upto depth of 35-45 m.
2	The Project Proponent has compromised with the safety as it has not constructed any slope or benches in the main pit as required under law. And in this regard death of one worker in 2021 has also occurred on the mining site. In this manner the project proponent has violated the of Regulation 106 of the Metalliferous Mines Regulations. 1961. (which are applicable for all kinds of mining except Coal and Oil) which says that mining should be carried out with formation of benches and slopes.	Project Proponent is not executing the appropriate mining plan and scientific mining which is submitted to mining department.
3	The unregulated mining activities resulted in serious damage to underground water which has become exposed due to mining at higher depths beyond permissible limits and became a reservoir which has received all kind of chemicals from blasting, use of explosives etc. That the section 25 of the Water Act has been violated as a water resource has become polluted.	Joint committee was observed that the mining is executed in 35-45 meter depth without developing any benches, as resulted the water logging was observed in the mining lease area up to 12-15m.
4	There has been no green belt development around the boundary of the leased area. The absence of green belt coupled with drilling and blasting has resulted in fugitive and dust emissions in the area.	Joint Committee has observed that the Project proponent has not developed any green belt at boundary of the leased mining area as well as no water sprinkler was observed.
5	The leased area is just 120- metre away from Vijay Industrial Training Institute which is in violation of minimum distance	As per the Report provided by the Lakhpal revenue office as well as joint committee has observed that the ITI institute is 100 meter away from the

¶79

¶80

	criteria prescribed by CPCB on May 12, 2020	above said mining site Annexure-XI	as
6	Before the starting of mining operations the entire land was a grassland covered with vegetation having a top soil cover. However same instead of being collected and stored, has been completely destroyed by the indiscriminate mining operations. The satellite imagery showing images before the commencement of mining operations and current images	It was observed by the j committee that there was storage of top soil was pre near the mining site. It was informed by Lakhpal that there was grass land registered in revenue department. The c of the report is attached Annexure-XI	oint no sent the no the opy as
7	3. It is also the plea of the Applicant that the EC in 2016 was issued by DEIAA which in terms of the judgement dated 13.09.2018 of the Tribunal in the matter of Satyendra Pandey v. MoEF&CC & Ors., O.A. No. 186/2016 was required to be reappraised by SELAA but till now no reappraisal by the SEIAA has been done and the time limit has expired	During visit project propo has not provided Environmental Clearance obtained from SEIAA.	nent the

¶81

11. The Joint Committee has made the following recommendations:

¶82

“3. Recommendations:

¶83

Based upon the above field observations, Joint Committee recommends as below:

¶84

a) Project Proponent should comply the Environmental Clearance and Consent to Operate conditions strictly.

¶85

b) Project Proponent should conduct/execute the scientific/ environmentally sound mining activity as per EC conditions,

¶86

c) The District Mining Department and UPPCB should ensure the strict compliance of EC/CTO conditions and sustainable mining plan.

¶87

d) Project Proponent should obtain the NOC from the Ground water department for the of ground water.

¶88

e) Project Proponent should develop the boundary of the lease mining area and install pillars with geo-coordinate as per mining plan.

¶89

f) Project Proponent should have done regular health check-up of the worker involved in the mining activity as per EC conditions,

¶90

g) Project Proponent should submit the third-party monitoring report as per EC conditions.

¶91

¶92

h) Project Proponent required to developed green belt within the lease area on priority basis as per EC/CTO conditions

¶93

i) As the Project Proponent has done mining outside the lease area, therefore. District Mining Department and UPPCB should take suitable action as per rules.

¶94

j) Joint Committee in view that the local administration may also explore the possibility to construct internal road by using dmf fund to avoid smooth transportation, reduce dust emission within the mining area.”

¶95

The Joint Committee appointed by the Tribunal has recorded clear findings in respect of environmental violations committed by the Respondent No. 6. The Joint Committee report mentions the excessive mining which has been done by the Respondent No. 6 in excess of the permitted quantity of 40,000 cubic meters during the period 2019-20 to 2024-25. Though the Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 has referred to the tabulated disclosure on page 590 given in the reply to the show cause notice dated 28.05.2025 and submitted that no excessive mining has been done, but no reliable supporting material in this regard has been pointed out. The Joint Committee has also noted the inspection by the Mining Officers, Sonbhadra which was carried out on 07.06.2023 finding the mining to be beyond the permissible limit. It has also noted that the requisite pillars were not installed by the Respondent No. 6 and on physical verification and on the basis of KML file provide by the Mining Department excessive mining has been noted. The said material is enclosed as Annexure to the report of the Joint Committee. The Joint Committee has also noted several other violations by Respondent No. 6. Hence, from the material on record it is established that Respondent No. 6 has done excessive mining beyond the permissible limits. The Respondent No. 6 has also done various other violations noted by the Joint Committee for which no satisfactory and proper explanation has been furnished.

¶96

¶97

So far as the issue of grant of environmental clearance is concerned, the EC dated 20.05.2016 was granted to the Respondent No. 6 by DEIAA, Sonbhadra. The Tribunal in the matter of Satyendra Pandey (supra) has disapproved the grant of EC by DEIAA by observing as under:

¶98

“xxx ………………………………….xxx…………………………………..xxx 15. Introduction of such procedure, in our view, is clearly not consistent with the directions contained in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) and the spirit behind such direction. By the provision, mining area upto from 5 ha to 25 ha has been completely exempted from the EIA and Public Consultation. For areas of 5 ha and below, apart from the exemption, it has been made only subject to a separate procedure of preparing a District Survey Report (DSR). These provisions quite apparently are more minecentric rather than striving a balance between mining and environment especially with regard to Form-1M which needs to be made more elaborate incorporating environment related aspects.

¶99

xxx ………………………………….xxx…………………………………..xxx

¶100

22. For all these reasons, we direct that the procedure laid down in the impugned Notification be brought in consonance and in accord with the directions passed in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) by (i) providing for EIA, EMP and therefore, Public Consultation for all areas from 5 to 25 ha falling under Category B-2 at par with Category B-1 by SEAC/ SIEAA as well as for cluster situation wherever it is not provided; (ii) Form-1M be made more comprehensive for areas of 0 to 5 ha by dispensing with the requirement for Public Consultation to be evaluated by SEAC for recommendation of grant EC by SEIAA instead of DEAC/DEIAA;”

¶101

The Tribunal by the order dated 08.08.2024 in OA No. 142/2022 in the matter of Jayant Kumar vs. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change & Ors . had fixed the outer limit for appraisal of the ECs granted by DEIAA to be done by the SEIAA by observing as under:

¶102

“xxx ………………………………..xxx…………………………………….xxx 142. Therefore, a reasonable view need to be taken in this matter. To meet the ends of justice and also to implement the environmental laws and applying the Precautionary Principle and Sustainable Development, we are of the view that mining leases continuing pursuant to ECs granted by DEIAAs upto 11.12.2018, must be appraised/re-appraised by concerned SEIAAs within three months from this judgment. Thereafter, if no decision is taken in favour of mining lease holders or no appraisal is made, the mining by lease holders who have been granted ECs by DEIAA shall not be allowed to operate. Further in all those cases where ECs have been granted by DEIAAs on and after 12.12.2018, such mining leases shall not be allowed to operate forthwith since such ECs are illegal. In such cases appraisal has to be made by concerned SEIAA and ECs are to be

¶103

¶104

granted in accordance with the provisions of EIA 2006 as amended from time to time.”

¶105

The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3799-3800/2019 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.11.2024 has passed the following order:

¶106

“Delay is condoned, permission to file appeal(s) is granted and the appeals are admitted, subject to curing of defects, if any.

¶107

Issue notice in all the appeals where it has not been issued till date. However, the same will be subject to curing of defects, if any. Notice will be served by all modes, including dasti.

¶108

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, we extend the time for completion of re-appraisal by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authorities¹ till 31.03.2025. This direction will apply in the cases where the Environment Clearance² is valid, as mining activity can only continue during the period of validity of the EC.

¶109

There may be parties who have not applied to SEIAA for such re-appraisal. They may do the same within a period of three weeks from today.

¶110

The State Governments will also ensure that SEIAA, where not constituted, are constituted within a period of six weeks from today.

¶111

Re-list in the week commencing 27.01.2025.

¶112

On the next date of hearing, the appeals will be taken up in the first five matters in the list of regular matters on the Board.”

¶113

In the present case, learned Counsel appearing for the SEIAA has pointed out that the Respondent No. 6 has not applied for reappraisal of the EC granted by DEIAA and no such application for reappraisal was filed to SEIAA, UP. On the contrary the Respondent No. 6 by suppressing the material facts had filed fresh application for grant of EC to SEIAA, UP and SEIAA, UP by the order dated 05.05.2025 had approved the proposal in File No. 9617 for grant of EC to Respondent No. 6. But subsequently, the complaint was received and notice was issued to the Respondent No. 6 for giving misleading information and he had filed the reply on Parivesh Portal

¶114

1 For short “SEIAA”.

¶115

2 For short “EC”.

¶116

¶117

on 04.06.2025 and had requested for withdrawal of his application proposal. Accordingly, the application for EC was rejected by SEIAA, UP by the order dated 23.09.2025. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for SEIAA, UP has produced a copy of the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the SEIAA, UP cancelling the order dated 05.05.2025 granting EC to the Respondent No. 6. She has submitted that the order dated 23.09.2025 was duly uploaded in the Parivesh Portal and communicated to the Respondent No. 6 and to her knowledge no appeal against this order has been preferred.

¶118

In view of the above, it is clear that the Respondent No. 6 does not have the valid EC.

¶119

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6 has pointed out that the mining lease has already expired on 30.05.2026 and no mining has been done by the Respondent No. 6 for last two years.

¶120

The appropriate action is required to be taken for the illegal mining and other environmental violations done by the Respondent No. 6 in the past, by levying the environmental compensation by the UPPCB. The UPPCB has already initiated action by serving the show cause notice dated 08.05.2025 to the Respondent No. 6 for levying the environmental compensation of Rs. 99,72,737.50/- for violating environmental norms and for doing the excessive mining and causing damage to the environment.

¶121

Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent – UPPCB submits that the proceedings in pursuance to the show cause notice are still pending. The UPPCB is directed to finalize the proceedings and pass the appropriate order to levy environmental compensation by duly following the principles of natural justice within a period of three months from today.

¶122

Ther report of the Joint Committee also encloses the photographs on page 219 onwards indicating that deep pits have been dug up by the

¶123

¶124

Respondent No. 6. Even in terms of the EC which was granted by DEIAA on 20.05.2016, the Respondent No. 6 was required to do the work of backfilling which has not been done by the Respondent No. 6.

¶125

The Respondent No. 6 alongwith the objection to the report of the Joint Committee filed on 13.05.2025 has placed on record certain photographs as Annexure-1 to contradict the report of the Joint Committee about not doing the backfilling work, but these photographs have neither the dates nor the geo-coordinates, whereas the photographs enclosed with the report of the Joint Committee on page 219 onwards are with the dates and geo-coordinates. Therefore, the explanation which is furnished by the Respondent No. 6 is not found to be reliable.

¶126

Hence, we appoint a Joint Committee comprising of the representative of the Respondent No. 2 – Member Secretary, UPPCB and Respondent No. 4 – representative of Deputy Director General of Mines and Safety, Northern Zone and District Magistrate, Sonbhadra. The District Magistrate, Sonbhadra will act as the coordinating agency in the Committee. The Committee will ensure that the backfilling work is done by the Respondent No. 6 within a period of six months from today and the damaged area is restored to the original position.

¶127

The OA is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:

¶128

(i) The Respondent – UPPCB will finalise the pending proceeding for imposition of environmental damage compensation upon the Respondent No. 6 in terms of the observations made in paragraphs 19 and 20 above within a period of three months from today.

¶129

(ii) The Joint Committee constituted as above will ensure that the backfilling work to fill up the deep pits dug up is completed by

¶130

¶131

the Respondent No. 6 within six months from today and the damaged area is restored to the original state.

¶132

(iii) The other state authorities may also take appropriate action under the relevant mining rules for the illegal mining against the Respondent No. 6.

¶133

Pending I.A’s, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶134

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶135

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶136

July 20, 2026 Original Application No. 1356/2024 dv

¶137

Bablu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bablu v. State of Uttar Pradesh

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

Siddharth Singh Rajpoot vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Dushyant Rohta vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Sagar Kantilal Devre vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Manoranjan Jena vs Orissa State Pollution Control Board

Dr. Namala Umashri Francis vs Special Chief Secretary to the Govt of Andhra Pradesh Animal Husbandry Dairy Development and Fisheries Department Andhra Pradesh and Others

MD Naheem Pasha vs Mancherial District Collector

Tirumuru Siva Kumar Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by Its Chief Secretary

K Kuppan vs Managing Director Coromandel International Limited

Ranu Bala vs Mo.Efcc

Ranu Bala vs Mo.Efcc

Ranu Bala vs Mo.Efcc

Sukhjinder Singh Maan vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Sukhjinder Singh Maan vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Sunil Kumar Gupta vs Jeetu Gupta