Disposed

Dharampal v. State of Haryana

NGT14 Jul 2026Original Application No. 18/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NGT New Delhi held that since the Haryana State Pollution Control Board had already inspected, issued a closure order, and sealed equipment of the RMC plant, no further order was required in the original application addressing alleged pollution violations.

What did the court decide?

The application was disposed of noting that the HSPCB had already initiated closure action and sealed machinery. An appeal against the closure order will be decided independently by the Appellate Auth

Dharampal vs State of Haryana — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 13

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 18/2026 (IA No 488/2026)

Dharampal

Applicant

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 14.07.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Tarun Cummra, Advocate for Applicant

¶13

Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Advs. for R - 1, 2, 4 & 5

¶14

Mr. Saurabh Balwani, Adv. for CPCB (Through VC)

¶15

Mr. Vikrant Pachnanda, Adv. for MoEF & CC (Through VC)

¶16

Mr. Tarun Gupta & Mr. Hirday Virdi, Advs. for R - 6

¶17

ORDER

¶18

In this original application, the Applicant had alleged that the Respondent No. 6 was operating the Ready-Mix Concrete (RMC) Plant in violation of the environmental norms. Further allegation was that the RMC Plant is located near the residential area and near a government school and was causing pollution.

¶19

The Tribunal by the order dated 20.03.2026 issued notice to the respondents and the Applicant by filing the affidavit of service had disclosed that the Respondent No. 6 was served on 19.03.2026. The Tribunal thereafter had considered the issue in the proceedings dated 01.07.2026 and noted the status disclosed by the Respondent No. 5 in the reply affidavit dated 30.06.2026 and had required the Respondent No. 5 to file the further reply.

¶20

The Respondent No. 5 - HSPCB has filed the reply dated 13.07.2026 disclosing that the unit of the Respondent No. 6 was inspected on

¶21

¶22

05.03.2026 and noting the violations the show cause notice was issued and the recommendation for the closure order was made. Thereafter the closure order has also been passed on 08.07.2026. The disclosure so made by Respondent No. 5 in the reply affidavit dated 13.07.2026 is as under:

¶23

“4. That it is worthwhile to mention that the unit was visited by the team of officers of HSPCB on 05.03.2026. At the time of the visit, the RMC plant involved in the present matter was found nonoperational. However, despite its non-operation, an inspection was carried out and certain non-compliances were observed. Keeping in view of the non-compliances observed during inspection, Show Cause Notice (SCN) for Closure and revocation of Consent to Operate was issued. It is also necessary to mention that, during the inspection, the cement storage shed was found empty, and it was observed that the unit had not obtained authorisation under the HoWM Rules, despite the fact that such authorisation was/is required for the DG set kept by the unit for electricity backup.

¶24

5. That it is worthwhile to submit that, in response to the SCN, a reply was submitted on behalf of the occupier of the unit. However, it is apt to mention that the averments made in the reply could only be verified during the operation of the unit. Keeping in view the reply, the RMC plant involved in the present matter was again inspected by concerned field officer on 29.06.2026 and during inspection, found that metalled road was covered with dust/construction material, plantations were inadequate & the unit had not obtained authorization under the HOWM Rules, which is required for the operation of the DG set installed at the unit.

¶25

6. That it is respectfully submitted that thereafter, keeping in view of the violations, recommendations regarding Closure order were sent by Regional Officer to Head office. However, to avoid any technical objection regarding natural justice, a final Show Cause Notice dated 04.07.2026 (Annexure R-1) was issued by Regional Office, Gurugram South, HSPCB and a reply dated 07.07.2026 was submitted by the occupier of the unit in response to the SCN. After considering the facts, circumstances and reply of the Unit, a speaking order dated 07.07.2026 (Annexure R-2) regarding deficiencies of the unit was passed by the Regional Office, HSPCB, Gurugram South, followed by recommendation of closure order.

¶26

7. That it is worthwhile to mention that, after evaluating all the facts, circumstances, violation found during inspection, reply and the recommendation of the Regional officer, the closure order was approved by Competent Authority of the Board on 08.07.2026 and compliance of the closure order was done on 09.07.2026 by sealing the 1 No. of DG Set, 2 Nos. of Compressor & 02 Nos. of Conveyer belt in the presence of Sh. Panna Lal, Plant in-charge being representative of the unit. Copies of

¶27

¶28

Closure order & Compliance report are attached as Annexure R- 3 & R-4.”

¶29

Learned Counsel appearing for the HSPCB has also submitted that for past violation, the action has been initiated against the Respondent No. 6 and show cause notice has been issued for imposition of environmental compensation.

¶30

In view of the above, we are of the view that the requisite action has already been initiated/taken by the Respondent No. 5, therefore, no further order in this OA is required.

¶31

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 has objected to the closure order. The said closure order is not under challenge in this OA. Against the closure order the Respondent No. 6 has remedy of filing the appeal in accordance with law. He has expressed an apprehension that in view of the orders passed by the Tribunal appeal may not be decided independently, therefore, we clarify that if an appeal is preferred against the closure order, the same will be decided by the Appellate Authority independently without being influenced by these proceedings in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶32

The OA is accordingly disposed of. IA No 488/2026 also stands disposed of.

¶33

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶34

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶35

July 14, 2026 Original Application No. 18/2026 (IA No 488/2026) dv

¶36

Dharampal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharampal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sakharam Asaram Kale vs Regional Officer Mpcb

Atindranath Chatterjee vs Chairman West Bengal Pollution Control Board

Abhijit Das vs State of West Bengal

Centre for Holistic Development -Chd vs State of Bihar

Gobinda Dhar vs Department of Environment

News Item Titled Mumbai Lost Over 21000 Trees in 6 Years to Make Way for Metro Road Projects Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 26.03.2024 vs Central Pollution Control Board

Sagar Kantilal Devre vs Maharasthra Pollution Control Board

Manoranjan Jena vs Orissa State Pollution Control Board

Arvind Goel vs State of Punjab

Arvind Goel vs State of Punjab

Arvind Goel vs State of Punjab

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.

Jatinder Singh and Ors. vs Modulus Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd.