Disposed

Hritik Baliyan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

NGT14 Jul 2026Original Application No. 189/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal disposed of an application alleging 30 paper mills in Muzaffar Nagar use solid waste for RDF causing air pollution. The Tribunal allowed the applicant to file a comprehensive complaint with the UP PCB for ground verification, requiring an investigation within three months.

What did the court decide?

Allowing the Applicant to file a comprehensive complaint with UP PCB; RNo.2 to complete ground verification within three months.

Hritik Baliyan vs State of Uttar Pradesh — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 03

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 189/2026

Hritik Baliyan

Applicant

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & 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. Rishabh, Mr. Aakarshak Rathi, Ms. Devika Singh, Ms. Akshika Chaudhary, Ms. Aish Rana & Mr. Harshit Tyagi, Advs. for Applicant

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The limited submission of the counsel for the applicant is that there are as many as 30 paper mills in the area of Muzaffar Nagar which are using the solid waste in the name of RDF and in support of such a submission counsel for the applicant has referred to the photographs which has been placed on record on page 33-34 of the amended OA.

¶15

The Applicant has not impleaded any of the violator paper mill and no complaint made to the regulatory authority has been placed on record. If the paper mills are using the solid waste and are creating air pollution, the appropriate action is required to be taken by the Respondent No. 2- UPPCB.

¶16

The allegation made by the Applicant requires ground verification. Hence, we dispose of the OA permitting the Applicant to file a comprehensive complaint to the Respondent No. 2-Member Secretary, UP PCB along with all the supporting material.

¶17

¶18

On receipt of the complaint Respondent No. 2 will get the ground verification done and will ascertain, if any of the paper mill is using unsegregated solid waste and is causing air pollution on that account. If any violation is found, the Respondent No. 2 will ensure appropriate remedial and punitive action in accordance with law. Let this exercise be completed by the Respondent No. 2 within three months from date of receipt of the complaint.

¶19

The OA is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶21

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶22

July 14, 2026 Original Application No. 189/2026 A

¶23

Hritik Baliyan v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hritik Baliyan 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

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

Dharampal vs State of Haryana

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