Disposed

Ashish Jain v. Public Works Department

NGT15 Apr 2026Original Application No. 432/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant alleged environmental violations regarding road construction debris dumping. The tribunal noted the Delhi Pollution Control Committee was not impleaded. It disposed of the application by permitting the applicant to file a specific complaint with the DPCC to seek environmental compensation.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of by permitting the applicant to make a complaint to the Member Secretary, DPCC.

Ashish Jain vs Public Works Department — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 21 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 432/2025

¶4

Ashish Jain Applicant Versus Public Works Department Respondent(s)

¶5

Date of hearing: 15.04.2026

¶6

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

¶7

Applicant: Mr. Ashish Jain, Applicant in Person (Through VC)

¶8

Respondents: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for R - 1 Mr. Bipul Kumar Mishra, Adv. for R - 2

¶9

ORDER

¶10

In this original application, the applicant had alleged that the environmental norms were violated during the construction of the Road No. 58A, Somnath Marg, Surajmal Vihar, Delhi.

¶11

The allegation of the applicant was that the environmental hazard was created by dumping the road construction bitumen debris etc. on the green belt adjoining the road.

¶12

The applicant alleged that on account of such dumping the natural recharge of rain water was prevented during monsoon period.

¶13

The applicant had further made allegation that no bitumen carpet was laid on the stretch consequently the dust pollution was caused.

¶14

After the notice by the Tribunal, the respondent no. 1 Public Works Department, Delhi has filed the reply dated 06.01.2026 stating that on receiving the information about the alleged violation action has been taken

¶15

¶16

and the problem has been remediated. The disclosure so made by the respondent no. 1, in its reply dated 06.01.2026 is as under :-

¶17

“3. The work to be carried out was scraping of the old existing bituminous layers and relaying of new bituminous layers. It involved scraping of old existing bituminous layers by cold milling machine by cutting and breaking the bituminous materials and then throwing the same (i.e. cold milled bituminous materials) directly into a dumper which further transported these materials to the Hot Mix Plant for reuse (photo of milling process is enclosed as Annexure-A). These cold milled materials were never thrown by the Respondents along the road side.

¶18

4. That upon the receipt of information of malba dumping, the site was inspected by PWD, but it was observed that dumped malba had already been removed prior to the site inspection.

¶19

5. It is respectfully submitted that the answering respondent cannot identify the source of cold milled bituminous materials which was lying there earlier as it might have been dumped by some unknown agency.

¶20

6. That as on date, there are no malba, road construction bitumen, debris etc. on the green belt adjoining the road (photo is enclosed as Annexure-B). The PWD remains committed to the protection and restoration of the Green Belt and to full compliance with environmental and waste management laws. 7. The statement of Applicant regarding violation of environmental statutory rules by the Answering Respondent is vehemently denied. The Public Works Department always follow statutory rules like Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules

¶21

¶22

2016, Delhi Preservation of Trees Act 1994 and other precautionary principles etc.”.

¶23

The above reply reveals that the malba has been removed from the site and needful has been done.

¶24

The respondent no. 2 also has filed the reply dated 30.03.2026 disclosing that in the alleged road repairing work the construction was being done with the help of cold milling machine and the debris were directly put in the dumpers. There was no human involvement in the process and there was no question of dumping of debris.

¶25

The disclosure so made by the respondent no. 2 in the reply dated 30.03.2026 is as under :-

¶26

“A. That it is submitted that the answering respondent undertook the road repair work from the PWD. The road construction work was done with the help of cold milling machine, which scratches the road and directly put the entire debris into the moving truck (dumper). There is no human involvement in scratching the road or in putting the debris somewhere else. There is no question of putting debris in the pedestrian path or in the green belt alongside road. The Application is completely devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself.

¶27

B. That the present Application is nothing but an arm twisting method by which the Petitioner wants to extract money from Respondent no. 2 under the garb of present litigation.

¶28

Reply on Merits

¶29

1. That the contents of para 1 to 3 of the application is a matter of record, however, anything contrary to record is totally wrong and denied.

¶30

¶31

4-15.That in reply to para 4 to 15 of the application it is submitted that the Strengthening/ Re-carpeting Work of Road No. 58A (Master Somnath Marg), Surajmal Vihar, Delhi was carried out under supervision of P W D, Delhi i.e., Respondent No. 1/ through the answering respondent i.e. M/s Sethi Constructions i.e. Respondent No.2. The work include scratching of road, DBM (Dense Bitumen Mecadum) and DBC( Dense Bitumen Surface).

¶32

The entire process is done by a specially designed moving machine which scratches the road and directly put the debris in the moving truck( dumper). On collection of debris the said debris is sent to plant in order to mix fresh bitumen and other road material. After the mix is prepared it is laid down on the scratched road and final shape of the road is done by roller. The entire process is mechanized in the scientific manner as per protocol. There was no incontinence as alleged was suffered by the local people. It is denied that the road is broken.

¶33

The statement of Applicant regarding violation of environmental statutory rules by the Answering Respondent is vehemently denied. The answering respondent always follow statutory rules like Solid Waste Management Rules 2016, Construction & Demolition Waste Management Rules 2016, Delhi Preservation of Trees Act 1994 and other precautionary principles etc.”

¶34

At this stage the submission of the applicant is that violation has been done by respondent nos. 1 and 2 during the past period, therefore, they cannot be absolved of the liability of the ground that they have remediated the problem now.

¶35

¶36

We find that the DPCC has not been impleaded in this original application. The DPCC is required to ascertaining the extent of violation by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and to take action for imposition of environmental compensation after following the due process.

¶37

Hence, we disposed of the original application permitting the applicant to make a complaint to Member Secretary, DPCC along with all the supporting material relating to the past violation. On receipt of such complaint the Member Secretary, DPCC will duly examine the issue concerning the past violation and take appropriate action for imposition of Environmental Compensation by following the due process, if the allegations found to be correct.

¶38

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶39

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶40

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶41

April 15, 2026 OA No. 432/2025 PN

¶42

Ashish Jain v. Public Works Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashish Jain v. Public Works Department

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

Suo Moto Titled Paatal Me Jata Pani Semi Critical Zone Me Bhopal Appear in People S Samachar Newspaper Dated 16TH March 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Titled Raunak Residency Ke Piche Padon Ki Katai Ke Sath Avedh Utkhanan Appear in Dainik Bhaskar Sagar News Paper Dated 26TH February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Suo Moto Tilted Bhujal Mai Silent Killer Dushit Pani Aapki Nashon Mai Ghol Raha Zehar Appear in Patrika Newspaper Dated 23RD February 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

General Manager Sambhar Salt Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod vs State of Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled Balauda Bazar Ke Real Ispat Plant Mai Hadasha 6 Shramikon Ki Mout 5 Gambheer Ghayal Appearing in Rajasthan Patrika Dated 23.01.2026. vs Central Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled Chhattishgarh Yahan Shivnath Nadi Par Kabja 10 Kilometer Duri Ghatane Aur Mitti Lane Ke Liye Bana Liya Avedh Anicate Appearing in Dainik Bahshkar News Paper Dated 5TH January 2026 vs State of Chattisgarh

Suo Moto Titled Betul 7 Lakh Logon Ki Life Line Macchna Nadi Dam Todne Ki Kagaar Par Appear in Dainik Bhaskar Newspaper Dated 12TH March 2026 vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Vikram Singh vs State of Haryana through Its Chief Secretary

Raman Bala Puri vs State of Punjab

Manmohan Sharma vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

Anil Sharma S/O Ram Kumar Sharma vs State Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority Uttar Pradesh

News Item Titled "We Can Smell It Even Inside Our Homes,: Southeast Delhi Localities Choke on Garbage" Appearing in the Indian Express Dated 12.06.2025 vs

Ajay Kumar vs Union of India