Disposed

Rema v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee

NGT1 Sept 2026Original Application No. 499/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court precedents, declined to exercise parallel jurisdiction because the same pollution issue was being examined by the High Court of Delhi. The applications were disposed of with liberty to re-approach the Tribunal if issues survive the High Court decision.

What did the court decide?

The applications were disposed of with liberty to approach the Tribunal again if any environmental issue survives the High Court's decision.

Rema vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item Nos. 20 & 21 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 78/2025 (IA No 561/2026 & IA No 228/2025)

¶4

Armaan Palliwal Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶7

With

¶8

Original Application No. 499/2025

¶9

Rema Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Delhi Pollution Control Committee & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶12

Date of hearing: 01.09.2026

¶13

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

¶14

Applicant. Mr. Ashish Jain & Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advs. for Applicant in OA 78/2025 Ms. Rema Raina, Adv. for Applicant in OA 499/2025

¶15

Respondents: Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for R - 1 & 2 in OA 78/2025 Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Ravi Krishan Chandna & Mr. Siddhant Choudhary, Advs. for NDMC in OA 78/2025 Mr. Tarunvir Singh Khehar, Adv. for MCD in OA 78/2025 (Through VC) Mr. Kush Sharma, Adv. for DPCC in OA 499/2025 (Through VC)

¶16

ORDER

¶17

In these Original Applications (O.As.), the applicants have raised the issue of pollution being caused by pigeon droppings.

¶18

The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have placed on record a copy of the Writ Petition (Civil) No.3024/2026 in the matter Darpan Sachdeva vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. pending before the High Court of Delhi wherein

¶19

¶20

the same issue has been raised, which is under consideration and is being examined by the High Court of Delhi.

¶21

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendera Mohan Sengupta & Anr. reported in (2024) 1 S.C.R. 973 :2024 INSC 30, has settled that the Tribunal should not exercise the parallel jurisdiction once the issue is under consideration before the constitutional court, as judicial propriety also demands that. The view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard is as under:-

¶22

“xxx…………………………………xxx……………………………………….xxx

¶23

109. In view of the settled legal position, we are of the view that the continuation of the proceedings by the NGT during the pendency of the writ petitions before the High Court was not in conformity with the principles of judicial propriety. Needless to state that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, insofar as its territorial jurisdiction is concerned, has supervisory jurisdiction over the NGT. Despite pendency of the proceedings before the High Court including the one challenging the interim order dated 12th May 2022 passed by NGT, the NGT went ahead with the passing of the second order impugned herein.

¶24

110. It will also be relevant to refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Raghu Ramakrishna Raju Kanumuru (Member of Parliament) (supra), which read thus:

¶25

"13. We are, therefore, of the considered view that it was not appropriate on the part of the learned NGT to have continued with the proceedings before it, specifically, when it was pointed out that the High Court was also in seisin of the matter and had passed an interim order permitting the construction. The conflicting orders passed by the learned NGT and the High Court would lead to an anomalous situation, where the authorities would be faced with a difficulty as to which order they are required to follow. There can be no manner of doubt that in such a situation, it is the orders passed by the constitutional courts, which would be prevailing over the overs passed by the statutory tribunals."

¶26

111. It can be seen from the perusal of the orders of the NGT itself that though the NGT was informed about the High Court being in seisin of the proceedings, it went on to hold that the judgment given by it was binding and therefore, the draft development plan, which in its view, was not in conformity with its judgment, was liable to be set aside."

¶27

¶28

Having regard to the above, we are of the view that it would not be proper to exercise parallel jurisdiction when the same issue is being examined by the High Court of Delhi in the pending writ petition.

¶29

Hence, we dispose of these O.As, however, with liberty to the applicants to approach the Tribunal again, if any environmental issue survives after the decision by the High Court.

¶30

Pending I.A.s, if any, are also disposed of.

¶31

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶32

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶33

September 01, 2026

¶34

Original Application No. 78/2025

¶35

(IA No 561/2026 & IA No 228/2025) & Original Application No. 499/2025 JG.

¶36

Rema v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rema v. Delhi Pollution Control Committee

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

Nizamuddin Asmad Jalal vs Jalal Zubair Zahid Hussain

Aditya Chaudhuri vs State of Haryana through the Chief Secretary

Shiv Kumar Dubey vs Union of India

News Item Titled "Toxic Kilns Pollution Aravallis; Wildlife and Locals Suffer" Appearing in the Tribune Dated 28.12.2024 vs

Sumita Banerjee vs State of West Bengal

Vijay Singh vs State of Uttarakhand

Rashid Noor Khan vs Union of India through Its Secretary

Mr. Irba Mashnaji Konapure vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change

Aditya Chaudhuri vs State of Haryana through the Chief Secretary

News Item Titled "Toxic Kilns Pollution Aravallis; Wildlife and Locals Suffer" Appearing in the Tribune Dated 28.12.2024 vs

M/S Mahadev Processor vs Punjab Pollution Control Board

Armaan Palliwal vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Armaan Palliwal vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi

Armaan Palliwal vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi