Disposed

Vijay Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

NGT2 Sept 2026Original Application No. 516/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The applicant raised apprehension about illegal felling of mango and guava trees in Haridwar district. The Court noted an outstanding prohibition notification for mangrove felling but found no ground to interfere at this stage as the authority is statutorily expected to comply with such regulations.

What did the court decide?

The Original Application is disposed of without interference at this stage.

Vijay Singh vs State of Uttarakhand — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 06

¶2

Court No. 1

¶3

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶4

Original Application No. 516/2026

Vijay Singh

Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

¶9

Respondent(s)

¶10

Date of hearing: 02.09.2026

¶11

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

¶12

Applicant: Mr. Shubham Upadhyay & Ms. Anukriti Bajpai, Advs. for Applicant

¶13

ORDER

¶14

In this Original Application (OA), the plea of the Applicant is that there is an apprehension of felling of about 450 mango trees and 50 guava trees among others located in Khasra No. 376 (क), 376 (ख ), 376 (ग ) and 376

¶15

( घ ) in about 6.65 hectare of land at Village Amarpur Kazi, Pargana and Tehsil Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar.

¶16

The plea of the Applicant is that earlier the permission was granted on 09.11.2023 by the Chief Horticulture Officer, Haridwar for felling of 60 trees which was valid for a period of 15 days. Since the consent of the land owner was not granted, therefore, the felling could not be done by the Respondent No. 5.

¶17

Learned counsel for the Applicant has submitted that subsequently the Respondent No. 5 has obtained the consent of the land owners and he has again made an application to the Chief Horticulture Officer, Haridwar on 01.08.2026 seeking permission to cut 149 mango trees and other trees.

¶18

¶19

Submission of the counsel for the Applicant is that in terms of the Notification of the Government of Uttarakhand dated 06.09.2024 felling of the mango is prohibited till 31.12.2028. Therefore, Respondent No. 5 cannot be allowed to cut those mango trees.

¶20

Undisputedly, the application filed by the Respondent No. 5 before the Chief Horticulture Officer, Haridwar for grant of permission has not been decided till now. There is no reason to presume that while considering the said application the Chief Horticulture Officer will not take into account the requirements of Notification dated 06.09.2024 or any other binding regulatory provision.

¶21

We expect the Chief Horticulture Officer to apply his mind to the above while considering the application of the Respondent no. 5 for grant of permission to cut the trees. Even otherwise, it is the responsibility of the concerned Authorities to ensure that no illegal felling of tree takes place. Hence, at this stage, we find no ground to interfere in this OA which is accordingly disposed of.

¶22

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶23

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶24

September 2, 2026 Original Application No. 516/2026 A

¶25

Vijay Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Vaibhav Baban Satam vs Environment Department Government of Maharashtra

Abhijit Bhowmick vs State of West Bengal

Nitin Saxena vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change (Government of India)

Mainak Bhattacharyya vs Mp State Wetland Authority Epco

Ms.S. Mahesh vs Prakash Rao

Devanshu Bose vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Babu Lal Jajoo vs Union of India

Arvind Rathod vs Municipal Council Palsud

Nitin Saxena vs Union of India Ministry of Environment Forest & Climate Change (Government of India)

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

Rema vs Delhi Pollution Control Committee

Rashid Noor Khan vs Union of India through Its Secretary

Ajitesh Pratap Tiwari vs Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam

Pradeep Norula vs State of Haryana