Disposed

Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana through Its Chief Secretary

NGT13 Apr 2026Original Application No. 229/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vikram Singh sought various reliefs against an illegally operating brick kiln in Haryana. The NGT observed that the District Magistrate had suspended operations and the HSPCB was conducting show cause proceedings. No further order was deemed requisite.

What did the court decide?

No further order passed; application disposed of as District Magistrate had suspended operations and HSPCB was initiating proceedings.

Vikram Singh vs State of Haryana through Its Chief… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No.07

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 229/2026

¶5

Vikram Singh Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶8

Respondent(s)

¶9

Date of hearing: 13.04.2026

¶10

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

¶11

Applicant: Mr. Parmod Kalirana, Adv. for Applicant Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Advs. for R - 1, 5 to 7

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this Original Application, applicant has alleged that respondent no.8-M/s. Raria Brick Udyog is illegally operating a brick kiln in village Kanmajra, District Rewari, Haryana.

¶14

The plea of the applicant is that said brick kiln is operating without Consent To Operate (CTO). The CTO which was granted to project proponent was cancelled by the HSPCB by the order dated 06.04.2023 but respondent no.8 is still operating.

¶15

A further allegation has been made by the applicant is that siting criteria prescribed in the notification dated 22.02.2022 issued by MoEF&CC has been violated in this case.

¶16

During the course of hearing, Counsel for the applicant has produced the order dated 08.04.2026 issued by District Magistrate, Rewari directing the respondent no.8 to stop all operations of the brick kiln and suspending the operation of the brick kiln with immediate effect on the ground that respondent no.8 was operating without CTO. 5. Counsel for the applicant alleges that in spite of the order of the District Magistrate, Rewari, respondent no.8 was found to be operating on

¶17

¶18

10^th and 11^th of April, 2026. If respondent no.8 does not have CTO from the HSPCB then it cannot be permitted to operate. Necessary suspension order dated 08.04.2026 has already been issued by District Magistrate, Rewari.

¶19

The HSPCB has also issued the show cause notice dated 16.03.2026 to respondent no.8 specifically mentioning that respondent no.8 was operating in spite of the cancellation of the CTO and was using coal as a fuel. If requisite proceedings in pursuance to the show cause notice has not been completed till now, same is required to be completed by following the Principles of Natural Justice. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.5-HSPCB on advance notice has submitted that this exercise will be completed within six weeks.

¶20

Counsel for respondent no.5-HSPCB does not dispute that if respondent no.8 does not have CTO then it cannot be permitted to operate. 7. Hence, HSPCB will ascertain the position within one week from today and will ensure that respondent no.8 does not operate without CTO. 8. The Counsel for respondent no.5-HSPCB has also submitted that if respondent no.8 had operated without CTO in the past, then necessary action for imposition of environmental compensation will be taken after duly complying with the Principles of Natural Justice.

¶21

In view of the above, no further order is required to be passed in this

¶22

OA. OA is accordingly disposed of.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶25

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶26

April 13, 2026 Original Application No. 229/2026 JG.

¶27

Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana through Its Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh v. State of Haryana through Its Chief Secretary

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

Durai Varathan vs District Collector Tiruvannamalai District

Gaurav Prakash vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Prabhat Pandey vs State of Madhya Pradesh through the Principal Secretary Urban Development & Housing Department

Satyendra Kumar Sharma vs Union of India

Rahul Sharma vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Forest Guard 33 Crushed to Death by Illegal Sand Miners Dated 9TH April 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suresh Rawat & Villagers vs Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change (Moef&Cc)

Ajay Dabariya vs the State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Ajay Srivastava vs

Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Gian Sagar Educational and Charitable Trust vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Raman Bala Puri vs State of Punjab

Manmohan Sharma vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Other vs Other