Disposed

Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana

NGT13 Aug 2026Original Application No. 630/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NGT addressed an application alleging three screening units in Haryana operated without environmental clearance and violated pollution norms. The court noted the HSPCB had issued closure orders and sealed the units. It directed the HSPCB to get units dismantled, seek removal of machinery from owners, and restore the land within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to HSPCB to ensure removal of machinery by unit owners and restore the land within three months.

Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana — Writ and Judicial Review | NGT (2026)

¶1

Item No. 18 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 630/2025 (IA No 799/2025)

¶4

Raghbir Singh Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana Respondent(s)

¶7

Date of hearing: 13.08.2026

¶8

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

¶9

Applicant: Mr. Aditya Pratap Swain, Adv. for Applicant

¶10

Respondents: Mr. Rahul Khurana & Ms. Bhavya Singla, Advs. for R - 1 to 4 with Mr. Vibham Nayak, AEE, HSPCB, Yamunanagar Mr. Hardik Giri & Mr. Vedant Pradhan, Advs. for R - 5 Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Adv. for R - 6

¶11

Mr. Shish Pal Laler & Mr. Pranav Singh Gautam, Advs. for R - 7

¶12

ORDER

¶13

In this Original Application, the applicant had alleged that the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, the three screening units in Village Belgarh, Tehsil Radaur/Chhachhrauli, District Yamunanagar, Haryana were operating without any Environmental Clerance, in violation of the siting criteria and in violation of the environmental norms fixed by the PCB. The applicant had also alleged that these units were operating without proper dust suppression and wetting systems, without developing the green belt and constructing the boundary wall or having the metallic internal roads for minimizing dust emissions. It was also alleged that these units did not have scientific method of disposal of silt and residue and settling tanks for treatment and recycling of process water.

¶14

The concerned respondents have filed their reply. The reply dated 24.02.2026 filed by the respondent No. 2-Haryana State Pollution Control

¶15

¶16

Board (HSPCB), reveals that these three units were operating in violation of the norms and during inspections the violations were noted. Therefore, the closure orders were passed against them which have been implemented. The disclosure so made by the respondent No. 2 in its above reply is as under:

¶17

“5. That details of Respondent No.5, 6 and 7 is as under:

¶18

A. M/s Gurdial Singh Screening Plant, Village Belgarh, Tehsil Khizrabad, District Yamunanagar:

¶19

The unit was having CTO valid upto 31.03.2027. The unit was inspected on 22.05.2025 in pursuance of a complaint received in this office. During inspection, following deficiencies were observed:

¶20

i . Settling tank along with recirculation arrangement not provided.

¶21

ii . Metalled road within the premises not provided.

¶22

iii . Adequate plantation along the periphery not provided.

¶23

Accordingly, closure order was issued by Head Office vide Endst.No. HSPCB/YAM/2025/INS/110867634CONCO001004 dated 22.08.2025. The closure order was implemented and compliance was verified by field officers on 28.08.2025 by sealing plant and machinery available at site. The unit remains closed and sealed.

¶24

The Compliance Report dated 29.08.2025 of the closure order of M/s Gurdial Singh Screening Plant has been annexed herewith as Annexure R/2 .

¶25

B. M/s Guru Nanak Minerals, Village Belgarh, Tehsil Khizrabad, District Yamunanagar:

¶26

The unit was having CTO valid upto 31.03.2028. The unit was inspected on 03.06.2025 and was found non-complying with the Haryana Government Notification dated 10.03.2016. The deficiencies observed are as under:

¶27

i. Metalled Road within the premises not provided.

¶28

ii. Adequate plantation along the periphery not provided.

¶29

iii. Wind breaking wall around the periphery not provided.

¶30

A Show Cause Notice was issued vide No. HSPCB/YR/2025/365 dated 04.06.2025.

¶31

Thereafter, closure order was issued by Head Office vide Endst. No. HSPCB/YAM/2025/INS/110878871CONCO001-004dated 15.07.2025. The closure order was implemented on 22.07.2025

¶32

¶33

by sealing plant and machinery. The unit remains closed and sealed. The Compliance Report dated 25.07.2025 of the closure order of M/s Guru Nanak Minerals has been annexed herein as Annexure R/3 .

¶34

C. M/s Shakti Screening Plant, Village Belgarh, Tehsil Khizrabad, District Yamunanagar:

¶35

The unit was having CTO valid upto 31.03.2027. The unit was inspected on 03.06.2025 and following deficiencies were observed:

¶36

i. Settling tank along with recirculation arrangement not provided.

¶37

ii. Metalled road within the premises not provided.

¶38

iii. Adequate plantation along the periphery not provided.

¶39

iv. Wind breaking wall around the periphery not provided.

¶40

A Show Cause Notice was issued vide No. HSPCB/YR/2025/366 dated 04.06.2025. Accordingly, closure order was issued by Head Office vide Endst. No. HSPCB/YAM/2025/INS/110878871CONCO001-004 dated 15.07.2025 and the same were implemented on 22.07.2025 by sealing plant and machinery. The unit remains closed and sealed thereafter.

¶41

The Compliance Report dated 25.07.2025 of the closure order of M/s Shakti Screening Plant has been annexed herein as Annexure R/4. ”

¶42

The above reply reveals that so far as M/s Gurdiyal Singh Screening Plant is concerned the closure order dated 22.08.2025 was passed and the plant was sealed on 28.08.2025. For M/s Guru Nanak Minerals the closure order was passed in 15.07.2025 and the plant was sealed on 22.07.2025 and for M/s Shakti Screening Plant the closure order was passed on 15.07.2025 and the plant was sealed on 22.07.2025.

¶43

The respondent No. 2 has filed the additional reply dated 12.08.2026 stating that these units were again inspected on 07.08.2026 and following status was found:

¶44

“2. In compliance with the above said directions, all the three (03) Screening units were again inspected on 07.08.2026. The present status of the above-said units are tabulated below-

¶45

Sr.	Name and Address of the	Date of	Latest Status of the	Unit
No.	Unit	Inspection
1.	M/s Gurdial Singh	07.08.2026	The unit has	been
	Screening Plant, Village		dismantled.	No
	Belgarh, Tehsil

¶46

¶47

	Khizrabad, District Yamunanagar		machinery of the unit exists at site.
2.	M/s Guru Nanak Minerals, Village Belgarh, Tehsil Partap Nagar, Yamunanagar	07.08.2026	The unit is lying sealed by the Board. The seals imposed by HSPCB are still intact at site. The vegetation has grown in the premises of the unit. The plant and machinery is lying in an abandoned condition.
3.	M/s Shakti Screening Plant, Village Belgarh, Tehsil Khizrabad, Yamunanagar	07.08.2026	The unit is lying sealed by the Board. The seals imposed by HSPCB are still intact at site. The vegetation has grown in the premises of the unit. The plant and machinery is lying in an abandoned condition.

¶48

The inspection reports along with Geo-tagged photographs of the above-mentioned units have been attached as Annexure-1. ”

¶49

Counsel for the applicant, referring to the photographs on page 152 onwards, has submitted that these photographs are of a subsequent date where the units were found to be operating. So far as the photographs on page 152 are concerned they are of a location at Aslampur Bartha, Uttar Pradesh which is a different location. But the photographs on page 153 onwards are dated 05.10.2025, which show the use of machinery on the given land. Hence, the locations reflected in the photographs from page 153 onwards are required to be verified by the HSPCB within ten days, and if any illegal mining/screening operation is found at those locations, the requisite remedial and punitive action by following the principles of natural justice against the persons responsible for the same are required to be taken.

¶50

Learned counsel appearing for the HSPCB has submitted that the recommendation has already been made for levy of the Environmental Compensation against the Project Proponents. Hence, the said exercise will be completed by duly following the principles of natural justice expeditiously.

¶51

¶52

Learned counsel for the applicant has also raised the issue that the land on which the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 were operating is required to be restored.

¶53

Learned counsel for the HSPCB has submitted that the machinery and equipments lying at the site of respondent Nos. 5 to 7 have already been sealed and it is for them to remove it. For restoration of the land the removal of such machinery and equipment is necessary. Hence, we permit the HSPCB to give due notice to the respondent Nos. 5 to 7 for removal of the said machinery within the prescribed time and if it is not done the appropriate decision will be taken by the HSPCB and respondent No. 4 for removing the same after hearing the objections of the respondent No. 5 to 7. Subject to the above, needful for ensuring the restoration of the land will be done by the respondent-HSPCB along with the respondent No. 4 within three months.

¶54

The O.A. is accordingly disposed of.

¶55

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶56

Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM

¶57

August 13, 2026 Original Application No. 630/2025 (IA No 799/2025) HK

¶58

Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghbir Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Pratap Vaare Parshad vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Paribesh O Aranya Sankalp through Milan Rakshit vs State of West Bangal

Paryavaran Bachav Samity vs Union of India through the Secretary

Budhsen Rathour vs Torrent Power Ltd.

Devavrat Kumar Sahni vs State of Bihar

Krishna Prasad Singh vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Mr. Shashikant Vitthal Kamble vs Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change (Moef & Cc) New Delhi.

Samyak Jain vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Residents Welfare Society Shyam Kunj vs NCT of Delhi

Residents Welfare Society Shyam Kunj vs NCT of Delhi

Jitender vs

Raghbir Singh vs State of Haryana

Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 66/2026 in Original Application No. 360/2023 of Ajay Srivastava vs

Amarjit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others