Dismissed

Himanshu Mittal v. Union of India

NGT1 Jul 2026Original Application No. 498/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal dismissed an original application alleging illegal construction in Ghaziabad. The court found insufficient prima facie material showing violation of environmental norms or identifying the specific private respondent violator, placing the burden on the applicant to connect evidence to specific respondents.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is dismissed with liberty to file a fresh OA with relevant material concerning specific environmental violations.

Himanshu Mittal vs Union of India — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 02

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 498/2025 (I.A. Nos. 107/2026 & 655/2025)

¶5

Himanshu Mittal & Anr. Applicant(s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 01.07.2026

¶9

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

¶10

Applicant: Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Adv.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

In this Original Application (OA), the Applicant has alleged large scale illegal and unauthorised construction of colonies, farm houses, shops and other commercial establishments in various areas of Ghaziabad. The illegal constructions per se does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal unless it is demonstrated that the said construction is being carried out in violation of environmental norms.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Applicant has argued that the private Respondents are raising the construction without environmental clearance (EC).

¶14

The EC is required under the EIA Notification, 2006. The learned counsel for the Applicant could not point out the relevant details to show that the said constructions are covered by the Schedule to the EIA Notification, 2006 and EC is required.

¶15

¶16

Learned counsel for the Applicant has further argued that no CTO has been obtained by these Respondents for raising constructions. In support of the plea concerning the requirement of CTO and discharge of sewage, learned counsel has referred to the photographs on page 62 which show that from certain houses the open sewage discharge is being done. He could not demonstrate that the CTO is required in such a case. He also could not relate the photographs on page 62 to any of the Respondents. Therefore, we are not able to ascertain as to which Respondents has indulged in such a violation concerning discharge of untreated sewage.

¶17

He has also referred to the photographs on page 50, Annexure A-1 to show that the illegal constructions are coming up. We have already stated that illegal construction per se does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal unless it is demonstrated that the construction is being done in violation of the environmental norms specifically violating the provisions of Schedule enactments.

¶18

Learned counsel for the Applicant has also relied upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17.12.2024 in the matter of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya & Anr. v. UP Awas Evan Vikas Parishad passed in Civil Appeal No. 14604/2024. But we find that for want of the necessary supporting material facts, the Applicant is not entitled to benefit of the said order. Even otherwise, it was a case arising out of the order passed by the High Court to Allahabad wherein the issue of commercial construction on residential area was involved.

¶19

The Applicant is required point out not only the environmental violations but also the Respondent violator who has indulged in such a violation.

¶20

¶21

In such circumstances, we are of the view that since no prima facie material relating to violation of environmental norms by the private Respondents has been shown, the OA cannot be entertained.

¶22

In such circumstances, the OA is dismissed, however, with liberty to the Applicant to file fresh OA along with all the relevant material relating to the environmental violation by the specific Respondent.

¶23

All the pending IAs also stand disposed of.

¶24

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶25

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶26

July 1, 2026 Original Application No. 498/2025 (I.A. Nos. 107/2026 & 655/2025) A

¶27

Himanshu Mittal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Mittal v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meherram Digambar Gadekar vs Pune Municipal Corporation

Suresh Kumar Ramisetti vs Bathula Anjaiah

Tharish Rahman vs Kerala Pollution Control Board

P v Appalanaidu vs Union of India

Badri vs State of Rajasthan

Mr John Phillipose vs L and T Realty Properties Ltd.

Rajesh Rangari S/O Shri Kanhaiya Lal Rangari vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change through Its Secretary

International Environment Sansad through Its President vs State of Rajasthan through Chief Secretary

Varun Gulati vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Ramesh Sanka vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Ramesh Sanka vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram

Rema Raina vs Muncipal Corporation of Gurugram