NGT Orders

Find environmental news about India, NGT full form The National Green Tribunal, NGT Orders, NGT Orders 2023, NGT Orders 2024, Latest NGT Orders, Court Orders. The articles share insight to environmental justice theory. Subscribe

25th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Western Zone Bench, Pune, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member), in a significant order passed on 24th April 2025, dismissed two interlocutory applications filed in the ongoing Original Application No. 100 of 2024 (WZ) — Vanashakti & Anr. Vs. Municipal Commissioner, MCGM & Ors. — pertaining to the investigation of fire incidents at an ecologically sensitive site in Mumbai’s Malad East region.
 

Two Interlocutory Applications — I.A. No. 44/2025 (WZ) and I.A. No. 45/2025 (WZ) — were filed by the applicants seeking directions for a thorough investigation of fire incidents that occurred on 28th December 2024 and 13th January 2025 on specific identified land located near the Aarey region.

• I.A. No. 44/2025 (WZ) prayed for a professional and diligent fire investigation by Dindoshi Police, invoking Recommendation No. 2 of the Joint Committee constituted in the matter.

• I.A. No. 45/2025 (WZ) sought to implead the Dindoshi Police Station through the Senior Inspector as Respondent No. 13 in the primary application and sought to amend the scope of the original application accordingly.

However, the Tribunal observed that the alleged fire incidents constitute a subsequent cause of action, emerging after the institution of the original application, which primarily challenges illegal construction activities by Respondents 10 and 11, including hill cutting, tree burning, and obstruction of natural drains.

Stating that it was not inclined to expand the scope of the ongoing proceedings beyond the issues initially framed, the Bench rejected both applications. Nevertheless, it granted liberty to the applicants to approach the Dindoshi Police Station independently to initiate proceedings under relevant criminal laws, including filing of a First Information Report (FIR).

The Tribunal took on record the Order dated 14th January 2025 of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in PIL No. 48 of 2023, along with the Minutes of the 81st Meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL), which were submitted as part of the record (pages 790–795 of the paperbook). These documents are expected to play a critical role in the Tribunal’s final deliberations.

The Bench permitted the parties to file rebuttal evidence, if any, within a period of two weeks, particularly in response to the newly brought documents, to maintain procedural fairness.

The final hearing in the matter is scheduled on 25th August 2025.

The primary application, filed by Vanashakti, a well-known environmental NGO, raises serious allegations against unauthorized construction and ecological degradation in a region known for its biodiversity and proximity to the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. The issues involve alleged hill cutting, deforestation by burning, and tampering with natural water drainage systems — activities that have severe implications on local ecology, flood management, and wildlife corridors.

The matter has gained attention from environmentalists and citizens alike, particularly in the backdrop of multiple fire events suspected to be linked with attempts to alter the natural landscape under the guise of urban development.

24th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

On Earth Day, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), pronounced its judgment in Original Application No. 453/2023, titled Raghubir Singh Garia v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., strictly regulating mining operations in Bageshwar district, Uttarakhand. The judgment was passed by Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member,  in response to allegations of illegal and environmentally destructive soapstone mining.

The Tribunal's verdict, reserved on 10th September 2024, was delivered today with clear emphasis on environmental and seismic concerns surrounding mining activity in the Lesser Himalayan range.

Key Findings:

• Illegal Mining Established: The Joint Committee Report dated November 1, 2023, confirmed that Respondent No. 5, the leaseholder, engaged in unauthorized mechanical mining, including excavation outside the demarcated lease area (approx. 225 m³), and violated consent conditions by failing to erect retaining structures, risking discharge of debris into a storm water drain.
  
  

• Environmental Damage Evident: Recurring landslides were reported in the vicinity, attributed to ongoing mining activities. Visual evidence suggested that the region’s weak rock structure, consisting of dolomite and talc soapstone in a steep terrain, had suffered destabilization, particularly during heavy rainfall.
  
  

• No Environmental Compensation Imposed: While a penalty was levied by mining authorities, the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UKPCB) had not yet imposed any environmental compensation, prompting the Tribunal to direct its assessment and recovery, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.
  
  

NGT Directives:

1. Immediate Moratorium on Mining: No mining shall continue in the concerned area unless and until a comprehensive expert study is conducted to assess ecological and seismic viability.
   
   

2. Formation of Joint Expert Committee: The Tribunal ordered constitution of a committee comprising representatives from SEIAA, UKPCB, G.B. Pant National Institute of Himalayan Environment, and other seismological experts. The study must be completed within three months.
   
   

3. District Magistrate’s Role: The District Magistrate, Bageshwar, has been tasked with enforcing the moratorium and coordinating further actions based on the expert report.
   
   

4. Compliance Deadline: A detailed compliance report is to be submitted by 30th September 2025, to the Registrar General of the Tribunal.
   
   

Pan-India Implication: Reiterating directions from OA No. 78/2023 (Durga Singh Pawar v. State of Uttarakhand), the Tribunal emphasized that no mining should be allowed in geo-tectonic zones across India—including the Himalayan Mountain System—without prior seismic and environmental studies.

21st April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant development concerning environmental governance and industrial accountability, the Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Kolkata, has initiated proceedings in Original Application No. 67/2025/EZ, filed by environmental activist Rakesh Mohanty against the State of Odisha and others, with Vedanta Limited, Jharsuguda, as Respondent No.8. The matter was heard today by the Bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member.

The applicant, a resident of Vedvyash in Sundergarh district, has approached the Tribunal seeking urgent intervention against the alleged unauthorised and environmentally hazardous dumping of fly ash by Vedanta Limited. The reliefs sought include:

• Removal of illegally dumped fly ash and restoration of land,

• Imposition of exemplary environmental compensation,

• Initiation of prosecution against violators,

• Restriction on further unauthorised dumping.
  
  

Alleged Violation: Vedanta Limited is currently operating a 3615 MW power facility in Jharsuguda, comprising both 2400 MW Thermal Power Plant (TPP) and 9 x 135 MW Captive Power Plant (CPP). The combined average ash generation is reported to be approximately 26,809 tonnes per day, with fly ash constituting nearly 80% (21,447 TPD).

The applicant, represented by eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, assisted by Ashutosh Padhy, Advocate, alleged that the ash pond near Katikela village, which is currently being used for ash disposal, is nearing capacity and may last only a year. In response, Vedanta has proposed to develop new ash disposal facilities at four additional sites:

• Katikela Expansion (128.55 acres),

• Siriapali (206.22 acres),

• Kumadapali (188.89 acres), and

• Gudigaon (576.33 acres).
  
  

However, the application claims that fly ash is already being dumped illegally at Siriapali, even after the Consent to Operate (CTO) had expired on 31st March 2023.

Findings by the Pollution Control Board: A field inspection by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) on 22nd September 2024, initiated upon complaints from local residents and social organisations, revealed:

• Ash dumping in Siriapali was ongoing despite the expired CTO,

• Fly ash was being dumped over an area exceeding 60 acres, far beyond the 21 acres for which consent was originally granted,

• The dumped ash mound had reached up to 15 metres in height, significantly violating OSPCB’s 2017 Guidelines for Utilisation of Fly Ash in Low-Lying Areas and Abandoned Quarries,

• Significant fugitive emissions were noted, particularly during adverse weather conditions.
  
  

Subsequently, the OSPCB issued a Show Cause Notice dated 7th August 2024, imposing a provisional environmental compensation of ₹71.16 crore on Vedanta Limited, and directed the company to submit a comprehensive action plan for removal and remediation.

Vedanta’s Legal Stand and Ongoing Appeals: Appearing on behalf of Vedanta Limited, Senior Advocate Sanjay Upadhyay informed the Tribunal that:

• A response to the show cause notice was submitted on 20th August 2024,

• The OSPCB confirmed the environmental compensation through its order dated 17th December 2024,

• An appeal filed before the Chairperson of the OSPCB was rejected on 10th April 2025, citing non-maintainability.
  
  

Vedanta Ltd. further submitted that it intends to explore alternative legal remedies and requested 10 days’ time to file a supplementary affidavit to place all relevant documents, correspondence, and the Board’s orders on record.

Tribunal’s Direction: Allowing the prayer, the NGT Bench has directed the listing of the matter on 30th April 2025 and granted liberty to Vedanta Limited to file its supplementary affidavit in the interim. The Tribunal’s focus now shifts to the legality of fly ash disposal practices and the regulatory oversight concerning industrial waste management in Odisha.

Environmental Significance: Fly ash, a by-product of coal combustion in thermal power plants, poses a grave risk to soil, water, and air quality if not handled as per prescribed environmental norms. The case, therefore, has larger implications for compliance with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) notifications and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those pertaining to responsible production and environmental justice.

This ongoing legal scrutiny reinforces the role of judicial mechanisms in ensuring environmental protection and sustainable industrial operations. All eyes will now be on the forthcoming hearing on 30th April 2025, where the Tribunal is expected to delve deeper into the compliance records, environmental management practices, and restoration strategies proposed by Vedanta Limited.

20th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Kolkata, has admitted an application (O.A. No. 68/2025/EZ) filed by Dusmant Kumar Bal, a resident of Aruha village, raising serious environmental concerns over the alleged illegal operation of stone quarries in Aruha Cluster No. 2/3 under Dharmasala Tehsil, Jajpur district of Odisha.

The Bench, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member, heard the matter on 15th April 2025 and ordered issuance of notices to all concerned respondents, calling for detailed replies and initiating an on-ground inspection through a specially constituted committee.

Key Allegations Raised in the Application: Represented by Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, assisted with Advcate Ashutosh Padhy, the applicant has prayed for immediate intervention by the Tribunal, citing:

1. Violation of Environmental Clearance (EC) Conditions – Quarry activities allegedly breached condition 7.9 which prohibits excavation below a specific depth and slope on the hill.

2. Excessive Extraction Beyond Permissible Limits – Despite permission to extract 42,034 cubic metres of stone, excavation allegedly continued beyond this limit, violating EC condition 7.10.

3. Non-filing of Quarterly Environmental Compliance Reports – A mandatory EC condition that was reportedly ignored.

4. Failure of Authorities to Act on Complaints – Despite a complaint filed on 7th December 2024, authorities failed to initiate action.

5. Illegal Operations Without Executed Lease Deed – Quarry operations reportedly continued even after the expiry of lease execution and issuance of demand notices by the Tahasildar.

Taking serious note of the allegations, the NGT observed that the matter requires detailed examination and passed the following key directions:

• Issue of Notices: Notices were issued to 16 respondents, including Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha, Director General of Mines Safety, Government of India, Bhubaneswar based Integrated Regional Office of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Director, CGWB and Private Lessees – Sarat Kumar Jena and Manoj Kumar Samal.

• Deletion of Incorrect Respondent: Respondent No. 7 (Regional Officer, OSPCB) was deleted to avoid duplication as OSPCB was already represented through its Member Secretary.

• Constitution of Joint Committee: The NGT constituted a three-member committee to inspect the site and ascertain compliance with environmental norms. The committee includes: Collector & District Magistrate, Jajpur (Nodal Officer), Senior Scientist, OSPCB, and Director of Mines or representative, Government of Odisha. The committee has been directed to conduct a site visit and file an affidavit-based Inspection Report within four weeks, focusing on the allegations of illegal mining, violation of EC conditions, and environmental degradation.

The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 19th May 2025.

Quarrying in Aruha Cluster – Background: The Aruha Cluster reportedly comprises five stone quarries/mines, spread across 148 acres (approx. 59.89 hectares). EC was granted to Sarat Kumar Jena (Respondent No.15) on 17th January 2023, but the application alleges rampant violations in excavation depth, over-extraction of minor minerals, and continued operations without legal compliance.

The Tahasildar, Dharmasala, had issued a demand notice on 25th April 2024 for illegal extraction, followed by a revised notice. However, no payment was made, and extraction reportedly continued, causing alleged loss to the state exchequer and irreversible environmental damage.

Environmental Implications: This case reflects rising public concern over unregulated stone quarrying in ecologically sensitive hill regions. The NGT’s action reiterates the principle of sustainable development and the need for strict regulatory oversight on compliance with EC norms, particularly under the Odisha Minor Mineral Concession (OMMC) Rules, 2016 and CPCB guidelines dated 12th May 2020.

The Tribunal’s intervention is expected to not only ensure restitution of environmental damage but also hold both public authorities and private actors accountable for violations.

9th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal, Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has pronounced its order in Original Application No. 32/2025/EZ. The matter pertains to Biswajit Dutta Choudhury versus State of West Bengal & Others. The applicant had filed the Original Application alleging illegal construction by Ashoke Jindal and Sanjay Singhania, partners of Maa Kamakkha Developers. It was alleged that the individuals had constructed a boundary wall on approximately 8.00 acres of land, including 2.32 acres of vested land, pertaining to specific plot and R.S. numbers in Mouza-Kharia, and had blocked a sluice gate.

Furthermore, it was alleged that Ashoke Jindal and Sanjay Singhania, partner of Maa Kamakkha Developers, planned to construct a residential complex on a water body, which forms part of the Karala River located behind Viswa Bangla Krirangan, Jalpaiguri—an area reportedly retaining a significant amount of water during the rainy season. The application also claimed that these individuals had illegally purchased about 8.00 acres of land in Mouza-Kharia, L.R. Sheet No. 81, which is identified as a water body and part of the Karala River, where boat services were once available. The applicant asserted that no permission had been obtained from the Irrigation Department, Jalpaiguri, for these constructions.

The NGT Bench, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, JM and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, EM, observed that the applicant’s principal allegation pertained to the construction of a residential complex on approximately 8.00 acres of land, claimed to be a water body capable of holding around 1,000 cusecs of water during the monsoon. However, the Tribunal noted that the documents submitted by the applicant—including a representation dated 17.01.2025 and land records—classified the land as “dahala”, which is agricultural land and has never been officially recorded as a water body. Based on this classification, the Tribunal held that temporary water accumulation during the rainy season does not suffice to classify land as a water body under law.

The Tribunal also considered a letter dated 07.08.2024 from the North-East, Irrigation & Waterways Directorate, which mentioned the construction of a concrete fence by builders adjacent to the Karala River. The letter expressed concern that the construction might block a sluice gate, potentially leading to waterlogging and riverbank instability. While this raised valid concerns regarding the construction, the letter did not corroborate the claim that the disputed land was officially recorded as a water body. Hence, the evidence presented failed to establish the land’s legal status as a water body.

A pivotal reference was made by the Tribunal to the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court’s order dated 2nd January 2025 in W.P.A.(P)/426/2024, Jyoti Prosad Roy vs. The State of West Bengal & Others. In Paragraph 3 of the said judgment, the High Court observed:
“As long as the order of conversion remains, the question of issuing a direction as sought for in the writ petition does not arise.”
This observation was viewed as judicial affirmation of the legality of the conversion order dated 13th January 2023, issued by the Collector under Section 4C of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

The Tribunal further noted that the reliefs sought in the writ petition before the High Court were materially identical to those sought in the present Original Application. Accordingly, it held that it was not legally tenable to re-examine the validity of the conversion order, particularly in light of the High Court’s refusal to interfere. This approach, the Tribunal emphasized, is grounded in the principle of judicial discipline and comity, which discourages one judicial forum from contradicting the findings of a coordinate or superior forum.

Another significant ground for dismissal was the verified land record. As per the certified land records dated 21st March 2025, filed as an annexure by the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri, the plots in question—R.S. Plot No. 734 and L.R. Plot Nos. 79 and 80 under L.R. Sheet No. 85—are recorded as ‘Bill’, with land use marked as ‘Path, Nadi’ (road and river). Crucially, these plots are registered in the names of various raiyats (recorded tenants) and lie outside the bounded premises of Maa Kamakkha Developers. Consequently, the relief claimed against Respondent No. 12, Sanjay Singhania, Partner of Kamakkha Developers, was found to be legally unsustainable.

Having established that the applicant had concealed crucial information regarding the filing and outcome of the writ petition before the High Court, the Tribunal deemed the act as forum shopping and abuse of judicial process. Citing a long line of authoritative judgments from the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the Tribunal reiterated that any petition filed with the intent to mislead the court by suppressing material facts is liable to be dismissed with costs. The following Supreme Court decisions were referenced:

• Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 319

• V.C., Banaras Hindu University vs. Shrikant, (2006) 11 SCC 42

• Tanna & Modi vs. CIT, Mumbai XXV, (2007) 7 SCC 434

• Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449

• K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (2008) 12 SCC 481

• Rani Aloka Dudhoria vs. Goutam Dudhoria, (2009) 13 SCC 569

• State of Chhattisgarh vs. Dhirjo Kumar Sengar, (2009) 13 SCC 600
  
  

In view of these circumstances, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and imposed a cost of ₹25,000 (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) on the applicant, Mr. Biswajit Dutta Choudhury. The sum is directed to be deposited with the Registrar, NGT Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, within one week. In the event of non-compliance, the District Magistrate and Collector, Jalpaiguri, shall recover the amount in accordance with the law and ensure its deposit within one month thereafter.

This order highlights the Tribunal’s firm stance against procedural impropriety and reinforces that environmental litigation must be approached with full transparency, integrity, and due respect for the judicial process.

9th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant development, the Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has admitted Original Application No. 60/2025/EZ, filed by Jhadeswar Pradhan, a resident of Tendra village in Sundargarh district, Odisha. The matter pertains to alleged illegal and excessive sand mining activities undertaken by Rashmi Rekha Sahu, lessee of the Tendra-II sand bed, which the petitioner claims is causing environmental degradation, obstruction of river flow, and damage to agricultural land and village roads.

The bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member, during the hearing held on 4th April 2025, observed that the allegations raised by the petitioner merit judicial scrutiny and directed that the matter be considered further. The court has issued notices to the respondents, including the Government of Odisha, Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Odisha, and the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC).

Core Allegations and Legal Grounds: Represented by eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani and Ashutosh Padhy, the applicant has raised several concerns:

• Excessive Mining Beyond Permitted Limits: The private respondent, Smt. Rashmi Rekha Sahu, is allegedly mining sand in excess of the approved quantities, thus violating the conditions of the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted on 13th July 2023 and the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued on 2nd January 2024.
  
  

• Use of Agricultural and Private Land: Heavy trucks transporting sand are reportedly using the applicant’s private plot (Khata No. 13, Plot No. 3976) and that of another villager, Shri Lokanath Pradhan (Khata No. 45, Plot No. 2855), causing irreparable damage to cultivable land and village infrastructure.
  
  

• Violation of Environmental Guidelines: The mining activity is said to be in breach of the Sand Mining and Management Guidelines, 2016 and Sustainable Sand Mining Guidelines, 2020 issued by the MoEF&CC. Notably, no study of the annual rate of sand replenishment has been conducted for the mining site, a mandatory prerequisite for sustainable mining.
  
  

• Environmental and Social Impact: Sand-laden vehicles are reportedly passing through residential areas of Tendra, Khajuribahal, and Kasada villages both during the day and night, leading to environmental pollution, noise disturbances, and risk to life and property due to lack of an approved transportation route.

Acknowledging the gravity of the matter, the Tribunal has ordered the issuance of notices to all respondents, returnable within four weeks. In the interim, a Joint Committee has been constituted to verify the veracity of the allegations and assess the environmental implications of the mining operations. The Committee comprises Collector and District Magistrate, Sundargarh (as Nodal Officer), Senior Scientist, Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), and a Representative from SEIAA, Odisha. The Committee is directed to conduct a site inspection and file a detailed report before the next hearing scheduled on 8th July 2025. The Collector, Sundargarh, will coordinate all logistical aspects and file the inspection report on affidavit. The matter is listed for the next hearing on 8th July 2025.

9th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member and Dr. Afroz Ahmad as Expert Member, conducted a hearing in Original Application No. 1003/2024. The OA was filed by Ashok Kumar and another applicant, concerning alleged illegal in-stream sand mining activities along the Yamuna River. The case, initiated through a letter petition supported by two video compact discs (CDs) submitted by the applicants, implicates Respondents No. 5 and 6 in serious environmental violations.

The applicants' core grievance pertains to the unauthorized construction of a bundh (embankment) within the riverbed of the Yamuna by the Project Proponents, which allegedly resulted in obstruction of natural river flow and facilitated in-stream sand mining, activities that are claimed to be in clear contravention of established environmental norms.

Upon preliminary scrutiny, the Tribunal, through an order dated 14th February 2025, had already restrained Respondents No. 5 and 6 from conducting any further mining operations on the contested lease sites. This interim measure was aimed at preventing further ecological degradation pending inquiry. Furthermore, the Tribunal had sought additional affidavits from Respondents No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 to specifically address the visual evidence presented through the Video CDs.

Challenging the NGT’s interim restraint order, the accused respondents, operating under the banner of New Panther Security Guard, approached the Supreme Court through Civil Appeals No. 4486-4487/2025. However, the apex court dismissed the appeals on 2nd April 2025, while granting liberty to the appellants to seek redressal through a proper application before the NGT. The Supreme Court further directed the Tribunal to adjudicate the matter expeditiously and in accordance with law.

In compliance with the Tribunal’s directions, Respondents No. 5 and 6 filed supplementary affidavits on 27th February and 3rd March 2025, categorically denying the allegations. Meanwhile, the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) submitted its additional response on 18th March 2025. The District Magistrate (DM) of Ghaziabad also submitted an affidavit dated 7th April 2025, enclosing an inspection report and photographic evidence following a surprise inspection conducted on 29th March 2025.

According to the affidavit by the DM, the inspection team, which included the Mining Officer and the Senior Survey Officer of Ghaziabad, did not find any tangible evidence of bundh construction or illegal sand extraction within the riverbed. However, the report highlighted a significant shortcoming — the absence of geo-coordinates and timestamped metadata in the submitted Video CDs — which rendered the verification of the alleged activity inconclusive.

In contrast, the UPPCB, in its additional response, observed the existence of an approach path in the Yamuna River, similar to what was depicted in the video footage. Moreover, the Board revealed that an Environmental Compensation (EC) amounting to ₹6,51,645/- had been imposed on the Project Proponent, signalling that certain environmental breaches may have been established during regulatory inspections.

During the hearing, the Tribunal also noted that Respondents No. 5 and 6 have filed an interim application (I.A No. 259/2025) seeking vacation of the earlier restraint orders dated 14th February and 7th March 2025. The Tribunal has now directed that replies to this interim application may be filed by the original applicants and other respondents within ten days, should they so desire.

Given the ongoing concerns, the Bench has further directed Respondents No. 5 and 6 to submit, by 15th April 2025, an affidavit in tabular format clearly outlining compliance with Environmental Clearance (EC) and Consent to Operate (CTO) conditions. A copy of the affidavit is to be provided in advance to the UPPCB. In turn, the Pollution Control Board has been tasked with submitting a compliance status verification report no later than 21st April 2025.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 22nd April 2025, during which the Tribunal will also hear arguments on the interim application for vacation of stay. The outcome of the compliance status and further legal submissions are likely to significantly shape the Tribunal’s final decision on the matter.

The case highlights continuing environmental governance concerns associated with riverbed sand mining across India, and underscores the role of video evidence and independent inspection in determining violations in ecologically sensitive zones.

5th April 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant move towards upholding environmental accountability, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has initiated proceedings in Original Application No. 59/2025/EZ filed by the Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust against the State of Odisha and other respondents. The matter concerns serious allegations of illegal sand mining in Pankapal village under Danagadi Tahasil in Odisha’s Jajpur district.

The application was heard by the Bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member, on 3rd April 2025. Advocate Ashutosh Padhy appeared on behalf of the applicant, a registered public interest trust advocating for sustainable environmental practices.

The applicant has raised serious concerns regarding sand mining activities in Pankapal-1 Sand Quarry, spread over an area of 12.30 acres (approximately 4.978 hectares), alleging violations of the Sustainable Sand Mining Management Guidelines, 2016, and the NGT's earlier order dated 14th December 2022 in Puspakanta Nayak vs. State of Odisha.

As per the application, although a mining lease was granted to Dillip Kumar Sahoo for extraction of 5,514 cubic metres of sand per annum, illegal mining activities are allegedly being carried out beyond the sanctioned limits. The applicant further contends that Respondent No.12, a successful bidder selected on 19th January 2022 for the adjacent Pankapal-II Sand Quarry, is operating without the mandatory Environmental Clearance (EC).

These activities were reportedly highlighted in a local daily, Dharitri, dated 1st December 2024, drawing public attention to the alleged violations.

The Tribunal noted allegations of illegal extraction of sand from beyond the lease boundaries, especially on revenue sand beds, allegedly involving heavy earthmoving machinery such as Hyundai 210 excavators, violating conditions stipulated in environmental permissions. The machines used are equipped with a 5.7m boom, 2.9m arm, and buckets with a capacity of approximately 1.22 cubic metres—indicating large-scale mechanical mining.

The application states that the Tahasildar of Danagadi issued a showcause notice on 28th June 2024, indicating prior administrative acknowledgment of the alleged violations.

Interestingly, the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) had granted Consent to Operate (CTO) on 20th March 2024. However, the use of mechanical means in both Pankapal-I and Pankapal-II blocks, allegedly outside the approved lease areas, suggests a clear departure from environmental norms and regulatory guidelines.

Observing the gravity of the allegations, the Bench ordered issuance of notices to all respondents, directing them to file counter-affidavits within four weeks.

Importantly, notices have also been directed to Respondent No.8, the Deputy Director General of Forests, MoEF&CC (Integrated Regional Office, Bhubaneswar), and the private respondents, Respondent Nos.11 and 12, reportedly involved in the contentious activities.

To ascertain the factual position, the NGT has constituted a three-member Fact Finding Committee, comprising the District Collector of Jajpur or his representative (Nodal Officer), a Senior Scientist from the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, and a representative from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha.

This Committee has been tasked to conduct a site inspection and submit a Fact Finding Report on affidavit within three weeks. The District Collector’s office has been designated to coordinate all logistics and ensure timely filing of the report.

The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 6th May 2025. The Tribunal has directed the applicant's counsel to serve digital copies of the Original Application and annexures to the respective counsels of the respondents within 24 hours.

29th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench has delivered its judgment in Original Application No. 79/2022, titled "Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana and Others." The coram for the case comprised Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member. The judgment was reserved on 24th September 2024 and pronounced on 28th March 2025.

The case originated from a complaint filed as a letter petition, alleging serious environmental violations and mismanagement of sewage treatment in Omaxe City, Palwal. According to the complainant, the township, spread over 102 acres and developed by a private colonizer, lacked a proper sewage disposal system. Despite the presence of a sewer line throughout the area, it was not connected to any main sewage line, leading to untreated sewage discharge. A temporary Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) was constructed on a designated green belt, but it was alleged to be inadequate and malfunctioning. The failure of the installed pump set caused frequent sewage overflow and stagnation in and around residential houses, posing a severe health hazard. Despite repeated complaints to various authorities, no corrective action was taken.

Taking cognizance of the complaint, the NGT directed the verification of the facts through a Joint Committee, constituted via an order dated 3rd February 2022. The Committee’s report, submitted on 11th October 2022, revealed that a functional 1000 KLD capacity STP was already operational in the colony. The treated water parameters were reportedly within the prescribed limits, and a temporary arrangement was made to use the treated water for gardening. However, an abandoned STP was found at plot no. 612A, though it was confirmed that no sewer pipeline was connected to it, as all sewage was routed to the main 1000 KLD STP.

The Committee did, however, identify unhygienic conditions, including the accumulation of untreated domestic wastewater from Omaxe Heights (Group Housing Society) in an open area. The Residents’ Welfare Association (RWA) attributed this issue to damage caused during construction activities, but later claimed that repairs had been made and all effluents were being discharged into the main STP. Additional findings included the need for maintenance of rainwater harvesting pits, the presence of garbage in an open area behind the STP, and sewer overflow near the abandoned STP. The Joint Committee recommended remedial measures to address these discrepancies.

Subsequent compliance reports indicated that most of the identified irregularities had been rectified. The applicant, however, submitted further grievances on 14th February 2024, raising concerns over the non-development of an 18-meter-wide green belt as per the approved map, the absence of a park in Phase 2, unrepaired manholes, and the presence of a temporary pipeline for STP water disposal in Phase 2. Additionally, the applicant cited issues with stormwater drainage and potholes on main and internal roads.

The subsequent responses confirmed that several corrective actions had been taken, including repairing the manholes, dismantling the temporary pipeline, and clearing the rainwater harvesting lines. However, certain issues, such as the non-development of the green belt, were considered by the Tribunal as falling under municipal law violations rather than substantial environmental concerns under the NGT Act, 2010. The Tribunal ruled that these specific grievances did not warrant its intervention as they did not constitute violations of any environmental enactments listed under Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010.

The Tribunal, however, identified a crucial environmental compliance issue concerning the Environmental Clearance (EC) granted on 14th March 2008. The EC conditions mandated the establishment of an 1800 KLD STP to manage sewage generation of approximately 1770 m³/day. However, the project proponent had only constructed a 1000 KLD STP, arguing that the current sewage discharge was around 500 KLD, making the existing STP sufficient. The Tribunal rejected this explanation, noting that the EC conditions could not be unilaterally altered by the project proponent without prior approval from the competent authority.

The judgment directed the project proponent to install an STP strictly in accordance with the EC conditions within three months. Furthermore, the Tribunal instructed the project proponent to ensure proper maintenance of the colony in compliance with the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, and the Hazardous Waste (Management, Handling, and Transboundary Movement) Rules, 2008.

In the event of non-compliance with the STP requirement within the stipulated timeframe, the Tribunal authorized the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) to impose restrictions preventing the creation of further third-party rights in the colony. Additionally, the HSPCB was directed to assess and recover environmental compensation from the project proponent under the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle, ensuring accountability for any environmental violations.

The judgment reaffirms the significance of adhering to environmental clearance conditions and underscores the accountability of project developers in implementing requisite pollution control measures. 

29th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant ruling, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has allowed a review petition filed by the Tahasildar, Begunia, in Review Application No.02/2025/EZ, challenging the disciplinary action ordered against him in Original Application No.138/2024/EZ. The Tribunal expunged its earlier observations made against the Review Applicant, effectively setting aside its previous direction for initiating disciplinary proceedings.

The matter pertains to the felling of trees over government land in Khordha district, Odisha, which was initially addressed in the Original Application filed by Bishnupriya Mohanty. The order dated 29th January 2025 in the said application had directed disciplinary action against the Tahasildar, Begunia, citing a lack of promptitude and sincerity in reporting the incident. However, the Review Applicant, who was impleaded as Respondent No.3 in the original proceedings, contended that he was neither served notice in his office nor given an opportunity to present his defense before the Tribunal's order was passed.

The Review Applicant stated that he became aware of the proceedings only in August 2024 through a communication from the Additional Standing Counsel, Office of the Advocate General, Odisha, regarding legal representation and filing of a counter-affidavit. Meanwhile, on 21st August 2024, the Collector & District Magistrate, Khordha, constituted a committee, including the Review Applicant, to investigate the tree-felling allegations. The committee conducted a joint verification and submitted its findings on 23rd August 2024.

It was further argued that the State Counsel had advised against filing a separate counter-affidavit on behalf of the Tahasildar, as the Collector & District Magistrate was already addressing the matter through an official affidavit. As a result, the Review Applicant did not have the opportunity to personally review the Original Application and the subsequent counter-affidavits.

The Review Application also brought to light a long-standing land dispute involving private and government lands, with multiple legal proceedings pending in various courts. A local news report in the Odia daily "Sambad" on 15th February 2025 alerted the Review Applicant about the Tribunal's order, prompting him to seek a review.

The Tribunal noted that the alleged tree felling had been subject to multiple legal proceedings, including:

• Miscellaneous Case No.652/2024 under Section 144 CrPC concerning a dispute over government plots,

• ICC No.30/2024, a complaint case registered in the Court of JMFC (Cognizance), Khordha,

• Writ Petition No.16170/2024 before the Orissa High Court challenging the demarcation of disputed land,

• Miscellaneous Case No.728/2024 under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) before the Executive Magistrate, Khordha.

Considering these extensive legal proceedings, the Tribunal held that the Review Applicant could not be deemed deliberately negligent in handling the matter. It emphasized that the decision to initiate disciplinary action falls solely within judicial discretion and cannot be insisted upon by any party to the case. The Tribunal, therefore, reviewed its prior ruling and expunged the remarks and directives issued in paragraphs 17 and 18 of its earlier order.

With this ruling, the disciplinary action ordered against the Tahasildar, Begunia, stands nullified, marking a significant relief for the Review Applicant. The case underscores the complexity of environmental and land disputes, where multiple overlapping legal proceedings often influence administrative and judicial outcomes.

29th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench has pronounced its judgment in Original Application No. 429/2022, titled "Ridhima Pandey vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others." The coram for the case comprised Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member. The judgment was reserved on 24th March 2025 and pronounced on 28th March 2025.

The Original Application was registered under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, in exercise of suo-moto jurisdiction, following the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Ankita Sinha, (2022) 13 SCC 401. The case was initiated based on a complaint made through a letter petition dated 9th April 2022 by Ridhima Pandey, a resident of Haripur Kalan, Dehradun District, who is recognized as a global climate activist engaged in environmental and forest protection since childhood.

The complainant highlighted that Nandhaur Wildlife Sanctuary (NWS), located in the Haldwani Forest Division of Nainital District, Uttarakhand, has an adjacent Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), which includes the upstream part of the Nandhaur River. Despite the ecological significance of this area, the Uttarakhand Government’s Industrial Development Department (Mining), through a letter dated 7th January 2022, and a subsequent order by the District Magistrate, Nainital, on 25th March 2022, authorized A.P.S. Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 4) to extract river bed minerals from the ESZ of the Nandhaur River for six months. The permission was granted under the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.

Similarly, the District Magistrate of Champawat granted permission on 5th April 2022 for the collection of river bed minerals from the upstream part of Sharda Barrage, Tanakpur, also citing the Disaster Management Act, 2005. This area, too, falls within a Reserved Forest. The Haldwani Forest Division, encompassing the Nandhaur and Sharda rivers, is a biodiversity-rich habitat with several Schedule I wildlife species. Mining activities in such areas pose a severe threat to wildlife and environmental sustainability.

Under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, permission for the extraction of minor minerals from any river passing through a Reserved Forest requires expert evaluation by institutions and clearance from the National Board for Wildlife. Furthermore, an Environmental Clearance (EC) must be obtained before initiating such activities. If the removal of river bed minerals is not essential for human safety under the Disaster Management Act, 2005, it must be assessed by an expert team, and the extracted materials should remain within the river’s vicinity.

Nandhaur Forest Area is an important habitat for tigers, elephants, sloth bears, and other wildlife. Mining activities, including the construction of transportation roads, operation of heavy machinery like JCBs and Poclain machines, and increased human presence, are likely to cause severe ecological damage.

The Tribunal found that the Uttarakhand Government and the District Magistrates of Nainital and Champawat had violated judicial orders and environmental regulations under the guise of disaster management. The permissions granted were deemed to be aimed at benefiting private entities and local stone crushers rather than addressing disaster concerns. When the Tribunal took up the matter on 18th July 2022, the short-term permit granted to Respondent 4 had already expired, yet the illegality of the permission remained a crucial issue.

The NGT noted that the Secretary of the Industrial Development Mining Department of Uttarakhand, in granting the permit, failed to consider that the area was within the ESZ of NWS. The District Magistrate of Nainital also neglected this fact when issuing the permit on 25th March 2022. However, the Divisional Forest Officer of Haldwani acted responsibly by informing the District Magistrate on 28th March 2022 that the proposed mining site was within the ESZ of NWS.

The Tribunal also criticized the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UKPCB) for taking an unfair and biased stance. In its affidavit dated 7th October 2023, UKPCB argued that dredging and de-silting activities under Appendix IX, Clause 7 of the amended EIA Notification of 28th March 2020 were exempt from EC. However, this contradicted the Nainital High Court’s ruling in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 47/2022, which had explicitly held that the activities permitted under the 7th January 2022 order constituted mining rather than mere dredging. The High Court had prohibited such activities, and UKPCB’s defiance of this ruling was deemed condemnable and tantamount to contempt of court.

Further, the Tribunal noted that demarcation of the leased area had not been conducted, preventing Respondent 4 from carrying out any mining activity under the 7th January 2022 permit. However, the NGT upheld the High Court’s ruling that mining activities, particularly in Reserved Forests or ESZs, must comply with environmental laws. It directed the Chief Secretary to investigate the role of the District Magistrate, Nainital, in granting the illegal permission and take necessary legal action after giving the officials concerned an opportunity to be heard.

Regarding the short-term permit granted to Respondent 6 on 26th February 2021 for mining in Khasra No. 335/2, District Champawat, the Tribunal found contradictions in the official stance. While the District Magistrate claimed that no mining was conducted due to local protests, it was later revealed that Respondent 6 had misused e-ravannas to transport illegally mined materials. Respondent 6, however, asserted that mining activities had commenced on 5th March 2021 and that the permitted quantity of 60,000 m³ of river bed minerals was extracted.

Applying the principles laid down in the Nainital High Court’s judgment, the Tribunal determined that Respondent 6’s activities qualified as mining operations under Section 3(d) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. Consequently, these operations required EC under EIA 2006, along with requisite consents under the Water Act, 1974, and Air Act, 1981. Since these permissions were absent, the activities were deemed illegal.

As illegal mining causes irreversible environmental damage, the Tribunal invoked the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Goa Foundation vs. Union of India & Others (2014) 6 SCC 590. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that violators engaged in illegal mining must pay environmental compensation equivalent to up to 10% of the mineral’s sale price. The Tribunal found this precedent applicable and directed the responsible parties to be held accountable for environmental damages caused by their illegal activities.

The NGT directed the UKPCB to assess and recover environmental compensation from Siv Shakti Traders, Respondent 6, for illegally mined minerals in the prohibited area, following due legal procedure. The compensation must be used for environmental remediation as per an Environment Rejuvenation Plan, to be prepared within two months by a committee comprising the District Magistrate, Champawat; UKPCB; and CPCB, with CPCB as the nodal authority. Additionally, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and senior officials of the Mining and Environment Departments must ensure no illegal mining occurs in Reserved Forests or Eco-Sensitive Zones, and any violations must be met with strict action. With these directives, the case stands disposed of. Judgment

In another matter, the NGT Principal Bench has ruled against illegal mining in Uttarakhand, imposing environmental compensation on JD Minerals for violations, including unauthorized mining, tree felling, and dumping waste into water bodies. The Tribunal ordered the project proponent to pay ₹6,53,300 for environmental damage and mandated a restoration plan. Authorities must take recovery measures if payments are not made. Additionally, NGT directed nationwide seismic impact assessments for mining in geo-tectonic zones. It also urged stricter enforcement of environmental laws, emphasizing accountability from regulatory bodies. Mining in sensitive areas remains suspended until compliance is ensured. 

24th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, on 21st March 2025, disposed of Original Application No. 78/2024(CZ), filed by social worker Jagdish Prasad Devangan, against the State of Chhattisgarh and others. The petition highlighted unauthorized encroachments and environmental violations concerning several water bodies in Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh.

The matter was presided over by Justice Sheo Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member. The applicant contended that various water bodies, including Babu Pond (Khasra Nos. 3451, 3452, 3453), Noni Pond (Khasra No. 3753), Ramsagar Pond (Khasra No. 3485), and Andhari Talab Khan (Khasra No. 3487), were illegally encroached upon, and unauthorized constructions had taken place in violation of environmental regulations. Additionally, he alleged that untreated sewage water was being discharged into a water body in Baloda Nagar (Khasra No. 2591), posing a serious threat to public health and the environment.

The petitioner further brought to the Tribunal's notice that other government-owned water bodies, such as Tendu Dbari Talab (Khasra Nos. 3782, 3783, 3784) and Talab No. 1515 (spread over 1.65 acres), were also subject to encroachments. He argued that despite clear directives from the Supreme Court of India, the concerned authorities had failed to act against these encroachments.

During a previous hearing on 10th April 2024, the Tribunal emphasized that Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to a clean and healthy environment as part of the fundamental Right to Life. It stressed that pollution resulting from unregulated urban expansion and unplanned construction posed a significant threat to natural ecosystems and public health. The bench elaborated on the five essential elements of life—earth (Bhumi), sky (Gagan), air (Vayu), fire (Agni), and water (Neer)—and warned that any disturbance to this balance leads to environmental degradation.

The Tribunal noted that water pollution, primarily caused by industrial and sewage waste, was a growing concern. It observed that while economic development is necessary, it should not come at the cost of environmental destruction. Sustainable development, the bench stated, must adhere to the principle of proportionality, balancing ecological conservation with infrastructural expansion.

Referring to the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the Tribunal reiterated that the Central Government is empowered to take necessary measures to prevent environmental pollution. It also cited the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which defines pollution as any alteration in water quality that adversely impacts human health, aquatic life, or other legitimate uses. The Tribunal expressed concern over the inaction of the State Government, Pollution Control Board, and Forest Department in curbing pollution and encroachments.

After examining a report submitted by the District Magistrate, the NGT noted that actions were being taken to remove encroachments and that revenue cases had been registered under Section 248A of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code. However, the Tribunal directed the District Magistrate to expedite the removal of encroachments on state land and water bodies in compliance with legal provisions and subject to the orders of the competent court.

With these observations, the NGT disposed of the case, reinforcing the need for stringent environmental governance and protection of natural resources in Chhattisgarh.

18th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Southern Zone Bench in Chennai pronounced its judgment today, which was reserved on 21st January 2025, in the case of Appeal No. 25 of 2023 (SZ) filed by Alex Paul against the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) Tamil Nadu. The appeal challenged SEIAA's decision to deny Environmental Clearance (EC) for a proposed rough stone and gravel quarry project in Kanniyakumari District. Presided over by Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana and Expert Member Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, the tribunal examined the ecological and environmental concerns raised in the rejection order.

The appellant, Alex Paul, had sought approval for quarrying operations over an extent of 4.52 hectares in Ponmanai A Village, Thiruvattur Taluk. Having secured a mining lease from the Geology and Mining Department in 2022 for a five-year period, Paul applied for EC under Category B2 of the EIA Notification, 2006. The proposal included necessary clearances from the Forest Department and the Hill Area Conservation Authority (HACA), along with commitments to environmental mitigation measures and a corporate environmental responsibility contribution.

SEIAA Tamil Nadu, acting on the recommendations of the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), rejected the application on 25th May 2023, citing multiple environmental concerns. The committee highlighted that the proposed site is situated within the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region and is surrounded by thick vegetation. The rejection was primarily based on findings that the site was located near an extensive rubber plantation, close to a National Highway, and within 2.75 km of the Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, a designated Ecologically Sensitive Zone (ESZ). Additional concerns included the potential impact on biodiversity, disruption to the watershed, and a lack of a cumulative impact assessment for quarrying in the region.

In his appeal, the appellant contested SEIAA’s findings, arguing that the project site falls 3.07 km away from the ESZ and is not classified as ecologically sensitive by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). Paul further cited approvals from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) and other authorities, which concluded that the project posed no significant threat to local flora, fauna, or wildlife corridors. He also pointed out that the project’s environmental management plan accounted for controlled blasting methods using NONEL-based electric detonators, which would mitigate potential damage from quarrying operations.

During the hearing, SEIAA defended its decision, maintaining that the SEAC conducted a thorough assessment using Keyhole Markup Language (KML) data and MoEF&CC’s Decision Support System. The state body reiterated that the quarry’s proximity to a National Highway and its location atop a watershed justified the denial of environmental clearance. SEIAA also noted that quarrying activity at the site could impact surface runoff and deplete topsoil, thereby affecting nearby water channels and ecological balance.

After detailed deliberation, the NGT Bench examined whether the SEIAA’s rejection was justified based on statutory provisions and scientific assessment. The tribunal reviewed evidence indicating that the project site was outside the officially notified ESZ of Kanniyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, as per the MoEF&CC notification dated 22nd September 2020. The Bench also took into account the PCCF’s prior approval, which permitted the project with conditions such as fencing and a Rs. 15 lakh contribution to wildlife conservation.

On the matter of the watershed impact, the tribunal considered the appellant’s argument that the mining area was rocky and not conducive to vegetation, thereby negating concerns over topsoil depletion. The tribunal further assessed whether the 500-meter danger zone for blasting applied in this case, noting that the distance cited by SEIAA pertained to a district road rather than a National Highway.

With the arguments and evidence presented, the NGT Bench reserved its final decision on 21st January 2025. The tribunal’s ruling, delivered today, is expected to have significant implications for future quarrying projects in ecologically sensitive regions, particularly within Tamil Nadu’s Western Ghats region. The case underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing developmental projects with environmental conservation efforts. Judgment copy

18th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, Chennai, promulgated its judgment on 18th March 2025 in Original Application No. 49 of 2023 (SZ) in the matter of Dinesh Kallahalli vs. Prashanth Prakash, ‘Discovery Village,’ and Others. The judgment, delivered by Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, had been reserved on 10th February 2025. The applicant had sought a directive to the authorities to shut down the resort called ‘Discovery Village.’ 

A legal dispute concerning an alleged violation of environmental and planning laws by a resort near the Nagarhole Tiger Reserve has been dismissed by the adjudicating authority. The case was initiated by an applicant, a wildlife and social activist from Kallahalli Village, who sought action against the 'Discovery Village' resort, owned by the first and second respondents. The applicant claimed that the resort, spread over six acres in N. Belthur Village, H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysore District, Karnataka, had breached multiple legal and environmental regulations.

The applicant alleged that the resort had undertaken unauthorized construction and expansion beyond the permissible limits, adding cottages, a restaurant, a swimming pool, and a play area without obtaining necessary approvals. Furthermore, it was claimed that the resort was discharging untreated sewage into the Kabini River, leading to environmental pollution and affecting the local population and livestock. Additional concerns were raised regarding air pollution caused by the kitchen exhaust and a 63 KVA diesel generator.

The activist further contended that the resort had been built within the buffer zone of the Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, falling within the Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) as per a 2017 government notification. As such, the project should have obtained clearance from the National Board for Wildlife, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court's directives and the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006. Another major contention was that the resort did not secure a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Forest Department and operated without the required Consent to Operate from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (SPCB), in violation of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981.

The Karnataka SPCB had previously confirmed that the resort was operating without mandatory environmental clearances and recommended legal action under Section 33(A) of the Water Act, 1974. Despite multiple complaints, the applicant argued that regulatory authorities had failed to take appropriate action against the resort.

In response, the resort owners refuted these allegations, asserting that the property was located more than 2 km away from the forest boundary, contrary to the applicant’s claim of a 1.88 km proximity. They cited the 2011 guidelines issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), which emphasized a site-specific approach to ESZs rather than a uniform prohibition. They also referenced the Supreme Court ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India & Ors. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 504], which held that a fixed 1 km ESZ around protected areas was impractical and required modifications based on local conditions.

Regarding environmental compliance, the respondents stated that the resort occupied only 2,000 square meters, well below the 20,000 square meter threshold requiring Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006. They also cited the Karnataka SPCB Notification of 2016, which exempts resorts with less than 20 rooms and wastewater generation below 10 KLD from requiring consent under the Air and Water Acts. The resort, with only 13 rooms and a wastewater output of 6.5 KLD, was thus exempt. Additionally, it was argued that the resort had a fully operational Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) with an annual maintenance contract and that all wastewater was treated and used for landscaping within the premises, eliminating any discharge into water bodies.

The Karnataka SPCB, in its affidavit, confirmed that the resort met all exemption criteria and was not required to obtain environmental clearance unless it expanded beyond the set thresholds. The Deputy Conservator of Forests also clarified that while the resort was within the larger buffer zone of the Nagarhole Tiger Reserve, it was located in a revenue village. The 2017 ESZ notification had lapsed in 2019, and no enforceable regulations existed at present.

Based on these findings, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established any regulatory violations warranting action against the resort. It noted that the Karnataka SPCB had officially confirmed compliance with all environmental laws, including wastewater treatment, air pollution control, and the ESZ framework. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the Original Application [O.A. No. 49 of 2023 (SZ)] for lack of merit.

17th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Bihar State Pollution Control Board (BSPCB) has submitted its response to the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in O.A. No. 491 of 2024 concerning the news report titled "Ganga Water Unsafe Even for Bathing Says Bihar Govt Report on River Pollution," published in Hindustan Times on 26th February 2024.

The BSPCB has stated that it is regularly conducting water sample analyses at 34 sites along the river Ganga. As per the findings, key parameters such as pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels, and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) conform to the standards prescribed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Government of India. DO levels have been reported between 6.7 mg/l and 10 mg/l, while BOD levels exceeded 3 mg/l only twice, recorded at 3.4 mg/l and 3.6 mg/l.

However, the BSPCB has acknowledged that Total Coliform and Fecal Coliform levels are significantly beyond the prescribed standards. The primary cause has been attributed to the direct discharge of untreated household sewage into the Ganga from urban areas.

To address this issue, Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) are being constructed across various cities in Bihar. As per the BSPCB’s submission, STPs have already been built at four locations in Patna and at Barh, Munger, Sonpur, Sultanganj, Maner, Navgachiya, Chapra, Danapur, and Phulwari Sharif. The effectiveness of these treatment facilities in reducing bacterial contamination and improving river water quality remains to be seen.

With the Ganga being a lifeline for millions, ensuring its cleanliness and ecological health is of utmost importance. While the BSPCB claims to have been regularly monitoring water quality, critical questions arise about the agency’s response to pollution control. If the pollution levels and their sources were known, what measures were taken to curb contamination? Did the board only act after media reports brought attention to the issue and subsequently reached the NGT? The lack of preventive actions and enforcement mechanisms remains a pressing concern.

It is important to note that in O.A. No. 200/2014 (M.C. Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.), the State of Uttar Pradesh has been directed to submit a report disclosing complete details of existing drains, their tapping/untapping status, and STP locations across 10 districts. The report will also provide information on compliance with pollution control norms affecting the Ganga and its tributaries.

Furthermore, the State of Uttar Pradesh is expected to file a response before the NGT addressing each of the points and recommendations mentioned in the applicant’s submission. Additionally, a timeline along with the name of the responsible officer for executing the remediation measures is to be provided. Environmentalists argue that disclosing the names of responsible officers may enhance transparency and ensure effective implementation of pollution control measures, if not complete pollution mitigation.

17th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, presided over by Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Sudhir Agarwal (Judicial Member), and Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), has disposed of Original Application No. 703/2023, which pertains to illegal mining in Sitarganj, Uttarakhand. The application was registered suo-motu based on a news report published in Hindustan on 31st October 2023, titled "ग्रामीणों ने SDM से कैलाश नदी में अवैध खनन रोकने की मांग की" (Villagers demand SDM to stop illegal mining in Kailash River). The NGT convened a hearing on 21st February 2025 and passed its final order, emphasizing strict enforcement of environmental regulations.

The issue under scrutiny involved allegations of illegal mining activities in the Kailash River at Santfarm of Nakulia village, where heavy machinery such as JCBs and Pokeland excavators were reportedly being used, causing severe environmental degradation. Upon taking cognizance of the matter, the NGT, in its order dated 28th November 2023, had impleaded the concerned authorities and issued notices to them.

The District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, submitted an initial report on 2nd February 2024, confirming that while pits were found at several locations during a site inspection, no individuals were caught in the act of illegal mining. Subsequently, another report submitted on 16th December 2024 provided detailed findings, including the names of mining leaseholders involved in unlawful activities.

One of the key findings in the report was that Priya Agarwal, listed at serial no. 4 among the project proponents, was found guilty of illegal mining. As a result, an order dated 18th April 2024 was passed against her, imposing a penalty of ₹6,53,258, which was duly deposited by the leaseholder. The report also identified three other leaseholders who were still operating, raising concerns about their compliance with environmental regulations.

In light of the findings, the NGT underscored the necessity of environmental compensation and directed the Uttarakhand Pollution Control Board (UKPCB) to take immediate action against the offenders. The Tribunal issued the following key directives:

1. Imposition of Environmental Compensation: The UKPCB was instructed to determine the appropriate environmental compensation for the illegal mining activities and ensure its timely imposition.

2. Scrutiny of Active Leaseholders: The Tribunal directed UKPCB to verify whether the three identified leaseholders were operating with valid environmental clearances. Any violations of environmental norms would necessitate strict action.

3. Compliance and Reporting: The UKPCB was given a three-month deadline to complete the compliance verification process, ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. An action-taken report is to be submitted before the Registrar General of the Tribunal immediately after completion of the investigation.

4. Further Consideration if Required: The Tribunal noted that if any further deliberation is deemed necessary, the matter will be listed for hearing before the NGT Bench.

12th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, has disposed of Original Application No. 130 of 2024 (WZ) filed by applicants Sureshbhai Tukaram Naame and another against Ravi Infra Build Projects Ltd. The case pertained to alleged environmental violations linked to the operation of a stone crushing unit in village Palu, Taluka Lanja, District Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Hon’ble Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member), ruled on the matter after considering submissions from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB).

The applicant alleged that Ravi Infra Build Projects Ltd. was violating environmental regulations while carrying out stone crushing activities for the four-laning of the Ratnagiri-Kolhapur section of NH-166. Concerns were raised regarding the unit’s compliance with pollution norms, its proximity to an ecologically sensitive area, and inadequate dust control measures.

MPCB submitted an affidavit dated 2nd October 2024, providing details about the project:

• The company obtained a lease for mining and manufacturing crushed stone metal on 13th December 2022 and received a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the local gram panchayat on 15th December 2022.

• Consent to Establish was granted on 6th January 2023, valid for five years or until commissioning of the unit.

• Consent to Operate was issued on 4th April 2023, initially valid until 31st March 2024, and later amended on 9th January 2024, extending validity until 31st March 2025.

During an MPCB inspection conducted on 23rd September 2024, it was observed:

• The stone crusher was not operational at the time due to power unavailability and heavy rainfall.

• The unit had shifted from a diesel generator (DG) set to an electricity supply.

• The site is located in the Western Ghats Ecological Sensitive Zone as per MoEF&CC’s Draft Notifications dated 3rd October 2018 and 6th July 2022.

• Dust suppression measures were implemented, including water sprinklers at key locations such as conveyor belts and jaw crushers.

• Green net sheets were installed over conveyor belts to minimize dust dispersion.

• A wind-breaking wall was built along village roads, but the metallic road was found to be damaged due to heavy rains.

• The required green belt plantation had not yet been carried out.

• The project site is approximately 50-60 meters from the Palu-Gavali village road and 1.5 km from Palu village, whereas MPCB norms stipulate a minimum 200-meter distance from roads.

Following an NGT directive on 3rd October 2024, MPCB conducted a second site visit on 18th February 2025 in the presence of the applicants and local authorities. The unit was found temporarily shut down due to a major breakdown, with resumption planned within 8-10 days. MPCB noted that:

• The company had deposited the required ₹25,000 bank guarantee for compliance with pollution norms.

• A green belt had been set up around the periphery.

• The metallic road required periodic maintenance.

MPCB requested three weeks to conduct air quality monitoring once operations resumed.

Tribunal’s Decision: The NGT bench, upon reviewing the affidavits and inspection reports, found that necessary pollution control measures had been adopted. While some gaps remained, such as air quality assessment, the tribunal held that no immediate violations warranted intervention. It directed MPCB to conduct a final site visit after operations resumed and submit a report within three weeks.

“The application is disposed of with a direction that if any breach of air quality norms is found, appropriate action shall be taken against the project proponent, and a compliance report shall be submitted to the tribunal,” stated the order.

11th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

Odisha has reportedly utilised utilised ₹2,606.64 crore under CAMPA on afforestation and related activities during the last three years i.e. Financial Year 2021-22 to 2023-24. Odisha has recorded a significant increase in its forest and tree cover between the India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2021 and ISFR 2023. The state's total forest and tree cover grew from 58,038.44 sq km in 2021 to 58,597.01 sq km in 2023, marking a net increase of 558.57 sq km. Odisha ranks third in terms of absolute increase in forest and tree cover, following Uttar Pradesh (559.19 sq km) and Chhattisgarh (683.62 sq km).

According to the Forest Survey of India (FSI), Odisha has recorded 20,973 forest fire detections between November 2023 and June 2024, making it one of the most affected states in India. The high frequency of forest fires in the state raises concerns over environmental degradation, biodiversity loss, and air pollution, necessitating urgent mitigation measures. Odisha ranks second highest in India for forest fire incidents, just behind Uttarakhand (21,033 detections). The state contributes to over 10% of the total 2,03,544 forest fire detections nationwide.

Another concerning data point is that Odisha has reported a staggering 40,507.56 hectares (ha) of forest land under encroachment as of 31st March 2024, highlighting significant concerns over deforestation, land use violations, and ecological degradation. The state ranks among the worst-affected in India, with encroachment posing a severe threat to biodiversity, wildlife habitats, and environmental sustainability. Odisha ranks fifth in India for total encroached forest land.

On 19th February 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, took cognizance of a petition filed in Original Application No. 26/2025/EZ by the Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust against the State of Odisha and others. The petition alleges illegal encroachment of forest land and environmental violations in the Khalpal Reserve Forest within the Mahabirod Forest Range, Dhenkanal district.

A bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, heard arguments presented by acclaimed Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, counsel for the applicant, along with Advocate Ashutosh Padhy.

Key Allegations in the Petition: The applicant has sought the following reliefs:

• Removal of encroachments from the Khalpal Reserve Forest land and restoration of the land by clearing fly ash and dolochar dumped on it.

• Computation of environmental compensation for illegal encroachment and its recovery from the private respondent.

• Holding government authorities accountable for inaction and dereliction of duty. 

The allegations focus on Respondent No. 8, Suresh Sahoo, who has allegedly encroached upon more than five acres of forest and revenue land without permission. The land is reportedly being used for a hotel (New Surya Dhaba), parking space for heavy vehicles, a vehicle washing center, garage, and a dynamo repairing workshop. The encroachment also includes a constructed residential house and fly ash dumping to create a makeshift road.

Past Complaints and Official Responses:

• 4th September 2024: A complaint was filed by Rasmi Samal before the District Magistrate, Dhenkanal, regarding illegal parking in the forest area.

• 19th September 2024: Following an order from the District Magistrate, the Revenue Inspector, Kualo, conducted a field inspection and confirmed the presence of heavy vehicles on land adjacent to the Khalpal Reserve Forest. 

• 26th August 2024: The applicant escalated the matter to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Integrated Regional Office, Bhubaneswar.

• 8th October 2024: The MoEF&CC directed the Additional Chief Secretary (Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department, Odisha) to investigate.

• 28th November 2024: The Additional Chief Secretary instructed the Collector & District Magistrate, Dhenkanal, to address the complaint.

The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Dhenkanal, in his 19th November 2024 response, indicated that:

• The New Surya Dhaba's parking area falls outside the Khalpal Reserve Forest jurisdiction as per the Dhenkanal Forest Division’s management map.

• However, a DGPS survey identified that a portion of the reserve forest boundary crosses NH-149 near Kualo village.

• The government has initiated tree plantation efforts on the disputed site. However, as per a Gram Sabha resolution dated 2nd September 2024, some areas have been kept open for use as a village path. 

Tribunal’s Directives and Next Hearing:

Taking the allegations into consideration, the NGT issued notices to the State of Odisha, the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), and the private respondent, Suresh Sahoo. All respondents have been directed to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks.

Additionally, the tribunal has formed a Joint Inspection Committee comprising Senior Scientist, Odisha State Pollution Control Board and District Magistrate, Dhenkanal or an Additional District Magistrate-level representative. The District Magistrate, Dhenkanal, has been designated as the nodal officer to facilitate the investigation and submit the Joint Inspection Report on affidavit.

The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 28th March 2025.

The case highlights the growing concerns over forest land encroachment and environmental degradation due to unauthorized commercial activities. 

11th March 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, has disposed of two environmental complaints—one concerning alleged air pollution from an industrial unit in Gujarat and another related to alleged illegal hill cutting in Goa—after regulatory authorities submitted compliance reports denying any violations. Both cases, heard on 25th February 2025, saw no representation from the applicants, leading the tribunal to rely on official investigation reports to reach its decisions.

In Original Application No. 143 of 2024 (WZ), filed by Towards Socialism President Chakradhar Pandey against Shree Raghukul Text Prints Pvt. Ltd., the applicant had alleged that the industrial unit was burning restricted wood to generate steam for its mill boiler, causing the release of black fog and resulting in health hazards for local residents. The tribunal had earlier directed the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) to investigate the matter and verify the claims. The report submitted by GPCB concluded that no violations or non-compliance were observed at the unit. Furthermore, the board clarified that the unit was operating within the conditions of its Consent to Operate under the Consolidated Consent and Authorization (CCA) issued by the GPCB. Additionally, a gazette notification had included firewood in the list of approved solid fuels for industrial use. Based on this report, the tribunal ruled that no further action was required and dismissed the application.

Similarly, in Original Application No. 139 of 2023 (WZ), filed by Krishna Kankonkar against the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Goa, the applicant had alleged environmental violations at a construction site in Calapur village, Tiswadi Taluka, North Goa, linked to Dr. Kenkre. The complaint cited large-scale hill cutting, destruction of green forest areas, and damage to the service road due to excavation and transportation of materials. Acting on these allegations, the tribunal had sought a report from SEIAA, Goa. The submitted report confirmed that heavy earthmoving equipment was being used at the site, and excavation activities were ongoing, with murrum and laterite rubble stones being transported. However, it also noted that the project had received necessary approvals from the Town and Country Planning (TCP) Department through a technical clearance order dated 29th November 2022. Since the project area was below 20,000 square meters, it did not require Environmental Clearance (EC). Based on these findings, the tribunal determined that there was no violation of environmental regulations and found no grounds to issue further notices. The case was accordingly closed.

28th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Southern Zone, Chennai, has set aside the rejection of an Environmental Clearance (EC) application by Srimex Mines & Minerals and directed the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Telangana, to reconsider the proposal afresh. The Tribunal observed procedural lapses in the rejection process and emphasized the need for proper site verification.

Srimex Mines & Minerals filed an appeal (Appeal No. 30 of 2024) challenging SEIAA's rejection of the EC application for a mining project in Cheepunthala Village, Talakondapalli Mandal, Rangareddy District. The project involved the extraction of quartz and feldspar across 12.95 hectares. SEIAA had rejected the clearance on the grounds that the mining site allegedly encroached upon the Padkal Reserve Forest and did not meet the prescribed minimum siting distance requirements.

The appellant argued that the mining site was located in government-owned Survey No. 22, distinct from the Padkal Reserve Forest. Official survey reports were cited to support this claim. The appellant also alleged procedural irregularities and lack of opportunity to clarify their position before SEIAA.

Key Findings of the Tribunal

1. Conflicting Reports: The Tribunal noted discrepancies in reports submitted by the District Forest Officer (DFO) and the Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records regarding the land status. While some reports suggested encroachment into forest land, others confirmed the land as government-owned.

2. Procedural Lapses: The Tribunal found that SEIAA had relied on Google Maps rather than conducting a ground verification survey. It observed that if an accurate site inspection had been conducted, the rejection could have been avoided.

3. Minimum Distance Compliance: The Tribunal highlighted that SEIAA’s guidelines mandate a 50-meter buffer from the Reserve Forest. The appellant had claimed that the mining lease boundary was 15 meters away from the forest but expressed willingness to adjust operations to comply with the 50-meter requirement.

4. Failure to Grant a Fair Hearing: The Tribunal criticized SEIAA for not giving the appellant a proper hearing before rejecting the proposal. It emphasized that environmental concerns should be assessed in light of potential mitigation measures rather than outright rejection.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to SEIAA, instructing them to:

• Conduct a joint ground verification with the Regional Joint Director/Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records, to ascertain the precise boundary of the mining lease area.

• Allow the appellant to modify their proposal to maintain the required 50-meter buffer zone.

• Impose any necessary environmental safeguards or mitigation measures instead of outright rejection.

The case raises crucial concerns regarding the accuracy of land classification and due diligence in granting Environmental Clearances. The Tribunal’s order ensures a fair process while emphasizing environmental safeguards. The decision also underscores the role of scientific verification over digital mapping tools in determining land status. With the matter now returned to SEIAA for fresh consideration, stakeholders, including local communities and environmental activists, will be keenly watching for the final outcome of the case.

28th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Southern Zone, Chennai, in Appeal No. 38 of 2024 (SZ), delivered a judgment on 28th February 2025 setting aside the rejection of Environmental Clearance (EC) by the State Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Tamil Nadu. The appeal, filed by S. Sivakumar, challenged the rejection of EC for his proposed rough stone and gravel quarry project in Kuchanur Village, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.

S. Sivakumar, the appellant, was granted a mining lease for five years by the Department of Geology and Mining on 5th July 2023, for extraction up to 42 meters below ground level with a volume of 2,04,390 cubic meters. Following due procedure, the appellant submitted an online proposal on 10th August 2023, and a physical application on 23rd August 2023, seeking EC under 'B2 Category' of Item 1(a) of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification, 2006.

The mining plan and progressive quarry closure plan, as approved by the Assistant Director of Geology and Mining, were submitted along with a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the District Forest Officer, Theni, confirming the absence of Ecologically Sensitive Zones (ESZ), protected areas, or critically polluted areas within a 10-km radius.

The appellant’s proposal was placed before the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC), Tamil Nadu, which rejected the proposal on 23rd November 2023, citing environmental concerns. The SEIAA, based on SEAC’s recommendations, issued a final rejection on 20th December 2023.

SEIAA Tamil Nadu justified its decision by stating that the proposed site, being a fresh, unmined area with rich organic soil, is adjacent to a 100-hectare coconut farm. The committee raised concerns about environmental degradation, potential loss of fertile topsoil, and adverse effects on the surrounding coconut groves.

The appellant argued that SEIAA’s rejection was arbitrary and lacked scientific appraisal. Key contentions included:

• The rejection failed to consider submitted documents, including the approved mining plan and NOC.

• The decision was based on the presence of a coconut farm, which is not a statutory criterion for rejection.

• The absence of existing quarries in the area should have been seen as a positive factor, minimizing cumulative environmental impacts.

• SEIAA overlooked the fact that the Department of Geology and Mining had granted the lease after due diligence.

The Tribunal, comprising Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana (Judicial Member) and Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati (Expert Member), examined whether SEIAA’s rejection aligned with legal and procedural mandates under the EIA Notification, 2006.

NGT observed that SEIAA’s rejection relied on general environmental concerns without a legal basis or prescribed regulatory prohibitions. The Tribunal emphasized that while ecological factors are crucial, they must be backed by legal and scientific evaluation. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Lafarge Umiam Mining Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India (2011) and Electrothem (India) Ltd. v. Patel Vipulkumar Ramjibhai (2016), NGT underscored that:

• Environmental decisions must follow due process and be proportional to the risks identified.

• Alternative mitigation measures should be considered before outright rejection.

• Rejections should not be based on broad apprehensions without scientific backing.

In its judgment, NGT ruled that SEIAA’s rejection lacked sufficient reasoning and scientific evaluation. The Tribunal directed SEIAA Tamil Nadu to reconsider the appellant’s EC application with due diligence, ensuring adherence to the principles of environmental law while maintaining transparency in decision-making.

28th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Southern Zone, Chennai, has set aside the rejection of an Environmental Clearance (EC) for a rough stone and gravel quarry project in Veeranakunnam Village, Maduranthagam Taluk, Chengalpattu District, Tamil Nadu. The tribunal, comprising Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana, Judicial Member, and Hon'ble Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member, remitted the matter back to the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) - Tamil Nadu for a fresh examination within six weeks.

The appeal was filed by S. Perumal, a resident of Kancheepuram District, challenging the SEIAA-Tamil Nadu's decision to reject the EC for the proposed mining project. The project, covering an extent of 4.90.48 hectares of patta lands, falls under the ‘B2 Category’ and had been processed through a NABET-accredited consultant, M/s. Global Mining Solutions.

The application was placed before the State Expert Appraisal Committee (SEAC) - Tamil Nadu in its 413th meeting held on 5th October 2023, where the appellant and their consultant presented necessary documents, including the mining plan and pre-feasibility report.

The SEAC and SEIAA - Tamil Nadu rejected the EC application on multiple grounds:

• The hydrogeological report indicated that the average water table in the project area was at a depth of 10 meters, with moisture content up to 5 meters.

• The proposed mining site was surrounded by agricultural fields.

• The Kiliyar River was located at a distance of 140 meters from the project area.

• A check dam was situated 1.6 km from the site, raising concerns over potential water resource impacts.

Based on these concerns, the SEIAA - Tamil Nadu denied the EC, citing risks to water bodies and agricultural lands.

The appellant's counsel pointed out discrepancies in the rejection order, including:

• Erroneous reference to the hydrological report, which was prepared by the Department of Geology, University of Madras, but was mistakenly cited as an Anna University report.

• Incorrect assumption about agricultural use, as adjacent lands had been undeveloped and unutilized for farming for several years. The Agriculture Department had also granted a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for quarrying.

• Inconsistent application of buffer zone rules, as the site was 140 meters away from Kiliyar River, whereas the prescribed minimum distance is only 50 meters.

• Findings of the hydrological report, which indicated that quarrying up to 60 meters below ground level would not significantly impact groundwater conditions.

After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the tribunal held that the rejection by SEIAA - Tamil Nadu lacked a clear scientific basis and was not supported by statutory guidelines. The key observations were:

• The SEIAA had not followed uniform environmental standards in evaluating the EC application.

• The tribunal cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling in Hindalco Industries Limited Renukoot Plant Vs. Ashwani Kumar Dubey & Ors. (2023), which emphasized that environmental decisions must be rooted in law, backed by scientific data, and applied consistently.

• The rejection was based on discretionary recommendations rather than established statutory norms.

On the above findings, in the judgment pronounced on 27th February 2025, which was reserved on 24th January 2025, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant and directed:

1. The SEIAA - Tamil Nadu must reassess the application, taking into consideration expert opinions and technical evaluations.

2. The decision-making process should be based on scientific data, rather than arbitrary concerns over environmental impact.

3. The SEIAA must provide the appellant an opportunity for a personal hearing.

4. The entire process must be completed within six weeks from the date of the order.

28th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member), has issued directives to the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) regarding the establishment of a landfill site and scientific disposal of solid waste. The directives were passed in Execution Application No. 08/2024 (WZ) in Original Application No. 122/2023 (WZ), filed by Rohit Manohar Joshi against the Thane Municipal Corporation and others.

During the hearing, the tribunal acknowledged the Bombay High Court’s order dated 30th January 2025, issued in Public Interest Litigation No. 96 of 2024. The High Court directed municipal corporations and district collectors to enforce Clause 2 of the revised Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines on idol immersion. This clause strictly prohibits the manufacture and immersion of Plaster of Paris (PoP) idols.

As the High Court has already mandated strict compliance with these guidelines, the tribunal observed that no further intervention was required on this matter.

The second issue addressed in the case pertained to the setting up of a landfill site and the scientific disposal of municipal solid waste in accordance with the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016. In its affidavit dated 17th February 2025, TMC submitted an Action Plan, confirming that government land measuring 34.72 hectares in Village Aatkoli, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane, has been designated for the waste management facility. The land, consisting of Survey Nos. 4, 5, 13, and 14, was handed over to TMC by the Collector, Thane, on 22nd April 2024.

Additionally, the Thane Municipal Corporation has applied for the necessary authorization under the Solid Waste Management Rules, 2016, which is currently under process with the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB). The MPCB stated that once the Environmental Clearance (EC) is obtained, the Consent to Establish and Consent to Operate will be issued accordingly.

Observing the lack of a definite timeline in TMC’s affidavit, the NGT has directed:

• Thane Municipal Corporation to establish the landfill and waste disposal facility within three months.

• State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA) to consider and finalize the EC within two months.

• TMC to submit a compliance report to both the tribunal’s registry and the applicant upon the establishment of the facility.

With these directions, the tribunal disposed of the application along with any pending related applications. Order

27th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member and Dr. Satyagopal Korlapati, Expert Member, recently disposed of the Original Application No. 22/2025. The application was filed by Hrishi Jain against Mountvalley Properties LLP for alleged illegal construction at Plot No. 80/1, Khinger Road, Panchgani, Taluka Mahabaleshwar, District Satara. The application sought a stay on the ongoing construction, replantation of felled trees, and disclosure of all permissions granted by the Panchgani Municipal Council.

The applicant contended that Mountvalley Properties LLP was raising construction in an eco-sensitive area without the requisite approvals from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The applicant relied on two key notifications—one dated 17th January 2001 and another dated 29th April 1983—to establish that the project site fell within the regulated Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ) of the Mahabaleshwar-Panchgani region.

As per these notifications, the state government was mandated to prepare a Zonal Master Plan for the area, requiring MoEF&CC approval. Until such approval was granted, restrictions on Floor Area Ratio (FAR), building height, the number of storeys, and forest/agricultural zones remained in place. The applicant argued that, in the absence of such an approved plan, the project proponent had illegally secured approval from the District Collector, rendering the construction unlawful.

During the hearing, the Tribunal examined photographic evidence submitted by the applicant, which purportedly showed tree felling at the project site. However, the bench noted that while some branches had been trimmed, there was no conclusive evidence of entire trees being uprooted.

Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the construction in question was undertaken based on a plan approved by the District Collector of Satara. The NGT clarified that once such an approval is granted, any challenge to its legality must be pursued through an appellate process, rather than through an original application before the Tribunal.

The bench acknowledged the applicant’s argument that the MoEF&CC had not approved a Zonal Master Plan for the region. However, it reiterated that unless the District Collector’s approval was set aside in an appropriate legal proceeding, the construction could not be deemed illegal.

Concluding its deliberations, the Tribunal ruled that the applicant should have filed an appeal against the approval granted by the District Collector instead of filing the present application before the NGT. Accordingly, the Tribunal disposed of the application without granting the requested reliefs.

27th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member), and Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), has delivered its judgment in Original Application No. 359/2022. The case, titled Rafhat Naeem Siddiqui versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, pertains to allegations of illegal soil mining by brick kilns, adversely affecting agricultural land in Bijnor district, Uttar Pradesh.

The application, initially filed as a letter petition by Advocate Rafhat Naeem Siddiqui, was treated as an Original Application. The applicant, along with other residents of Ajupura Rani village in Nagina Tehsil, claimed that illegal soil mining had rendered agricultural land uncultivable. The excavation of soil, allegedly beyond permissible limits, was conducted by a brick kiln operator, Mohd. Akram, with the use of JCB machinery, causing significant environmental damage.

The Tribunal, in its order dated 23rd May 2022, constituted a Joint Committee comprising the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) and the District Magistrate of Bijnor. The committee was directed to investigate the environmental impact, particularly regarding loss of topsoil, air quality deterioration, and effects on local biodiversity. The investigation was also required to examine compliance with an earlier NGT order in Utkarsh Panwar vs. Central Pollution Control Board & Others (O.A. No. 1016/2019).

Key Environmental Questions Deliberated by NGT

The NGT considered three critical issues in its judgment:

1. Whether excavation of topsoil for brick making qualifies as mining and necessitates environmental clearance (EC).

2. Whether brick kilns should be mandated to use fly ash from coal-based industries as an alternative raw material.

3. Whether measures are required to conserve soil for agricultural purposes by prohibiting the excavation of topsoil.

The Tribunal affirmed that excavation of topsoil for brick making must be restricted to conserve agricultural land. It also emphasized the importance of utilizing topsoil for land reclamation and restoration to ensure sustainable agricultural practices.

Directives Issued by NGT

In light of its findings, the NGT issued the following key directions:

• MoEF&CC (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change): To issue an Office Memorandum (OM) clarifying the legal position regarding EC requirements for soil mining by brick kilns and designate an agency for approval and monitoring.

• CPCB (Central Pollution Control Board): To formulate guidelines for topsoil conservation, land restoration, and fly ash utilization by brick kilns. These guidelines should also cover road metalling, dust mitigation, groundwater usage, and green cover enhancement.

• CPCB: To examine and issue directives mandating brick kilns to display critical environmental compliance information, including mining site details, brick production capacity, groundwater permissions, and pollution control measures.

• UPPCB: To take legal action against M/s Shiv Ent Udyog and Smt. Himchal Devi for violating environmental regulations and to impose environmental compensation.

• District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Bijnor, along with the UPPCB Regional Officer: To ensure that no brick kiln operates without environmental clearance and a valid Consent to Operate (CTO) from UPPCB.

Observations on Laxity of Authorities

The NGT expressed strong dissatisfaction over the "casual and unsatisfactory manner" in which official reports were prepared and submitted before the Tribunal. It noted deliberate misrepresentation of facts and inaction by authorities despite previous orders. Consequently, the Tribunal directed higher authorities to take disciplinary action against defaulting officials and implement measures to prevent similar lapses in the future.

Legal Precedents and Environmental Compensation

Referring to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in M.C. Mehta vs. Kamal Nath & Others (2000) 6 SCC 213, the Tribunal reiterated that environmental violations constitute a "civil wrong" and necessitate compensation for ecological damage. The principle of "polluter pays" was underscored, emphasizing that those responsible for environmental degradation must be held accountable.

The NGT ruled that the applicant may claim compensation for agricultural losses from the environmental compensation imposed on Shiv Ent Udyog and Himchal Devi. Additionally, stringent compliance monitoring of brick kilns will be enforced to prevent further environmental damage. 

26th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

On 11th February 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, convened to deliberate on Original Application No. 122/2023/EZ with Interlocutory Application No. 34/2024/EZ. The case, titled "Ajay Kumar Behera versus State of Odisha & Ors.," centered on allegations of unauthorized laterite stone quarrying by Respondent No. 13, Prahallad Biswal, in Damanbhuin village, Tangi Tahasil, Khordha district. 

What is a laterite stone? Laterite is a rusty-red rock that's rich in iron and aluminum. It's commonly found in tropical regions and is used as a building material. Where is laterite stone found in India? Almost all Indian bauxite deposits are associated with laterite, except those in Jammu & Kashmir.

The applicant, represented by eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, contended that Damanbhuin Laterite Stone Quarry-A had been granted Consent to Establish (CTE) by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board on 22nd June 2022, under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. This consent permitted the production of 1,500 cubic meters (or 3,615 metric tonnes) of laterite stone annually, totaling 7,500 cubic meters (or 18,075 metric tonnes) over a five-year period. The designated mining area spanned 4.139 hectares (10.23 acres) on Plot No. 2161(P) of Khata No. 708, classified as 'Gochar' (grazing land).

Despite these permissions, it was alleged that Biswal commenced mining operations immediately after depositing the required royalty and charges, as directed by the Tahasildar, Tangi, on 12th August 2021. The Collector of Khordha, in an affidavit, revealed that a survey by the Odisha Space Application Centre (ORSAC) assessed illegal extraction of approximately 97,775.217 cubic meters of laterite and 68,754.88 cubic meters of morrum from the quarry.

In response, Biswal filed I.A. No. 134/2024/EZ, seeking to implead additional individuals allegedly involved in the illegal mining activities. However, the Tribunal observed that since the lease and consents were in Biswal's name, it was his responsibility to prevent unauthorized mining. The bench noted that environmental compensation amounting to ₹98,31,49,135 had been computed against Biswal for the excess extraction.

Consequently, the NGT directed the Odisha State Pollution Control Board to recover the environmental compensation and undertake necessary measures to restore the damaged environment. The application was disposed of, with all interim applications addressed accordingly. This is another significant order issued by the NGT, exemplifying the legal maxim Ubi jus, ibi remedium—where there is a right, there is a remedy. 

26th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

Yoga and Naturopathy are holistic disciplines that emphasize the integration of mind, body, and spirit to promote overall well-being. They empower individuals to take an active role in their health journey, fostering self-awareness, resilience, and a harmonious existence with the environment. However, in the contemporary world, which is rife with aberrations, the establishment centers of Yoga and Naturopathy are often found to be in conflict with environmental harmony.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has admitted a petition challenging the allotment of 20 acres of forested land in Binjhagiri Mouza, Khordha District, Odisha, for the construction of a Central Research Institute of Yoga & Naturopathy. The application, filed by senior citizens Hazari Dehuri and Hrudanand Kodamsingh, raises concerns over environmental degradation due to the felling of thousands of trees for the project.

The petitioners contend that the conversion of dense forest land to 'Patit Kisam' (barren land) was carried out in violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and the Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act, 2003. They seek directives to relocate the proposed project to alternative sites and declare the land in question as deemed forest to ensure its protection. The doctrine of Salus populi suprema lex esto, meaning 'the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law,' is relevant in the present case, where environmental conservation takes precedence over commercial interests.

The Central Council for Research in Yoga & Naturopathy (CCRYN), under the Ministry of AYUSH, submitted a request to the Odisha government in 2011 for land to establish a 100-bedded hospital and research institute. Subsequently, 20 acres of Gochar (grazing) land in Khata No. 331, Plot No. 133 of Binjhagiri Mouza were identified for leasing to CCRYN. The petitioners argue that out of the 88.3 acres of Gochar land in the area, approximately 47 acres are covered with dense forest.

The petitioners highlight that villagers have nurtured and protected the land since 1970, transforming it into a forested area with a variety of tree species, including medicinal plants like Mahula, Kendu, Harida, Bahada, and Amla. The land is also in close proximity to the Chandaka-Dampara Wildlife Sanctuary and falls within its designated Eco-Sensitive Zone (ESZ), as notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 9th September 2016.

A joint verification conducted by the Khordha Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) and the Range Officer in 2013 revealed an estimated 26,400 trees growing in the disputed 20-acre land parcel, with a tree density of over 70%. The villagers had earlier requested authorities to allocate alternative plots, specifically Plot Nos. 550, 551, 553, and 554 in Khata No. 329, for the Yoga and Naturopathy Institute, but their appeals remained unaddressed.

The petitioners also submitted letters from the Chhatabar Gram Panchayat, which had urged authorities in 2012 to reconsider the land allotment, given the ecological significance of the area and the community’s long-standing efforts to conserve it.

After hearing arguments from the petitioners’ counsel, Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani and Advocate Ashutosh Padhy, the Tribunal Bench of Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, noted that the matter requires detailed consideration. Notices have been issued to the Government of Odisha and its relevant departments, the Central Council for Research in Yoga and Naturopathy (CCRYN), the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), and the Odisha Biodiversity Board. The respondents have been directed to file their counter-affidavits within three weeks. The case is expected to have significant implications for environmental conservation and land-use policies in Odisha, underscoring the principle of fiat justitia ruat caelum—'let justice be done, though the heavens fall.'

15th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member, has dismissed Original Application No. 236/2024 (WZ) filed by environmental activist Hemant Punamiya against multiple authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), the Chairman of the Tree Authority through the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). The application sought a stay on further permissions related to the redevelopment project by Acme Metal Industries Private Limited in Goregaon, Mumbai, due to alleged unauthorized felling of trees.

The applicant alleged that Acme Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd., had illegally felled 37 trees without obtaining necessary approvals under the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act, 1975. The petition sought an order restraining authorities from granting an Occupation Certificate (OC) or any further clearances for the project until proper environmental clearances were obtained and the felled trees were replanted.

Punamiya argued that the project, located on land bearing CTS No.36A & 36B in Goregaon West, had originally received a Tree No-Objection Certificate (NOC) in 2003, which mandated the preservation of all 61 trees on-site. However, an environmental investigation in 2022-2023 revealed that only 24 trees remained, leading to allegations of unauthorized tree felling. The matter was escalated through complaints to various municipal and police authorities, including an FIR registered at Goregaon Police Station on 28th March 2024. The applicant further claimed that despite these complaints, no action had been taken against the developer.

The NGT noted that the redevelopment project had received necessary approvals in 2002-2003 and construction had progressed to the stage of obtaining an Occupation Certificate. Given that the allegations were based on events spanning over two decades, the tribunal found the petition significantly time-barred. Additionally, the bench pointed out that the applicant had failed to establish a clear timeline for the alleged unauthorized tree felling, making it difficult to determine the validity of his claims.

In its ruling, the tribunal dismissed the petition, stating that the request to halt the issuance of the OC and demands for restoration of the site were legally untenable at this stage. The bench also rejected an amendment application that sought to introduce a new cause of action dated 24th April 2024, as it contradicted prior complaints filed in April 2023.

With this dismissal, the redevelopment project by Acme Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. is set to proceed unhindered. 

15th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, heard Execution Application No. 32/2024 on 13th February 2025, which seeks enforcement of the 15th January 2021 order passed in MA No. 258/2015 (OA No. 10/2014) regarding the protection of Delhi’s Ridge area. The Tribunal expressed strong displeasure over the lack of compliance by authorities and directed strict adherence to its previous directives.

The Ridge, a vital ecological zone in Delhi, has been subject to encroachments and unauthorized constructions. In its 15th January 2021 order, the Tribunal had directed the Government of NCT of Delhi to issue a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for protecting the Ridge as a reserved forest. The order also mandated fencing, vigilance, and the removal of encroachments within a specified timeframe. Additionally, an Oversight Committee (OC) was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Director General (Forest), Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) to monitor compliance.

However, despite repeated opportunities, multiple authorities failed to submit compliance reports or take effective action. Consequently, the Tribunal was compelled to entertain an execution application to ensure enforcement.

During the previous hearing on 17th January 2025, the Tribunal, comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava. Chairperson; Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member; and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member; had observed that several respondents had not filed their responses, despite multiple opportunities. As a consequence, it imposed a cost of ₹5,000 each on Respondents No. 1 to 5, to be deposited with the Registrar General of the Tribunal.

In the latest hearing, it was noted that:

• Respondent No. 5 had deposited the cost, but Respondents No. 3 and 4 neither filed their response nor paid the penalty.

• Respondents No. 1 and 2 had filed IA No. 90/2025, seeking a waiver of the imposed cost.

After considering the arguments, the Bench rejected the waiver plea but granted Respondents three weeks to deposit the cost. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have also submitted their replies.

The Applicant, Pavit Singh, contended that the Tribunal’s orders have not been effectively implemented. The applicant pointed out that instead of enforcement, fresh encroachments continue to take place within the Ridge area, with unauthorized constructions receiving basic amenities such as electricity and water connections. These developments, according to the applicant, reflect continuous violations of the Tribunal’s orders.

The Tribunal had issued notices to the Respondents on 24th September 2024, instructing them to submit their replies at least a week before the next hearing through e-filing. However, even after three and a half months, only Respondent No. 6 (Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, Hauz Khas, New Delhi) filed a response.

The Tribunal expressed strong disapproval over the casual approach of the authorities. It emphasized that despite ample time, the respondents failed to provide compliance reports. Noting that the original order was passed almost four years ago (15th January 2021) and yet remains unimplemented, the Tribunal described the delay as unacceptable.

Granting a final opportunity, the Bench directed that:

• All pending responses must be submitted within three weeks.

• The imposed cost must be deposited before the next hearing.

The matter has been listed for the next hearing on 19th May 2025, when the Tribunal is expected to review the compliance status and decide on further action against non-complying authorities.

13th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, convened a hearing in the matter of Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust vs. State of Odisha & Ors., Original Application No. 147/2024/EZ. The case was heard by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member. 

The applicant, represented by Sankar Prasad Pani and Ashutosh Padhy, raised serious concerns about rampant and unscientific stone quarrying in Dankari Hill and the broader Jajpur district of Odisha. The application alleged that illegal and unregulated quarrying activities in the region have led to severe environmental degradation and loss of human life. A major incident on 15th May 2024, where a stone quarry collapsed, resulted in five workers being trapped under debris, leading to the tragic death of three individuals. The laborers were reportedly engaged in black stone mining, as documented in a news article published in Orissa Post on 17th May 2024.

Violation of Environmental Norms and Regulatory Approvals

The applicant submitted that the Lessee of Dankari Black Stone Quarry No.5/10 (Respondent No. 13) was granted Environmental Clearance (EC) on 6th May 2022 to operate a quarry spanning 4.00 acres in Dharmsala Tehsil, Jajpur District. However, the quarry’s location within the catchment area of the Ranibandha Minor Irrigation Project (MIP) raises significant concerns. The irrigation project, situated just 200 meters away from the quarry, is reportedly suffering due to the quarry’s blasting activities, which disrupt water flow and cause heavy siltation. Additionally, a mega stone crusher in close proximity has exacerbated environmental damage.

The petition alleges that Respondent No. 13 was granted Consent to Operate (CTO) on 18th April 2024 without adequate site verification or regular inspections by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (SPCB). The quarry is accused of engaging in excessive mining, uncontrolled blasting, road damage due to overloaded heavy vehicles, fugitive dust pollution, destruction of agricultural land, depletion of groundwater, and increased accident risks due to poorly managed transportation routes.

Two Minor Irrigation Projects—Ranibandha and Paikarapur—located adjacent to the proposed Dankari Stone Quarries, have been severely impacted. Official communications from the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Division, Badachana, dated 31st August 2018, highlight how quarry-related blasting has caused siltation in the basin of the Paikarapur Dam Project, significantly reducing its water-holding capacity and affecting irrigation. The villagers of Paikarapur and Turang have also reported acute water shortages due to silt deposition in reservoir areas.

Regulatory Oversight and Environmental Compensation

The quarry’s operation has reportedly violated the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines, which mandate a minimum 200-meter distance between blasting zones and nearby settlements, public buildings, roads, water bodies, and heritage sites. Despite these violations, the mine continued to operate, leading to disastrous consequences.

An affidavit submitted by the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur Circle, confirmed that a landslide at Dankari Black Stone Quarry No. 5/10 on 16th May 2024 led to three fatalities. The lease for this quarry had been awarded to Sri Narayan Rout for a five-year term. Following the incident, an FIR was lodged by the Mining Officer, and a prohibitory order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was imposed on 18th May 2024.

A Joint Assessment, conducted via a drone survey by T.K.S. Consultancy Services, Bhubaneswar, revealed unauthorized over-extraction of 79,999.41 cubic meters of black stone. As a result, the Mining Officer of Jajpur imposed a penalty of ₹3.81 crore for illegal extraction, while the SPCB calculated an environmental compensation of ₹3.57 crore. The total penalty levied on the lessee amounted to ₹7.38 crore.

Official Responses and Legal Compliance

Several government bodies have filed affidavits in response to the case. The Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) confirmed that the EC was granted in compliance with the EIA Notification, 2006. The Odisha SPCB submitted its inspection report dated 16th April 2024, confirming that the quarry and associated crusher units had valid operating consents. The SPCB also noted that measures such as water sprinkling, tarpaulin-covered transportation, and wet drilling had been proposed to mitigate dust pollution.

The affidavit from the Director General of Mines Safety, dated 15th January 2025, clarified that illegal mining does not fall under the purview of the Mines Act, 1952, and that no regulatory permissions under the Metalliferous Mines Regulations, 1961, had been granted to any stone quarry in Dharmasala Tehsil.

Tribunal's Observations and Further Proceedings

After reviewing submissions from all parties, the NGT acknowledged the authenticity of the allegations regarding excessive and unscientific quarrying in Dankari Hill. TheTribunal directed to the State Respondents to proceed to take action for recovery of the Environmental Compensation as well as the amount towards over extraction of black stone from the Quarry of the Respondent No.13 and carry the proceedings to its logical conclusion within a period of two months hereof. 

The State Government was also directed to pay ex-gratia amount of ₹2.5 Lakh each to the three persons who have died in the landslide at the Dankari Stone Quarry whose names have not been disclosed in any of the affidavits of the Respondents and such payment shall be made within a period of one month hereof. The payment of ex-gratia shall be without prejudice to any claims which may be raised by the family of the deceased as per law.

13th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has taken cognizance of a petition concerning the establishment of a CNG and Piped Natural Gas (PNG) station in Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar. The matter, registered as Original Application No. 19/2025/EZ, was filed by Shukadev Mohanty against the State of Odisha and Others. The petitioner alleged that the proposed site for the CNG station violates the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) guidelines issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) on 7th January 2020.

The case was heard by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, with the applicant represented by Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, assisted by Advocate Ashutosh Padhy in virtual mode.

According to the petitioner, the CNG and PNG station is being developed within five meters of a residential property in Kanan Vihar, Phase-1, which poses environmental and safety risks. The project, initiated by Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL), is located on a Plot said to be under Kisam "Gochara", Mouza Chandrasekharpur, within the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation (BMC) limits. The petitioner contended that the site is dangerously close to the residential zones of Kanan Vihar and Shree Vihar (Ward-3).

One of the key allegations in the petition is that GAIL commenced construction without obtaining a Consent to Establish (CTE) from the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), which is a statutory requirement under environmental regulations. The application further claims that the project violates environmental safeguards due to its proximity to a densely populated area.

Taking note of the concerns, the NGT deemed the matter to be of significance and directed the issuance of notices to the concerned authorities. The Tribunal instructed the respondents to file their counter-affidavits within four weeks. The following authorities have been issued notices to State of Odisha, Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation, Odisha State Pollution Control Board, Central Pollution Control Board, Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO), Gas Authority of India Limited and Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Regional Office, Bhubaneswar.

Observing the need for further examination of the allegations, the NGT listed the matter for the next hearing on 26th March 2025. This case highlights ongoing concerns over environmental compliance and urban planning within Bhubaneswar's rapidly expanding municipal limits. The Tribunal’s decision on this matter is expected to have implications for similar projects in residential areas across the state.

10th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

Recently, on 2nd February 2025, India observed World Wetlands Day with the theme ‘Protecting Wetlands for Our Common Future’. The event was organized in Uttar Pradesh, by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. India has reported a total of 1,308 wetlands, including 89 Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance, 111 significant wetlands, and 1,108 classified under the 'Other Wetlands' category.

A wetland is defined as “areas of marsh, fen, peatland, or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish, or salt, including areas of marine water where the depth at low tide does not exceed six meters.” Additionally, to protect ecologically coherent sites, Article 2.1 of the Ramsar Convention states that “wetlands may include riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, as well as islands or bodies of marine water deeper than six meters at low tide lying within the wetlands.”

India's Ramsar-recognized wetlands have increased significantly over the past decade. However, the number of litigations aimed at protecting wetlands from encroachments and commercial exploitation has also surged.

On 6th February 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) issued notices to the concerned authorities in response to a plea challenging construction and commercial activities in Ramgarh Taal, a notified wetland in Gorakhpur. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi (Judicial Member), and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member).

The applicant, Sudhir Kumar Jha, in Original Application No. 1057/2024, alleged that the Gorakhpur Development Authority is constructing JSR Garden by encroaching upon Ramgarh Taal in violation of environmental guidelines. The applicant cited a notification dated 7th December 2020, which officially designated Ramgarh Taal as a wetland.

Additionally, the plea raised concerns over commercial activities on the lake, including a cruise operated by a private company, ‘Lake Queen,’ which offers dining services. A floating restaurant named “Float” was also inaugurated on 19th September 2024. The three-story restaurant provides live entertainment and party halls, raising concerns about violations of environmental norms.

Furthermore, it was alleged that Respondent No. 6, K.K. Group, is engaged in large-scale construction near the lake. The applicant submitted photographic evidence to support these claims.

The Tribunal allowed the applicant’s plea (I.A. No. 571/2024) to submit additional documents and approved the impleadment of parties involved in the floating restaurant, cruise, and construction activities (I.A. No. 502/2024).

However, the application for an early hearing (I.A. No. 617/2024) was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the application for impleadment and additional documents (I.A. No. 572/2024), noting that its previous order dated 12th August 2024 had permitted the applicant to furnish additional evidence of environmental violations.

The NGT issued notices in the Original Application and directed the applicant to serve notices to all respondents, including the newly added parties. 

The matter is now scheduled for the next hearing on 15th May 2025.

10th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Western Zone Bench, Pune, on 4th February 2025, conducted a hearing in the matter of Original Application No. 146/2024(WZ) filed by Babasaheb Mahadev Patil against Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd. and others. The bench, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member, passed an order continuing its earlier directives issued on 22nd July 2024, 30th September 2024, and 10th December 2024.

In compliance with the Tribunal’s previous order dated 10th December 2024, Shikshan Maharshi Dnyandeo Mohekar Agro Industries Ltd. submitted a reply affidavit on 3rd February 2025. The respondent contended that the applicant had no locus standi to file the application, as he was not an aggrieved party. It was argued that the applicant resided in Chinchwad, approximately 277 kilometers away from the factory located in Village Moha, Osmanabad, Maharashtra. The respondent also submitted that its unit had obtained Consent to Operate under the Orange Category from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB) on 28th November 2019, valid until 31st October 2029.

The affidavit further refuted allegations that the factory had started molasses production using borewell water. The respondent also informed the Tribunal that an inspection was conducted by MPCB, which resulted in proposed directions issued on 26th January 2024. The company responded on 27th February 2024, asserting that its Effluent Treatment Plant (ETP) was operational and had been improved per MPCB’s instructions. The affidavit also mentioned that a pipeline carrying untreated water had been damaged during construction work, leading to leakage, but the issue had since been rectified.

Addressing another allegation regarding unauthorized expansion, the respondent stated that it had applied for Consent to Establish for its Khansari Project on 10th March 2023 at the Sub-Regional Office in Latur. The affidavit also noted that in an earlier case (Original Application No. 73 of 2022), the Tribunal had imposed an environmental compensation of ₹12,62,340, which was duly deposited on 27th January 2023.

The respondent also acknowledged that MPCB had issued a closure order on 18th November 2024, which was contested on 25th December 2024. An inspection was conducted on 26th December 2024, confirming that the closure order’s concerns had been addressed. Another inspection on 1st February 2025 found the factory’s operations satisfactory. Consequently, the respondent filed an application for revocation of the closure order, which remained pending before MPCB.

During the proceedings, the respondent’s counsel urged the Tribunal to direct MPCB to expedite the pending application for revocation. Meanwhile, MPCB filed a reply affidavit on 3rd February 2025, confirming that its inspections on 10th December 2024 and 1st February 2025 found the respondent had complied with the necessary environmental norms.

The applicant, however, contended that violations persisted and requested an opportunity to file a rejoinder affidavit. The Tribunal declined the request, stating that the applicant’s grievances had been adequately heard. The applicant also argued that the respondent was a repeat offender and pressed for the imposition of Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) for the period during which violations occurred. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent’s prior violations and directed MPCB to calculate the EDC amount after granting the concerned parties an opportunity to be heard.

MPCB cited its inspection report from 17th January 2024, which found that the respondent had not been operating its ETP, leading to untreated effluent being discharged into a nearby water body. The report also identified deficiencies in the effluent channeling system, a lack of a holding tank for treated effluent, and the non-operation of the wet scrubber system for air pollution control. However, a subsequent inspection on 1st February 2025 confirmed that these violations had been rectified.

The Tribunal directed MPCB to determine the EDC for the period between 17th January 2025 and 1st February 2025, excluding the duration during which the industry remained closed due to its seasonal nature. It instructed MPCB to resolve the pending application for revocation of the closure order within two weeks and complete the EDC calculation within one month. The Tribunal further ruled that the collected EDC amount should be utilized for environmental restoration in the affected area.

Concluding the proceedings, the Tribunal stated that any remaining grievances could be addressed through further legal recourse as per the applicable rules. With these directives, the application was disposed of, along with any pending related applications.

6th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, in a significant hearing conducted in the matter of Harihar Samal & Anr. versus State of Odisha & Ors., has deemed the case to require thorough consideration. The applicants have sought intervention from the NGT to direct the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) to revoke the Consent to Operate (CTO) issued to Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. until it fully complies with the CTO conditions and environmental pollution control measures.

The applicants of Original Application No. 15/2025/EZ, represented by eminent Environmental Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, assisted by Advocate Ashutosh Padhy, have raised serious allegations against Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., accusing the company of violating CTO conditions and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines. The key allegations include:

1. Water Pollution: The company is allegedly discharging untreated effluents into the Kisindha Nallah, contaminating the water body instead of adhering to the prescribed Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) policy.

2. Air Pollution: The company has failed to activate online monitoring of stack emissions and wastewater discharge to the centralized servers of OSPCB and CPCB.

3. Hazardous Waste Handling: Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. is operating without proper authorization under the Hazardous Waste Management and Handling Rules.

4. Forest Land Encroachment: The company has allegedly encroached upon private and forest land in violation of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 2023.

5. Illegal Water Extraction: The company is accused of extracting water illegally from Kisindha Nallah without obtaining necessary permissions from relevant authorities.

6. Solid Waste Mismanagement: Instead of proper disposal, solid waste, including fly ash and slag, is being dumped outside the plant premises and along public roads, affecting local communities.

7. Failure to Meet Environmental Clearance (EC) Conditions: The industry has reportedly not changed or amended its Environmental Clearance from BRG Iron & Steel Co. (P) Ltd. to Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. post-acquisition, making its operations non-compliant.

8. Inadequate Green Belt Development: The project proponent has allegedly failed to develop the mandated green belt in 40.4 hectares, as prescribed in the Environmental Clearance granted in 2008.

9. Air Quality Monitoring Violations: The unit has set up only two Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Stations (AAQMS) instead of the mandated four, and neither of them is operational.

Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. acquired the steel plant, originally established by BRG Iron & Steel Co. (P) Ltd., through a resolution process under the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 28th February 2022, completing the acquisition in December 2023. The State Pollution Control Board granted the CTO on 31st March 2023 under its previous name, which was later amended to Rimjhim Ispat Ltd. on 7th May 2024. However, the company reportedly continues to operate without a valid Environmental Clearance under its new name.

Taking cognizance of the allegations, the NGT Bench, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, deemed it appropriate to constitute a fact-finding committee to inspect the site and verify the claims. The committee will comprise Senior Scientist, Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Integrated Regional Office, Bhubaneswar; Senior Scientist, Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB); Senior Scientist, Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB); District Collector, Dhenkanal, or his representative not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate.

The committee has been directed to conduct a thorough inspection and submit a report within four weeks. The District Collector, Dhenkanal, has been designated as the nodal agency for logistical support and for filing the committee’s findings before the Tribunal.

The matter is scheduled for the next hearing on 19th March 2025, where the NGT will review the findings of the committee and decide on further action.

6th February 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, has delivered its final order in Original Application No. 39/2023/EZ. The application was filed by Prakash Chandra Nayak and five other applicants against the State of Odisha and others. The case revolved around allegations that the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO) was illegally diverting forest land for industrial purposes without obtaining the necessary forest clearance.

The applicants contended that 7.5 acres of Sabik Kisam Forest Land were being usurped by IDCO for the benefit of Western Integrated Waste Management Facility Pvt. Ltd., which planned to establish a Common Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility (CHWTSDF) at Village Patamrapada, Tehsil Parjang, District Dhenkanal, Odisha. Eminent Environmental Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, representing the applicants, argued that the disputed land was classified as "Sabik Kisam Jungle" in the revenue records and that no forest clearance had been obtained for its use.

Citing the Bhulekh records, Advocate Pani pointed out that while the land was recorded as "Taila-2" under the "Kisam" category, it was designated as "Sabik Kisam Jungle" in the remarks column. He also referred to Alienation Case No. 1/2021, which resulted in an order dated 6th September 2022 transferring the land to IDCO and reclassifying it as Khatian 985/532, Mouza Patarpada, District Dhenkanal, with its Kisam altered to "Patita." Pani argued that since these records were published after the cut-off date of 25th October 1980, as per the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the reclassification was unlawful.

The applicant’s counsel further alleged that large tracts of forest land were being illegally diverted by IDCO without following the due process laid down in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It was stated that approximately 93 acres of land, including 12 acres of "Gochar" land and 7.5 acres of "Sabik Kisam Land," had been brought under the Land Bank Scheme (LBS) as per the Land Schedule Map (LSM) of IDCO. Out of this, around 70 acres had been proposed for allocation to Western Integrated Waste Management Facility Pvt. Ltd. The facility was initially planned to handle 7,00,000 metric tons of hazardous waste but was later scaled down to 20,000 tons per annum, with the required land area reduced from 70 acres to 27 acres. Environmental clearance for the project was granted on 18th February 2022.

The applicants also took reliance on the Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management Department Circular No. GE(GL)-S-76/2010-43968/R&DM dated 24th October 2011, which stated that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, applied to any forest land, including those recorded as non-forest land in Hal records published after 25th October 1980, if they were categorized as "Jungle" in Sabik records before this date. This circular was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court’s order dated 12th December 1996 in W.P.(C) No. 202/1995, T.N. Godhavarman v. Union of India & Others, which held that the term "forest land" in Section 2 of the Act included any area recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of ownership.

The second major submission from the applicants was that large-scale tree felling had occurred on the land without permission from the Forest Department, causing significant environmental damage. Despite objections from local villagers, construction activities continued on the land.

The District Magistrate and Collector, Dhenkanal, in an affidavit dated 11th July 2023, stated that Plot No. 5, Khata No. 1023, had always been recorded as non-forest land (Patita Kisam) in the Sabik Record of Rights (RoR) from the pre-1980 settlement record. It was asserted that the Sabik RoR of Plot 5 was not traceable as it was an old document. However, the classification available at the office of the Settlement Officer, Dhenkanal-Keonjhar Major Settlement, confirmed it was recorded as Government Abad Jogya Anabadi (AJA) land with Kisam "Taila-2" (Non-Forest Land) in the Hal Settlement Records (HSR) published on 1st May 1983. The affidavit clarified that such land could be leased to third parties.

The respondents also stated that in Bhulekh records, the "Remarks" column had inadvertently mentioned "Sabik Kisam Jungle" against the plot. However, the land had been converted to "Kisam Patita" under Section 34(e) of the Odisha Survey and Settlement Rules, 1962, and was leased to IDCO on 25th March 2022. Further classification changes from "Taila-2" to "Patita" were recorded on 2nd August 2021 and 4th August 2021.

The respondents also highlighted that land admeasuring 12.5 acres was leased to IDCO for industrial purposes, with Plot No. 5 sub-leased to Western Integrated Waste Management Facility Pvt. Ltd. The construction activities had been temporarily halted to address objections regarding "Sabik Kisam Jungle" plots. Similarly, regarding Plot No. 3, Khata No. 1026, 6.5 acres were de-reserved on 28th February 2022 as per the Orissa Government Land Settlement Act, 1962, and Orissa Government Land Settlement Rules, 1983. Only surplus "Gochar" land exceeding 5% of the effective revenue land area was de-reserved.

Regarding tree felling, a joint enumeration conducted by the Revenue, Forest, Odisha State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. (OSCDC), and IDCO officials recorded 1,292 cashew trees and 81 Gohira trees on the land, and IDCO had deposited ₹70,650 for their required cost before the Tahasildar, Parjang.

Further, in an affidavit dated 14th September 2023, the Collector and District Magistrate, Dhenkanal, reaffirmed that all plots under Khata No. 1023, Mouza Patarpada, were not forest lands. The government cited Circular No. 21643/ACSR&DM dated 16th June 2023, which clarified that where Hal records had been published after 25th October 1980, old records must be consulted to ascertain the forest status. If unavailable, a Forest Diversion Proposal (FDP) was required unless the land met three criteria: (a) the Hal record classified it as non-forest, (b) Sabik records were unavailable, and (c) it was not listed in the District Level Committee (DLC) report submitted to the Supreme Court.

The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) Dhenkanal, in an affidavit dated 11th July 2023, supported the Collector’s position, stating that the land was not forest land and no tree felling permission had been issued. 

The NGT examined the revenue records and found that the land in question, along with 280 other plots, was consistently recorded as Sabik Kisam Jungle in the Remarks column of the land records. The Tribunal rejected the respondents' claim that this entry was due to inadvertence, noting that such a large number of plots could not have been mistakenly classified as forest land. 

Based on the evidence and legal provisions, the NGT Bench held that the land in question was Sabik Kisam Jungle and directed the respondents to:

1. Halt All Construction Activities: The respondents were ordered to immediately stop all construction and industrial activities on the disputed land.

2. Obtain Forest Clearance: The respondents were directed to apply for forest clearance under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and obtain approval from the central government before using the land for non-forest purposes.

Important Legal References

• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980: Section 2 prohibits the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without prior approval from the central government.

• Government of Odisha Circular dated 24th October 2011: Clarified that the Forest (Conservation) Act applies to any land recorded as forest land in Sabik records, irrespective of its current classification.

• Supreme Court Judgment in T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India (1996): The Supreme Court held that the term "forest land" under the Forest (Conservation) Act includes any area recorded as forest in government records, irrespective of ownership.

The NGT’s ruling dated 31st January 2025 underscores the importance of protecting forest land and ensuring compliance with environmental laws. Considering a 90-year lease agreement was executed between IDCO and Western Integrated Waste Management Facility Pvt. Ltd. on 30th September 2022 this Order has a huge significance. 

21st January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), while addressing interlocutory applications in OA No. 581/2022, Vikas Kumar vs. State of Haryana & Ors., examined key issues related to sand mining activities, temporary bridge construction over river streams, and the responsibilities of central and state authorities in ensuring environmental compliance.

The Tribunal stated:

"In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the delay in submitting the study report, reviewing the existing policy or guidelines based on the study, and developing the requisite mechanism, we direct the following:
(i) Meanwhile, permission for constructing temporary bridges on the Yamuna River in Haryana may be granted by the Irrigation and Water Resources Department as per the Haryana Government Policy.
(ii) In view of the urgency explained, applications for permission to construct temporary bridges for mining and allied activities across the Yamuna River channels before the forthcoming monsoon must be processed expeditiously, preferably within two weeks of receiving the application.
(iii) Permission may be granted on a case-by-case basis, considering all relevant factors and environmental impacts, with the condition that such temporary bridges will be dismantled by 30th June 2025, as specified in the permission.
(iv) The use of machinery and transport vehicles for mining and allied activities must strictly comply with Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions."

The Tribunal further clarified:

1. Any future orders on the permissibility of constructing temporary bridges for mining and allied activities will depend on the recommendations of the ongoing study and any resulting policies or guidelines.

2. This order is not to be construed as an expression of opinion on the final adjudication of issues in the case.

3. Directed reports must be submitted at least one week before the next hearing, scheduled for 30th May 2025.

Additionally, the District Magistrate of Sonipat has been instructed to investigate the causes of loss—besides the meandering nature of the Yamuna River—and take appropriate restoration and compensation measures per the law. The District Magistrate is to file a report at least three days before the next hearing.

During the proceedings, the NGT expressed dissatisfaction with the failure of several State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs) and Union Territory Pollution Control Committees (UTPCCs) to respond to Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) requests for information. The Tribunal emphasized that these entities, as statutory bodies in a constitutional democracy, are obligated to protect and improve the environment. It criticized the CPCB for not exercising its authority under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, to enforce compliance.

The Tribunal has now directed the CPCB to:

1. Obtain and compile the required data from all SPCBs and UTPCCs.

2. Submit the compiled data, with due analysis, to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS).

3. File a detailed report before the Tribunal.

Non-compliant SPCBs and UTPCCs have been instructed to ensure the physical presence of their chairpersons and member secretaries at the next hearing.

20th January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Southern Zone, Chennai, has initiated Suo Motu proceedings following reports of over 350 Olive Ridley turtle carcasses washing ashore along the Chennai coastline between Marina and Kovalam beaches. The alarming deaths, reported in The New Indian Express on 16th January 2025, have raised concerns about the species’ survival.

Experts suspect the turtles, protected under the Wildlife (Protection) Act as a Schedule I species, died due to drowning after being trapped in fishing nets used for squid fishing. The absence of Turtle Excluder Devices (TEDs) in trawl nets is believed to be a significant factor.

In response, the Tamil Nadu government has scheduled a high-level meeting on 20th January 2025. The NGT has directed the Fisheries and Forest Departments to enforce existing regulations on trawling and TED usage and to penalize offenders. All concerned authorities have been asked to submit action reports by 22nd January 2025.

The tribunal emphasized immediate and coordinated action to prevent further fatalities as the death toll nears 500, marking one of the most severe marine conservation crises in recent years.

17th January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, New Delhi, has dismissed Original Application No. 638/2024, filed by Dr. Sanjay Kulshreshtha, who appeared in person via video conferencing. The application sought the implementation of a star rating system for all passenger vehicles based on fuel efficiency and CO₂ emissions. The hearing, held on 17th January 2025, was presided over by Hon’ble Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member.

Dr. Kulshreshtha argued that vehicular pollution is a significant contributor to air pollution, accounting for 40% of air quality degradation according to the Ministry of Earth Sciences. Highlighting examples from developed countries and certain developing nations like Thailand, Vietnam, and Singapore, he emphasized the global adoption of such rating systems to mitigate vehicular emissions. He referenced a draft notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways on 7th January 2016, which proposed amending the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, to introduce a similar rating system.

During earlier proceedings on 10th January 2025, the Tribunal had raised a critical jurisdictional issue. It pointed out that the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, under which the star rating system would fall, is not included in Schedule I of the NGT Act, 2010. The statutes listed in Schedule I define the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear and decide original applications related to environmental matters.

In response, Dr. Kulshreshtha acknowledged that the Energy Conservation Act, 2001, is not within the NGT’s purview. Consequently, the Tribunal declared the relief sought as beyond its jurisdiction under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application No. 638/2024 titled "Tsunami On Road" as not maintainable but clarified that the applicant retains the right to pursue other legal remedies if the cause of action remains valid.

17th January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), today, issued its final order in Appeal No. 28/2024 along with connected Interlocutory Applications No. 323/2024, 322/2024, and 321/2024. The appeal titled NTPC Limited versus the State of Uttar Pradesh and others contested a demand notice issued by the Conservator of Forest, Wildlife, Uttar Pradesh, directing NTPC to deposit 2% of the project cost as a conservation fee.

NTPC Limited operates the Feroz Gandhi Unchahar Thermal Power Project located near Unchahar Town in Rai Bareilly District, Uttar Pradesh. The project also includes an Ash Dyke situated at Umaran.

The demand notice, which is the subject of this appeal, stems from a decision taken in a meeting of the Standing Committee of the National Wildlife Board on 21st January 2015. NTPC filed an application seeking a review of this decision, which was ultimately rejected by the Standing Committee on 29th August 2023. Notably, the minutes of the meeting held on 21st January 2015 are not being challenged in this appeal.

In the subsequent hearing on 7th January 2025, the NGT examined the appeal under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The Tribunal noted that the decision to require a 2% deposit of the project cost was communicated through a letter dated 29th September 2023 from the Conservator of Forest, Endangered Species Project, Uttar Pradesh. This letter was based on the resolutions made in the meetings held on 21st January and 25th February 2015.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) observed that the appeal filed by NTPC Limited did not satisfy the conditions outlined in Section 16 of the NGT Act, 2010, particularly concerning the compliance with environmental clearance conditions. According to the Tribunal, Section 16, Clause (h) of the Act provides for an appeal against orders granting environmental clearance under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Similarly, Clause (i) permits appeals in cases where environmental clearance is refused. However, the Tribunal clarified that there is no provision within Section 16 that allows for an appeal specifically addressing compliance with conditions attached to an environmental clearance. This lack of statutory provision formed a critical aspect of the Tribunal's observations during the proceedings. 

NTPC sought a three-day adjournment to prepare for the case. However, on 15th January 2025, NTPC filed a request to withdraw the appeal with the liberty to pursue the remedy through an appropriate forum. The request was granted, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with all pending IAs disposed of accordingly.

10th January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant ruling on 8th January 2025, the Principal Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) addressed procedural lapses and delays in the execution of its earlier orders related to environmental remediation in Village Nilothi, Delhi. The matter, registered as Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 117/2024, stems from Original Application No. 435/2021, filed by advocate Pardeep Kadiyan, who had alleged the operation of an illegal stone-crushing factory near his residence in Udai Vihar, Phase II, Village Nilothi.

The NGT had previously disposed of the original application on 27th July 2022, directing the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) to close all illegal stone-crushing units, impose environmental compensation, and allocate the recovered funds for the restoration and improvement of the area's environment. Further, the tribunal mandated that the DPCC prepare and implement an action plan within six months of recovering the compensation and submit a compliance report.

Despite a status report filed by the DPCC in February 2023, subsequent developments revealed delays and non-compliance with the tribunal’s orders. This led to the registration of M.A. No. 67/2023, which was resolved on 23rd November 2023. The tribunal had then directed the DPCC to transfer ₹8 lakh to the Department of Forest and Wildlife, GNCTD, for afforestation activities in Nilothi or adjoining areas. It also instructed procedural improvements to ensure that orders imposing environmental compensation allowed violators the opportunity to file replies and appeals.

However, continued delays in compliance prompted the registration of M.A. No. 117/2024. During the hearing on 8th January 2025, the DPCC informed the Tribunal that the transfer of funds to the Forest Department occurred only on 30th December 2024, citing office relocation as the cause of the year-long delay. The bench, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member, deemed the justification "unreasonable and unacceptable."

The Tribunal criticized the DPCC for non-compliance with its directives, emphasizing that such actions are punishable under Section 26 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. While refraining from initiating prosecution against DPCC officials, the bench imposed a cost of ₹50,000 for the inconvenience and delays caused. The tribunal directed the DPCC to deposit this amount with the Registrar General of the NGT within one month, with the funds allocated for improving facilities for public visitors to the tribunal.

The Tribunal also reiterated its earlier directive to the Forest Department to utilize the ₹8 lakh for afforestation and submit a compliance report within six months. Failure to comply would result in the matter being listed before the bench again for further directions.

This judgment highlights the Tribunal’s firm stance on ensuring accountability and timely execution of environmental restoration measures, underscoring the critical importance of procedural adherence and the remediation of environmental harm. Order

10th January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

This judgment sets yet another example for entrepreneurs and business and industrial entities that resort to unlawful practices, disregarding the legitimate avenue of seeking redress through the courts, even when they possess a substantiated legal advantage. In a significant judgment delivered on 7th January 2025, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench overturned the Haryana State Pollution Control Board's (HSPCB) closure order against Bajaj Sanjay Poultry Farm. The appeal, filed under Section 16 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, contested the HSPCB’s directive dated 3rd June 2024 to shut down the farm on grounds of procedural lapses and violations of natural justice.

The HSPCB, exercising powers under Sections 31A of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, and 33A of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, ordered the closure of Balaji Poultry Farms, operated by Bajaj Sanjay Poultry Farm. The order also directed the removal of birds within 60 days. The Appellant contended that the order was based on a show cause notice dated 16th April 2024, which was never served upon them, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The NGT identified procedural discrepancies and lack of due process in the issuance and service of the show cause notices. The bench highlighted that:

The inspection report dated 23rd January 2024 provided a clean chit, stating that the farm was operating in compliance since inception. This contradicted the closure order’s reliance on the same report.

The HSPCB failed to serve the show cause notice dated 16th April 2024 to the Appellant as required under Rule 34(7) of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1975. Evidence suggested the notice was refused by an unnamed individual at the site, but the Tribunal observed this did not meet the standards for valid service.

A show cause notice dated 24th January 2024, cited by the HSPCB, was unrelated to any inspection findings and merely directed compliance with Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) guidelines on poultry farms with capacities exceeding 25,000 birds.

The Tribunal's Bench comprising of Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member and Expert Members Dr. A. Senthil Vel and Dr. Afroz Ahmad concluded that the closure order lacked application of mind, was arbitrary, and failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the closure order, allowing the appeal in favor of Bajaj Sanjay Poultry Farm. However, it granted liberty to the HSPCB to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law, ensuring proper service of notices and adherence to prescribed procedural norms. Order

3rd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, conducted a hearing on 3rd January 2025 in Original Application No. 55/2021 (WZ), restored following a Supreme Court order dated 18th November 2024. The application concerns alleged environmental violations by Nix Polymers in the absence of necessary consents from regulatory authorities.

The hearing, presided over by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member, centered on the Environmental Damage Compensation (EDC) levied against Nix Polymers.

Nix Polymers had obtained a Consent to Establish on 14th August 2015 but failed to secure the subsequent Consent to Operate from the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board (MPCB). The unit faced a Closure Order on 27th September 2021, leaving a period of violation between these two dates.

The applicant argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and medical issues disrupted operations, which led to delays in obtaining necessary permissions. 

1. Applicant’s Claims:

   • The applicant claimed the Joint Committee did not attribute pollution directly to their activities.

   • They questioned the validity of the EDC without prima facie evidence of pollution caused by their unit.

2. MPCB’s Response:

   • MPCB argued the EDC was imposed for operating without the required Consent to Operate.

   • They admitted procedural errors in collecting wastewater samples but emphasized that violations occurred regardless of pandemic disruptions.

3. Tribunal’s Query:

   • The Tribunal asked Nix Polymers’ counsel to specify the pandemic period during which operations ceased. The counsel failed to provide clear dates or supporting documents, acknowledging the absence of such details in their 2021 objections.

4. Supreme Court Directive:

   • The Supreme Court’s 18th November 2024 order allowed the Tribunal to reconsider all aspects of the case.

The Tribunal granted Nix Polymers one week to file an affidavit detailing the pandemic closure period with supporting proof. MPCB and other respondents were directed to verify the claim and file objections within the following week.

• State of Maharashtra and Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) representatives made no arguments during the hearing.

• SMKMC (respondent No. 7) also refrained from presenting arguments.

The case is scheduled for further consideration on 24th January 2025, allowing all parties to present additional evidence and arguments. The NGT’s decision will address the validity of the EDC and the environmental accountability of Nix Polymers.

3rd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench in Pune today heard Original Application No. 108 of 2022 (WZ), filed by Nandakumar Waman Pawar and others. The application highlights pollution caused by over 500 industries in Dombivli Industrial Area, which spans Phase-I (148 Ha) and Phase-II (97 Ha). The applicants allege illegal encroachments and hazardous industrial practices.

The case was heard by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member.

Pollution and Industrial Hazards in Dombivli: The Dombivli Industrial Area houses over 500 industries, including textile, chemical, and engineering units, as well as hotels, restaurants, ice factories, plastic industries, and hospitals. These industries are accused of encroaching on open spaces and operating dangerous structures, such as boiler plants, chemical processing units, and acid tanks.

The emissions from these units include harmful pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which contribute to smog and exacerbate asthma, lung diseases, and eye irritation. The toxic air also affects local plant life. Between May 2020 and December 2021, 30 industrial accidents occurred, killing 75 workers.

NGT’s Response and Survey Order: In response to an affidavit from Respondent No. 3, the Joint Director of Industrial Safety and Health, Kalyan, informed the Tribunal that a survey of illegal encroachments and additional constructions in the industrial area had already been conducted by MIDC. However, the NGT criticized the Joint Director for attempting to delegate the responsibility to MIDC, noting that MIDC is a member of the Committee. The Tribunal ordered that the Joint Director complete the survey as originally directed.

The Tribunal set a strict eight-week deadline for completing the survey, stressing that no further extensions would be granted. It also ordered that the applicants and other parties be included in the survey process.

The matter will be revisited on 5th March 2025, for further proceedings. 

2nd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal's Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata held a hearing on January 2, 2025, regarding Original Application No. 233/2024/EZ filed by Jharana Dehury and others, residents of Chhendipada and Saluikhaman villages under the Chhendipada Tahasil in Angul district, Odisha. The case involves the alleged illegal transfer of forest land to Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. (SCCL) for the Naini Open Cast Coal Mining Project. The applicants argue that this transfer was carried out without following the necessary procedures outlined in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

According to the applicants, SCCL, a government-owned company by both Telangana and the Government of India, has begun illegal activities within the forest area. These activities reportedly involve the felling of trees for vehicle access to the mining site. The applicants presented evidence of a letter dated 4th July 2024, from the Divisional Forest Officer of Angul to the General Manager of SCCL, requesting the handover of Chhendipada Reserve Forest land, which spans 643.095 hectares. The applicants allege that, as per the letter, a total of 106,506 trees from the Reserve Forest, 1,087 trees from the Revenue Forest, and 327 trees from non-forest areas are to be felled for the project, actions they claim are illegal.

The applicants' Counsel and eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani further argue that the necessary conditions outlined in the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) approval orders, which are critical for the legality of this forest land transfer, have not been met. In particular, they point to the failure to comply with Condition No. 13 of the Stage-II clearance order dated 12th October 2022. This condition mandates the settlement of forest rights, written consent from the Gram Sabha, and adherence to an office memorandum from August 2009, which have not been fulfilled, as per the applicants’ claims. Moreover, the applicants state that they were unable to access the Stage-I approval documents through the Parivesh Portal and found discrepancies regarding the Stage-II approval.

Furthermore, the applicants highlighted a letter from the OSD-cum-Special Secretary to the Government of Odisha’s Forest, Environment & Climate Change Department, dated 20th January 2023, which called for amendments in several conditions of the Stage-II approval. This letter also requested that SCCL pay the full Net Present Value (NPV) for the forest land, a compliance measure which the applicants assert has not been followed by the user agency. Despite these non-compliances, the forest land was transferred to SCCL for non-forestry use, allegedly in violation of the conditions.

In response to these allegations, the Tribunal's Bench of Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, directed the issuance of notices to all the respondents, including the MoEF&CC and the Project Proponent, SCCL. The notices are returnable within four weeks, and the next hearing for the case is scheduled for 21st February 2025. The Tribunal acknowledged the seriousness of the matter and emphasized the need for further consideration.

2nd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata heard a case concerning environmental violations allegedly committed by a rice mill, Navkiran Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., located in Padampur Tukuda, Boudh District, Odisha. The Applicant, Kishore Kumar Meher, filed the Original Application No. 234/2024/EZ seeking action against the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) for granting the Consent to Operate (CTO) to the unit despite non-compliance with environmental and pollution control measures.

The rice mill, with a capacity to produce 21 metric tons of boiled rice per hour, 0.3 metric tons of broken rice per hour, and 1.2 metric tons of rice bran per hour, was granted Consent to Establish (CTE) by the OSPCB on 27th January 2022, and CTO on 28th January 2022. However, the applicant argues that the CTO was granted without the requisite land conversion documents, as per Condition No. 2 of the CTE, which mandates submission of such documents when applying for the CTO.

One of the central allegations by the applicant, represented by eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, against the rice mill is its failure to adequately manage the environmental impact of its operations. The CTO approved that husk ash would be generated at the rate of 6 tons per day and would be stored within the plant. However, there was no proper assessment of the wastewater generated by the unit. The applicant claims that the CTO was issued in a "mechanical manner," with no specifics on the wastewater quantity or treatment measures.

Moreover, it was alleged that the unit has been extracting groundwater without obtaining the necessary permissions from the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA). The applicant contends that the mill extracts groundwater at a rate of 9.9 cubic meters per day, a figure that appears to be misleading since the actual daily requirement exceeds 544 cubic meters for its operations. Additionally, two borewells have been installed on the premises for water extraction, yet the required permissions are not in place.

The environmental concerns are further compounded by the discharge of wastewater into the Bandhamunda Nalla, which eventually joins the Mahanadi River, approximately 2 kilometers away from the mill. This poses a potential risk to local water quality and ecosystems.

The NGT bench, led by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Expert Member Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, has issued notices to the respondents, including the OSPCB, the Central Ground Water Authority, and other relevant parties. The court has also directed the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate the allegations. The committee will consist of senior officials from the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, the Central Ground Water Authority, and the District Collector of Boudh, or a designated representative.

The committee will visit the site, assess the claims made in the Original Application, and submit its report within four weeks. If any environmental violations are found, the committee is expected to recommend remedial measures and outline the actions to be taken against the responsible parties.

The NGT has scheduled the next hearing for 21st February 2025 and directed the parties to submit their counter-affidavits within four weeks. 

2nd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, has taken up a case concerning pollution caused by cremation activities in the twin cities of Howrah and Kolkata. The case, filed by Ankur Sharma under Original Application No. 235/2024/EZ, seeks a directive to local civic bodies to install a Pyre Fume Collection System (PFCS) in crematoriums to curb pollution generated by traditional wood pyre cremation methods. The application also highlights the environmental impact of electric cremation furnaces emitting thick black smoke.

In the petition, the applicant identified several crematoriums across Howrah and Kolkata, including prominent ones like Shibpur Burning Ghat, Salkia Burning Ghat, and Nimtola Burning Ghat, which are located in densely populated residential areas. The applicant claims that the traditional wood pyre cremation method consumes between 300-500 kgs of wood per cremation. Additionally, many electric crematorium incinerators are allegedly non-functional, leading families to rely on the wood cremation process.

A crucial aspect of the applicant's case is the assertion that the Pyre Fume Collection System (PFCS), developed by the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), has been successfully implemented at Nigam Bodh Ghat in New Delhi. Sharma points to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation's attempt to address the issue by installing an Air Pollution Control Device (APCD) at Sri Sri Ramkrishna Mahashasan Burning Ghat (also known as Cossipore Burning Ghat) in 2012. However, Sharma claims that during a visit on 30th October 2024, the device was found to be in a state of disrepair, raising concerns about the maintenance and effectiveness of such systems.

The NGT bench, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar and Expert Member Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, directed notices to the concerned respondents, including the Government of West Bengal, West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB), Howrah Municipal Corporation (HMC), and Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC), to respond within four weeks. The court also constituted a Fact-Finding Committee to investigate the allegations. The committee will comprise senior officials from the District Magistrate’s office in Howrah, the WBPCB, Howrah and Kolkata Municipal Corporations, and the applicant. The committee is tasked with visiting the crematoriums, assessing the pollution levels, and submitting a report within four weeks. It will also suggest remedial actions if any environmental violations are identified.

The Tribunal has scheduled the next hearing for 21st February 2025, to further review the case.

2nd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In the matter of Rajeev Narayan Tripathi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Original Application No. 65/2024), the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) has submitted a joint committee report dated December 31, 2024, to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). The case pertains to alleged violations of the Bio-Medical Waste Management (BMWM) Rules, 2016, by a waste management unit operating in Satna district.

The report points out that the current incinerator at the facility is not compliant with the technical and operational standards specified under Schedule-II of the BMWM Rules, 2016. Key deficiencies include the absence of an efficient burning system in the primary and secondary chambers, the lack of a mechanical feeding system, and inadequate ID and FD fans necessary for maintaining proper draft. The report further highlights that the primary and secondary chambers of the incinerator are square-shaped, which is not in line with prescribed guidelines. The absence of a tamper-proof PLC system adds to the operational inefficiencies.

The committee observed that the unit has retrofitted the secondary chamber with a temporary burner mounted on a movable platform, allowing manual operation. This setup raises concerns about potential negligence and non-compliance. While the unit presented a 2-second residence time (RT) certificate from the manufacturer, the certificate appeared questionable as it was previously issued before the installation of the secondary chamber.

Another concern raised in the report is the improper functionality of the GPS tracking system installed in the unit’s vehicles. The system, intended to provide real-time waste tracking, could not be verified due to slow internet speeds during the inspection. The report mentions constant buffering issues and an absence of end-to-end tracking data, which is a mandatory requirement under the BMWM Rules.

The report also scrutinizes the transportation of waste from Satna to other facilities, such as the Common Bio-Medical Waste Treatment Facility (CBWTF) in Shahdol and the People's Hospital in Bhopal, both situated at considerable distances. The committee deemed this practice unsustainable, recommending that waste be directed to the nearest authorized CBWTF instead.

Between August 13, 2024, and December 19, 2024, the unit claimed to have transported waste on alternate days. However, data discrepancies emerged, as GPS logs were provided for only 12 of the 127 operational days. Moreover, inconsistencies between vehicle numbers and waste disposal records further undermined the credibility of the unit’s claims.

The MPPCB has made several recommendations in its report:

1. The incinerator must be replaced to meet technical norms. Until then, waste generated in the unit’s coverage area should be handed over to the nearest authorized CBWTF.

2. The unit must comply with directions issued by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and MPPCB and submit a time-bound action plan for future operations within 15 days.

3. Closure orders issued under the Water and Air Acts and Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, will remain in effect until the facility achieves full compliance.

4. The unit must maintain and submit electronic proof of waste collection and disposal to the MPPCB regional office weekly.

5. The unit’s operations are currently restricted to the Satna and Panna areas, with strict adherence required. Failure to provide proper electronic proof may result in a review of the unit’s waste collection permissions.

The MPPCB report underscores the critical need for strict adherence to bio-medical waste management protocols to ensure public health and environmental safety. The matter remains under the scrutiny of the NGT for further adjudication.

2nd January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has submitted its detailed response to the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone, regarding the contentious highway expansion project from Moinabad to Manneguda junction in Telangana.

The project, aimed at widening the National Highway 163 from two lanes to four lanes, has faced opposition due to environmental concerns, particularly the felling of banyan trees. Despite being exempt from an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under the 2013 amendments to the EIA Notification, the NHAI conducted an EIA in compliance with NGT directives to address ecological concerns.

According a document uploaded on 2nd January 2025, the key points of NHAI's submission include:

1. Tree Preservation Efforts: Out of 943 banyan trees initially at risk, 393 have been retained, and 522 are to be translocated to the Mudimyal Reserve Forest. The alignment changes and translocation plans were guided by the recommendations of a three-member expert committee.

2. Compliance with Safety and Technical Standards: The NHAI emphasized that Vehicular Underpasses (VUPs), instead of bypasses, were incorporated to address accident-prone black spots, in adherence to Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) standards.

3. Challenges to Proposed Bypasses: The NHAI argued that bypasses would require additional land acquisition, lead to geometric challenges in highway design, increase project costs, and fail to address critical safety concerns effectively.

4. Mitigation and Monitoring Measures: The EIA includes provisions for compensatory afforestation at a 1:10 ratio, wildlife corridors to facilitate movement, and ongoing environmental monitoring by the Zoological Survey of India (ZSI).

The NHAI's proactive measures, including saving an additional 161 banyan trees following EIA recommendations, were highlighted as a demonstration of their commitment to sustainable development. However, the applicants have challenged the EIA findings, arguing that bypasses should have been considered to save more trees.

The NHAI has requested the tribunal to refrain from further directives that could delay the project, emphasizing that the approved alignment ensures both environmental conservation and road safety.

This project, estimated at ₹966.23 crore (₹181.23 crore for land acquisition and ₹785 crore for civil works), is expected to significantly enhance connectivity and reduce traffic congestion while balancing environmental concerns.

The Tribunal is expected to deliver its final decision in the coming weeks.

1st January 2025 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a writ petition filed by the owner of a firecracker factory, where a tragic explosion caused multiple fatalities, injuries, and property damage, the Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed challenges to various orders issued by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and the District Collector. A Division Bench comprising Sanjeev Sachdeva and Vinay Saraf, JJ., refused to quash the impugned orders at this stage but allowed the petitioners to approach the NGT for reconsideration. The Court directed the NGT to scrutinize compensation claims and ensure the proper classification of victims.

The petitioners, two brothers operating four firecracker factories under valid licenses issued under the Explosives Rules, 2008, faced legal challenges after a massive explosion occurred at their factory on 6th February 2024. The incident caused extensive damage, resulting in several fatalities, injuries, and significant property destruction. Following the explosion, an FIR was registered, citing violations of safety measures and explosive regulations.

On the same day, the NGT took suo motu cognizance of the incident and ordered interim compensation for victims: ₹15 lakh per death, ₹5 lakh for grievous injuries or house damage, ₹3 lakh for minor injuries, and ₹2 lakh for displaced persons. On 12th February 2024, the District Collector calculated ₹15.80 crores as compensation to be deposited by the petitioners. Subsequently, on 23rd February 2024, another liability of ₹2.43 crores was assessed, initiating the confiscation and auctioning of the petitioners’ properties worth ₹9 crores.

The petitioners contended that although an appeal under Sections 14 and 22 of the NGT Act was available, the writ petition was maintainable due to a violation of natural justice principles. They cited Veena Gupta v. Central Pollution Control Board, 2024 and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, (1998). It was argued that the NGT orders were ex-parte and based on media reports without adequate verification. The petitioners asserted that the compensation framework lacked medical and technical evidence and that the classification of injuries and assessment of property damage were erroneous. Additionally, they claimed the Collector’s orders were passed without notice or hearing, thereby violating natural justice principles.

The respondents, however, argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the alternative remedy available under the NGT Act, citing Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, (2022). They contended that the petitioners’ negligent handling of dangerous explosives had caused severe damage and loss of life. The respondents defended the compensation awarded, emphasizing its reasonableness given the gravity of the incident.

The High Court, while acknowledging the exceptional circumstances, upheld its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution despite the availability of alternative remedies. The Court cited M.P. High Court Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India, 2022 and Veena Gupta (supra) to support its intervention in cases where natural justice principles were violated. The Court noted that at the time of the NGT’s orders, neither the injured had been identified nor the nature of injuries determined. Similarly, the assessment of house damage and displacement was incomplete.

The Court at the outset pointed out that the Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association Vs. UOI & others, 2022, has held that National Green Tribunal under Sections 14 & 22 of the NGT Act does not oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 as the same is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. "In the instant case main grievance of the petitioners are that ex-parte order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing by which liability of more than Rs. 15 crores have been saddled against the petitioners and the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, consequently this court deemed it proper to entertain the writ petition and issued notices. In view of the judgment delivered by Apex Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh High Court Advocates Bar Association (supra), Veena Gupta (supra) and Whirlpool Corporation (supra) objection regarding maintainability of writ petition is overruled and writ petition is held maintainable," the Court observed. The Court allowed the Petitioners to raise objection to the claim and passed appropriate directions. The Petition was accordingly allowed.

28 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, in a hearing held on 24th December 2024, dismissed a petition filed by the Maa Durga Primary Fisherman Co-operative Society Ltd. seeking clarification of its earlier order regarding the regulation of the Exotic Magur fish species (Clarias gariepinus). The petition was considered by a Bench comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson, and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member.

Background of the Case: The applicant's petition, M.A. No. 92/2024, sought clarification of the Tribunal's order dated May 6, 2024, in Original Application No. 509/2024. The applicant raised two key concerns:

1. Lack of Guidelines for Identifying Exotic Magur: The applicant argued that the State Authorities had not framed proper guidelines for identifying the Exotic Magur (Clarias gariepinus) and distinguishing it from the Indian Magur (Clarias batrachus).

2. Clarification on the Ban: The applicant also sought clarification regarding the ban imposed on the culture, breeding, transportation, and import of Exotic Magur fish.

Tribunal’s Previous Order: In the original order dated 6th May 2024, the Tribunal had already addressed similar concerns raised in Original Application No. 509/2024. In that order, the NGT had issued clear directions to regulate the Exotic Magur:

1. Action Against Exotic Magur: The Tribunal directed that the District Collector or District Commissioner should take necessary actions to eliminate the Exotic Magur. Specifically, the authorities were instructed to form inspection teams made up of officials from the Fisheries Department to inspect fish ponds and properly identify the prohibited Exotic Magur.

2. Sourcing of Catfish: The Tribunal also directed that all catfish breeders must source their fish from the State Fisheries Department or from other agencies authorized by the department. This was to ensure that only legitimate, authorized sources were used in breeding and selling fish, and to avoid the spread of Exotic Magur.

3. Safeguards: The NGT’s earlier order also included safeguards to ensure that only the Exotic Magur (which is prohibited) would be destroyed, and not other species of fish.

Tribunal’s Ruling: After reviewing the petition for clarification, the NGT Bench, led by Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, concluded that no further clarification was needed. The Tribunal observed that its 6th May 2024 order had already provided clear instructions on how the authorities should handle the identification and destruction of the Exotic Magur.

The Tribunal noted that the directions were comprehensive and sufficient to address the issues raised, including the identification of the prohibited fish species and the proper channels for sourcing catfish. Therefore, the Tribunal ruled that the clarification petition (M.A. No. 92/2024) was dismissed.

28 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, in a hearing on 12th December 2024, has expressed significant concerns regarding the compliance of the Union Territory (UT) of Chandigarh with the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management Rules, 2016, and other environmental norms related to waste and sewage management. The Tribunal also noted several critical areas where Chandigarh is falling short in its environmental duties, particularly with regard to solid and liquid waste management.

Solid Waste Management Deficiencies: The Tribunal's Bench, comprising of Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson; Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member; and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member; highlighted the following issues in its review of the waste management system in Chandigarh:

• Unprocessed Waste: Out of the 500 tonnes per day (TPD) of waste generated in Chandigarh, 495 TPD is being processed. However, a gap of 5 TPD remains, primarily involving dry waste. The Tribunal emphasized that this gap must be addressed urgently.

• Lack of Authorizations for Processing Plants: The Tribunal observed that the UT Administration has failed to disclose authorizations granted to waste processing plants. It also pointed out the absence of proper monitoring and compliance with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Rules at these facilities.

• Leachate Treatment Issues: The report indicated that the leachate treatment plant in Chandigarh is not functioning adequately. There has been no clear information provided regarding the utilization and disposal of leachate. The Tribunal has directed that the treatment plant be maintained properly to avoid any environmental risks such as effluent spills and stagnant leachate on-site.

• Legacy Waste: Chandigarh still has 0.20 Lakh Metric Tonnes (LMT) of legacy waste, which has yet to be remediated. The Tribunal called for a clear action plan to achieve the remediation of legacy waste and emphasized the importance of proper management of existing landfills.

• Inert Waste: The Tribunal found that inert waste is being dumped in low-lying areas, a practice that violates the MSW Rules. The authorities were urged to identify and designate appropriate sites for such waste disposal and provide detailed disclosures on the extent of land reclaimed after remediating 20 acres of old dumping sites.

Sewage Management Concerns: The NGT also examined the sewage treatment systems in Chandigarh and found several critical areas needing attention:

• Sewage Treatment Capacity: Out of 232 Million Litres per Day (MLD) of sewage generated, Chandigarh is treating 228.3 MLD in 8 Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs). However, a gap of 3.7 MLD remains, primarily from Faidan village and peri-urban areas. The Tribunal noted that no clear strategy or time frame had been provided to address this shortfall, which had been flagged in previous orders.

• STP Performance: The Joint Committee's report revealed that certain STPs in Chandigarh are not meeting required standards. Specifically, high levels of fecal coliform (FC) and Total Nitrogen (TKN) were found at four STPs: Diggian, Kishangarh, Raipur Khurd, and Maloya. The Tribunal directed the UT authorities to take corrective action to ensure these STPs comply with environmental standards. The UT Administration and the Joint Committee have reported conflicting results regarding the performance of Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs). According to the Joint Committee, water samples taken from the outlets of 8 STPs show high levels of fecal coliform (FC) at the Diggian, Kishangarh, Raipur Khurd, and Maloya STPs. Additionally, the Total Nitrogen (TKN) levels have been exceeding acceptable limits. The Tribunal has instructed the authorities to take immediate action to address these issues. Furthermore, in accordance with the standards set by the Tribunal in OA No. 1069/18, the treated sewage, once it meets the required standards, should be used for secondary purposes (like irrigation). The authorities have been ordered to complete the necessary work for the sewage conveyance system and ensure that identified users are in place to utilize the treated water.

Financial Oversight: The Tribunal also reviewed the financial expenditure for waste and sewage management. It noted that out of the allocated Rs. 282 crore for waste and sewage management, Rs. 189.07 crore had already been spent. However, certain activities remained incomplete, and the Tribunal directed that the balance amount be utilized to address the pending tasks.

The NGT has ordered the UT Administration of Chandigarh to file a fresh action-taken report by affidavit at least one week before the next hearing, set for 08.09.2025. The report must address the deficiencies in solid and liquid waste management and outline the steps being taken to comply with the NGT's directives.

26 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member, addressed critical violations of Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions in Miscellaneous Application No. 15/2024/EZ, linked to Original Application No. 11/2022/EZ.

The matter involves allegations by the Z1 Residents’ Welfare Association against Z Estates Private Limited and others, with the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) and the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha, under scrutiny for lapses.

An affidavit filed by the OSPCB on 30th November 2024 revealed a significant breach of stack height requirements for diesel generator (D.G.) sets. As per the inspection reports, the stack height of the D.G. sets installed by Z Estates Private Limited measures only 6.06 meters, far below the required minimum height of 48.89 meters. This contravenes the conditions stipulated in the EC dated 16th August 2011.

The EC conditions under the operation phase mandate that the height of the D.G. set stack must exceed the height of the tallest building (40 meters in this case) to comply with the Environment Protection Rules, 1986, ensuring adequate dispersion of emissions.

While SEIAA argued that the responsibility for enforcing stack height compliance rests with the OSPCB, the Apex Green Court's Kolkata Bench rejected this claim as misconceived and contradictory to the EC conditions. Justice Sthalekar emphasized that SEIAA’s role in granting ECs requires strict enforcement of environmental safeguards.

Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the SEIAA had granted subsequent ECs to the Project Proponent company despite evident violations, highlighting negligence by its officials.

Directives Issued by the Tribunal: 

1. Action on Stack Height Violations: SEIAA, Odisha, has been directed to issue appropriate orders addressing the violation of stack height requirements within four weeks, based on the affidavits submitted by the OSPCB.

2. Accountability for Negligence: Referring to its earlier order dated 1st May 2023, the Tribunal reiterated the need for SEIAA to investigate the conduct of its officers responsible for enforcing EC conditions during the relevant period. It flagged the affidavit of SEIAA dated 1st May 2024 as silent on the action taken against negligent officers, despite the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) having directed the Forest and Environment Department of Odisha to address the issue on 10th July 2024.

3. Warning to SEIAA: The Tribunal issued a stern warning to SEIAA, Odisha, against non-compliance with its orders, cautioning that failure to act would invite proceedings under Sections 26 and 28 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010.

The Tribunal has scheduled the next hearing on 19th February 2025. SEIAA is required to file a detailed affidavit by this date, specifying actions taken against the officials responsible for lapses in EC enforcement and addressing the D.G. set stack height violations. Renowned Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani is advocating for the Applicant in this matter. 

19 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

A Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member and Expert Member Dr. Afroz Ahmad, held a hearing on 18th December 2024 in the matter of Original Application (O.A.) No. 930/2024. The matter pertains to alleged discharge of untreated effluent by the Ordnance Factory in Itarsi, Madhya Pradesh. The case, originally filed as a letter petition by Mahesh Patel, President of the Ayudh Nirmani Mazdoor Congress, and registered as O.A. No. 930/2024 after being treated by the NGT under the orders of the Tribunal's Chairperson.

The applicant raised concerns about the environmental damage caused by the discharge of untreated industrial effluent from the Ordnance Factory in Itarsi, located in the Narmadapuram district of Madhya Pradesh. In response, the Tribunal had constituted a Joint Committee comprising representatives from the Madhya Pradesh State Pollution Control Board (MPPCB), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the District Magistrate of Hoshangabad, with directions to submit a factual report.

The Joint Committee submitted its report on 17th October 2024, followed by analysis reports from MPPCB and CPCB in late November 2024. The submissions of 25th November 2024 enclosed with test reports reveal that Lead was found to be 0.027 mg/l in one borewell inside the Kendriya Vidhyalayon 3rd October 2024. This exceeds Drinking water standard as per IS: 10500:2012 Acceptable limit. However, in the samples of 5th November 2024 Lead was found to be 0.06 mg/l and 0.05 mg/l in two borewells inside the Kendriya Vidhyalay.  

However, the MPPCB has not reported Lead in the treated effluent samples collected from Ordnance Factory, Itarsi at Outlet of ETP. 

Despite taking cognizance of the matter, the Tribunal acknowledged that the issue originated within the jurisdiction of the Central Zone Bench at Bhopal. Therefore, it was decided that the substantial environmental concerns related to this case would be more appropriately heard and decided by the Central Zone Bench. As a result, the matter has been transferred to the Central Zone Bench at Bhopal and is scheduled for a hearing on 30th January 2025, subject to approval from the NGT Chairperson. 

19 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), India's Apex Green Court, continued the hearing in Original Application No. 538/2024 on 16th December 2024, concerning the issue of arsenic contamination in food, particularly rice, as highlighted in a news item titled "Arsenic in Food: Should You Wash Rice Before Cooking It," published in Times Now on 31st March 2024.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, in its reply dated 12th December 2024, informed the Tribunal about the significant arsenic contamination in groundwater, particularly in the states of West Bengal and Bihar. The contamination stems from geogenic sources, affecting the soil, plant, animal, and human systems. Rice, being water-intensive, is particularly vulnerable to arsenic accumulation, as irrigation with contaminated groundwater leads to arsenic buildup in rice grains, which is then transferred to the food chain. The Ministry also stated that the arsenic content in various plant parts follows a distribution pattern, with roots, stems, and leaves containing higher arsenic levels compared to the edible parts, such as fruits and grains.

The Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), consulted by the Ministry, has proposed several remedial measures to minimize arsenic contamination. These include replacing Boro rice with less water-demanding crops, promoting arsenic-tolerant rice varieties, and adopting agronomical interventions such as the use of biochar, silicate fertilizers, and improved irrigation management. Other measures include storing arsenic-contaminated groundwater in ponds and promoting the recharge of groundwater with rainwater.

Given the significance of ICAR's recommendations, the Tribunal decided to implead ICAR as a respondent in the case, with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research now named as Respondent No. 4. Counsel for ICAR accepted the notice and sought four weeks to file a reply.

The case, registered as Original Application No. 538/2024, has been scheduled for the next hearing on 15th April 2025, with the NGT continuing to address the serious environmental and health implications of arsenic contamination in food and water.

19 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, under the leadership of Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson,convened a hearing on 16th December 2024 regarding Original Application No. 1372/2024. The case was initiated suo-motu based on a news article titled "The Last Feral Horses in India", which appeared in Mongabay on 5th November 2024. The article brought attention to the critically endangered status of the feral horses in Dibru-Saikhowa National Park, Assam, India. These horses, which have survived in the wild for nearly 80 years, are believed to be descendants of war horses from World War II or possibly from China's Przewalski’s horses. The Dibru-Saikhowa National Park is the only place in India where these horses can be found.

The article described several threats to the survival of these horses, including smuggling, habitat loss, and flooding. In 2020, authorities allegedly intercepted a truck attempting to smuggle six of these horses. However, because the feral horses are not covered under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, they are not considered wild animals, making prosecution difficult. The article also pointed out that the horses are facing increasing challenges due to frequent flooding of the Brahmaputra River, which damages grazing grounds and accelerates land erosion within the park. This reduces the available space for the horses to live and further limits their access to food. The article also highlighted that human activities, including cattle farming from nearby villages, are further degrading the horses' habitat.

These concerns raised by the article point to violations of key environmental laws, such as the Biodiversity Act, 2002 and the Environment Protection Act, 1986. The matter raised significant questions regarding compliance with environmental norms and the implementation of measures meant to protect endangered species. Recognizing the seriousness of the issue, the NGT took suo-motu cognizance of the matter, emphasizing the need for immediate intervention to prevent the extinction of the feral horses. The Tribunal issued notices to several respondents, including the Chief Wildlife Warden of Assam, the National Biodiversity Authority, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, the Wildlife Institute of India, and the Zoological Survey of India. These respondents have been directed to file their responses by affidavit before the Eastern Zonal Bench of the NGT in Kolkata by the next hearing date on 27th February 2025.

Given the regional importance of the matter, the NGT transferred the case to the Eastern Zonal Bench in Kolkata for further proceedings. 

16 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench, Pune, today released the Order dated 29th November 2024 on the Appeal No. 45 of 2022 (WZ) and an associated application regarding the demolition of the Ganapati Visarjan platform at Bandir Wada, Chapora Bardez, Goa. The platform, intended for Ganesh idol immersion, is also seen as a critical flood-control and anti-soil erosion measure.

The appeal challenges an order dated 11th August 2022 by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), which directed the demolition of additional construction on the platform. The appellant, Siddesh Salgaonkar, argued that the order was issued without a proper show-cause notice or opportunity for a hearing, claiming that only the Water Resources Department (WRD) and the civil contractor were notified.

The platform's original dimensions, 4.5m x 10m, were extended to 10m x 20m following public demands for beautification and functionality enhancements. The extension, however, was contested by locals and environmentalists, citing alleged encroachments and disruptions to traditional access to the Chapora River.

The appellant emphasized that demolishing the platform could lead to severe environmental damage, including flooding of nearby houses and soil erosion. These claims were substantiated by site inspection reports from the North Goa District Disaster Management Authority and other authorities, which highlighted the platform's role in strengthening erosion control and safeguarding nearby structures during high tides and floods.

Key Observations from the Tribunal

1. Inspection Reports: A site inspection on 5th July 2024 confirmed that the platform served as a vital access point for villagers and mitigated risks of flooding and soil erosion.

2. Historic Context: A report from 7th May 2018 noted the platform’s dilapidated condition and the necessity of its refurbishment to accommodate over 400 Ganapati idols annually.

3. NOC Compliance: The platform was initially approved under a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by GCZMA in December 2020 for flood-control measures and public use. However, complaints alleged violations of these terms due to unauthorized extensions.

Legal History and Challenges
The dispute has seen multiple legal battles:

• A writ petition was filed in the Bombay High Court, which was later withdrawn in November 2021, granting liberty to escalate the matter to the NGT.

• The GCZMA’s corrigendum to the NOC was challenged but upheld by the NGT in 2021.

• The Supreme Court dismissed a related civil appeal in April 2022.

Tribunal’s Observations and Order:
The NGT noted that while the platform’s compliance with pre-1991 regulations remains unclear, its demolition could pose significant risks to the community and environment. The Tribunal also acknowledged GCZMA's admission that removing the structure might exacerbate flooding and wash away traditional pathways, underscoring the importance of a cautious resolution.

Considering these concerns, the Tribunal examined the report submitted by the North Goa District Disaster Management Authority, dated 5th July 2024. The report highlighted that the Ganapati Visarjan Platform, though dilapidated, serves as a protective safety wall, restricting floodwater from entering nearby houses and preventing soil erosion. It warned that demolition could result in flooding of adjacent houses and soil degradation.

Agreeing with these findings, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated 11th August 2022, issued by the Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA), which had directed the demolition. The application I.A. No. 155 of 2022 (WZ) was also disposed of, with no order as to costs.

13 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, held a hearing on Original Application No. 75/2023/EZ concerning severe environmental pollution caused by industrial effluents being drained into the Hooghly River. The case, filed by Ankur Sharma, seeks to address the pollution in the Sarenga Canal, which is allegedly contaminated by toxic discharges from hundreds of industrial units in the Howrah district of West Bengal.

The inspection reports and lab data emerged as one of the key developments in the case. During the hearing, Ankur Sharma, the applicant, raised concerns about the Inspection Report filed by the District Magistrate of Howrah on 30th September 2024. He pointed out that while the report included a chart detailing data from various industrial units, it lacked the corresponding laboratory reports that would validate these figures. In response, the counsel for the State Government of West Bengal, argued that lab reports were typically used as corroborative evidence in criminal or civil cases, not in environmental matters.

The NGT Bench, consisting of Justice B. Amit Sthalekar and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, expressed surprise at this submission, stressing that the NGT serves as the court of first instance for environmental issues. The Tribunal emphasized that all relevant evidence, including lab reports, must be presented before it. The bench ordered the District Magistrate of Howrah to file a revised affidavit, including the required lab reports to support the figures in the inspection chart. The affidavit must be submitted within four weeks.

The applicant also pointed out that the Respondents had failed to comply with the installation of the Common Effluent Treatment Plant (CETP) in the Howrah area. This plant is vital to address the untreated industrial waste being released into local water bodies. He referenced an earlier report by the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB) detailing the status of action plans for Howrah, which mentioned the CETP’s installation but did not include any compliance updates.

In response, the NGT directed the District Magistrate to submit an Action Taken Report regarding the installation and operation of the CETP. The report must specifically address the West Bengal Pollution Control Board’s findings and the progress on the CETP’s establishment.

The Original Application filed by Ankur Sharma details the severe pollution caused by various industrial units in the area. The applicant alleges that factories, including dyeing and bleaching factories, galvanizing plants, foundries, and chemical manufacturing units, are discharging untreated toxic effluents into the Hooghly River via the Sarenga Canal. This canal, also known as Barjola Canal, is owned by the Department of Irrigation and Waterways of the Government of West Bengal.

The pollution has been devastating to the local environment. The untreated effluents are contaminating the river, nearby ponds, water bodies, and agricultural land, leading to soil degradation and ecological damage. Notably, the stretch of the Barjola Canal from the Jalan Industrial Complex to the Sarenga area, particularly near the Ghoraghat Bridge, is identified as one of the most polluted zones. This section of the canal is said to discharge effluents directly into the Hooghly River, significantly harming the local ecology.

The applicant has submitted that despite multiple complaints to various government bodies, including the West Bengal Pollution Control Board, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, and the Central Pollution Control Board, no effective action had been taken to curb the pollution. 

The NGT directed that a copy of the order be sent to the Law Secretary of the Government of West Bengal for information, signaling the seriousness with which the Tribunal views the case. The Tribunal set the next hearing for 11th February 2025, asking the authorities to take prompt and concrete actions to address the pollution crisis.

12 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Central Zone Bench, Bhopal, addressed allegations of illegal mining activities in the village of Kasai, Tehsil Lakhnadon, District Seoni, Madhya Pradesh, during a hearing on 11th December 2024. The matter, listed as Original Application No. 146/2024 (CZ), was brought by the applicant, Kishore Anand Shrivastava, who cited severe violations by respondents engaged in mining and crushing operations in the area.

The applicant alleged that Jain Stone Crusher, Deepak Kumar Jain Bolder Mine, Sanjeev Kumar Jain Bolder Mine, and Vijay Kumar Jain were extracting minerals from depleted reserves, conducting unauthorized mining over 3.53 hectares of agricultural land, and operating in nearby areas without valid leases or permissions. Additionally, the mining activities involved deep excavation, reaching depths of 12–15 meters, which obliterated seasonal drains vital to the local ecosystem. The applicant further claimed that the respondents operated without the required consents under the Air and Water Acts, causing irreversible environmental and ecological damage.

The Tribunal, presided over by Justice Sheo Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. A. Senthil Vel (Expert Member), reviewed the findings of a joint committee formed to investigate these allegations. The committee’s site visit confirmed the violations, leading to the imposition of penalties and recommendations for corrective measures.

In response to these findings, the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) took several actions against Deepak Kumar Jain and Jain Stone Crusher. In compliance with an Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 28th April 2023, the MPPCB directed Deepak Kumar Jain to cease mining and stone crushing operations beyond 27th October 2024. This directive aligns with the judgment in Jayant Kumar v. MoEF&CC and Ors., where the NGT Principal Bench mandated the reappraisal of mining leases with Environmental Clearances (ECs) granted by District Environmental Impact Assessment Authorities (DEIAAs) before 11th December 2018. The judgment declared that mining under ECs granted by DEIAAs on or after 12th December 2018 is illegal unless appraised and approved by the SEIAA in accordance with EIA 2006 provisions.

The MPPCB also instructed Deepak Kumar Jain and Jain Stone Crusher to undertake plantation activities around the mine and stone crusher to mitigate environmental impacts. Additionally, the Board identified that Deepak Kumar Jain exceeded his consented production capacity by 428 cubic meters in 2020 without securing approval for expansion. For this violation, the MPPCB proposed imposing Environmental Compensation, and the proposal has been sent to its Head Office for approval.

The Mining Department of Seoni, citing violations of the M.P. Minor Minerals Rules, 1996, imposed penalties on Deepak Kumar Jain and Sanjeev Kumar Jain. Deepak Kumar Jain was fined ₹6,00,000, and a show-cause notice was issued under Rule 30(27) of the Rules via letter no. 961, dated 19th September 2024. Similarly, Sanjeev Kumar Jain was fined ₹4,00,000, with a show-cause notice issued under the same rule via letter no. 962, dated 19th September 2024.

The State of Madhya Pradesh submitted a reply emphasizing the actions taken based on the committee’s recommendations. Surprise inspections by the Mining Department resulted in the penalties mentioned above, and partial payments have been made by the violators.

The Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) highlighted the need for strict enforcement of environmental laws, including the Water Act, 1974; Air Act, 1981; and Environmental Protection Act, 1986. It stressed that violations should be addressed by the State Pollution Control Board (SPCB) according to the rules.

The SPCB, in its response, confirmed allegations of excess mineral excavation. The Mining Department calculated penalties and environmental compensation, which were realized after due inquiry. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records and the joint committee report, noted that the validation of environmental clearance is pending with the SEIAA. It directed the SEIAA to expedite the process and stressed the importance of implementing measures such as water sprinkling and plantation to ensure environmental compliance. The SPCB was instructed to take additional remedial steps. With these observations, Original Application No. 146/2024 was disposed of.

12 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

On 11th December 2024, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, convened to hear Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 124/2024/EZ) in Original Application No. 06/2024/EZ, concerning allegations of illegal mining activities in the Rahadpur Stone Quarry, located in Jajpur District, Odisha. The matter was brought before the tribunal by applicants who are residents of Jajpur District. They raised concerns about the environmental and socio-economic impacts of mining operations conducted by Satya Multiplex Private Limited (Respondent No. 12) at the quarry site. The case was presided over by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member.

The I.A. No. 124/2024/EZ was filed by the applicants, seeking an assessment by the Odisha Space Applications Centre (ORSAC) to determine the quantum of minor minerals excavated, identify illegal mining activities, and assess the distance between the quarry and the Paikarapur and Ranibandh Minor Irrigation Projects (MIPs). The tribunal granted this request and directed the Deputy Director of Mines, Jajpur, to conduct a fresh inquiry with ORSAC’s assistance. This inquiry will focus on the extent of mining beyond the lease area, the impact of the quarry on local irrigation projects, and the environmental and socio-economic effects of excessive mining activities.

The inquiry is also expected to examine potential violations of environmental regulations related to the quarry’s operations.

The State Respondents, including the Odisha Government, have been directed to file an affidavit detailing the Action Taken Report (ATR) by 14th February 2025. This report will outline the steps taken to address the allegations and ensure compliance with environmental regulations.

Background and Allegations:
The Rahadpur Stone Quarry, operated by Satya Multiplex Private Limited, is located in the Dharmsala Tahasil of Jajpur District, Odisha. The quarry, which was granted an Environmental Clearance on 2nd June 2022, is licensed to mine building stones and road metal over an area of 104.77 acres (42.40 hectares). However, local residents and environmental groups have expressed concerns about the quarry's environmental impacts, particularly on the Paikarapur and Ranibandh MIPs. These projects play a vital role in providing water for agriculture in the region. The applicants also highlighted that the quarry’s operations are situated near the Nischinta Reserve Forest, posing potential risks to its biodiversity.

The applicants allege that mining activities have resulted in the degradation of agricultural lands, destruction of natural resources, and adverse health effects on nearby communities due to air and water pollution. Additionally, a letter from the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Division, Badachana, raised concerns about the siltation of nearby dams caused by mining operations.

Renowned Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, assisted by Advocate Ashutosh Padhy, represents the applicants in the case titled Babuli Jena & Ors. versus State of Odisha & Ors.

The next hearing in this matter has been scheduled for 14th February 2025, during which the progress of the inquiry and any additional developments will be reviewed.

7 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

In the Original Application No. 151/2023 pertaining to illegal mining in Jammu and Kashmir, an Interlocutory Application I.A. No. 628/2024 was filed. Hearing on the matter the bench of Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member allowed the withdrawal of the IA with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

The applicant was seeking penal action under Section 26 of the NGT Act, 2010 for non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders. 

However, counsel for the applicant, Prakash Pandey, sought withdrawal of the application, citing that offenses under Section 26 of the NGT Act are triable only before a Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate First Class. The Tribunal on 5th December 2024 allowed the withdrawal with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

Notable that in the judgment pronounced on 4th September 2024, the Tribunal directed the cessation and relocation of industrial units operated by Dewan Stone Crusher and Shahzad Shubnum Contractor in Chaktroo village, Tehsil Haveli, District Poonch, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. The Tribunal also imposed an interim environmental compensation of ₹7.2 lakh on the violators for their failure to adhere to environmental laws and norms.

The case, brought by Hassina Wajid, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Chaktroo, alleged rampant illegal mining, unregulated operations of stone crushers, and gross violations of environmental regulations by respondents 6, 7, and 8 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, and the Jammu and Kashmir (Stone Crushers/Hot and Wet Mixing Plants Regulation) Rules, 2021.

The Original Application No. 151/2023 highlighted several violations by Dewan Stone Crusher, Shahzad Shubnum Contractor, Shahzad Shabnam-respondents 6, 7, and 8, including:

1. Illegal Mining: Extraction of raw materials from river beds for stone crushers and hot mix plants without obtaining necessary permissions.

2. Proximity to Residential Areas: Industrial units were established within 100–200 meters of residential zones and agricultural lands, despite a mandatory 500-meter buffer zone.

3. Non-Compliance with Regulations: The units operated without obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Deputy Commissioner for land title verification, as required under the Jammu and Kashmir (Stone Crushers/Hot and Wet Mixing Plants Regulation) Rules, 2021. 

4. Environmental and Health Impacts: The units lacked dust suppression mechanisms, green belt development, and proper waste management systems. Continuous operations caused severe air, water, and noise pollution, resulting in respiratory diseases, skin ailments, and contamination of the Mandi Nalla water body.

5. Encroachment and Destruction: The industrial units allegedly encroached upon agricultural lands, destroyed irrigation canals, and blocked traditional pathways used by villagers to access their fields.

Despite repeated complaints by the Sarpanch and villagers to the Jammu and Kashmir Pollution Control Committee (JKPCC), no effective action was taken, compelling the applicant to approach the Tribunal under Sections 14, 15, and 18 of the NGT Act, 2010.

The judgment, pronounced by Justice Sudhir Agarwal (Judicial Member) and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member), included the following directives:

• Immediate Halt and Relocation: Respondents 6 and 7 must cease operations and relocate their industrial units to sites compliant with siting norms within two months. 

• Environmental Compensation: An interim compensation of ₹7,20,000/- must be deposited by respondent 6 (owned by respondent 8) with the JKPCC within one month. 

• Assessment of Final Compensation: JKPCC was instructed to conduct a detailed assessment of the environmental damage and determine the final compensation amount within two months after hearing all stakeholders. 

• Utilization of Compensation: Funds collected as compensation must be used for environmental restoration in the affected area through an Environment Rejuvenation Plan. The plan will be prepared and executed by a joint committee comprising the District Magistrate, Poonch, JKPCC, and CPCB, with JKPCC as the nodal agency. 

• Operational Restrictions: The units must not operate at their current sites until they comply with relocation directives. 

• Compliance Reporting: JKPCC was directed to submit a compliance report to the Registrar General of the Tribunal by 15th February 2025.

The compliance report due in February 2025 will provide further clarity on the implementation of the Tribunal’s directions and the environmental impact of corrective measures.

4 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

Recently, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) held hearings on two suo moto cases from Jammu and Kashmir, highlighting critical environmental challenges. One concerns the severe pollution of water bodies in Bhadarwah Valley, including the sacred Neel Ganga River, while the other focuses on the alarming decline of Dal Lake due to sewage, urbanization, and plastic waste. Both cases underscore the pressing need for corrective measures to protect these vital ecosystems and the communities dependent on them. 

Original Application No. 178/2024 pertains to a news item titled "Increasing pollution badly affecting water bodies in Bhadarwah," published in Greater Kashmir on 15th January 2024. The article highlights that the growing population near water bodies and the absence of a proper sewerage system are severely impacting the water bodies in Bhadarwah Valley. It mentions that sacred water bodies, including the Neel Ganga (Neeru) River, are being polluted by human waste from hundreds of washrooms and non-biodegradable materials. Four streams—Puneja Nallah, Halian, Haloon, and Hanga—along with the Neel Ganga River, which were once sources of potable water, are now dangerously polluted. Environmentalists have raised concerns, warning that if immediate corrective measures are not taken, the situation could escalate into a severe crisis, with water pollution already reaching critical levels. The pollution has disrupted the aquatic ecosystem, adversely affecting aquatic life and posing significant health hazards to humans. The news item also underscores the need to ensure compliance with environmental norms and the proper implementation of scheduled enactments.

In a hearing conducted on 2nd December 2024, the NGT was informed that the Jammu and Kashmir Pollution Control Committee (J&KPCC) had recovered environmental compensation amounting to ₹11.55 lakh. Additionally, the District Magistrate, Doda, clarified that while the Neeru River is identified as a river, it has been recorded as a nallah in the Urdu revenue records. On 21st August 2024, the Tribunal noted its ongoing examination of issues regarding water body pollution, including the Neel Ganga River, caused by inadequate sewage systems and waste disposal practices. Earlier, on 8th May 2024, the Tribunal had addressed contradictory claims by the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, and the J&KPCC regarding whether Neeru was a nallah or a river. On 28th February 2024, the Tribunal directed the District Magistrate to submit a report with a time-bound action plan for remediation. Despite extensions, the report was delayed, leading to the acceptance of further time requests for submission.

Original Application No. 504/2024 is based on a news item titled "The Drowning Jewel: Tapestry of Dal Lake’s Decline and Fishing Community’s Struggle in Kashmir," published in The Wire on 1st March 2024. This matter was also heard on 2nd December 2024, during which the Member Secretary of the J&KPCC sought one month's time to submit a report from the Joint Committee. The news item sheds light on the deteriorating condition of Dal Lake due to municipal sewage, urbanization, and pollution, which have significantly impacted the lives of the Hanji community living on houseboats. It reveals that the lake is overwhelmed by plastic waste, garbage, and untreated sewage, leading to the destruction of aquatic life. Fish populations have declined, and lotus stem cultivation has ceased due to pollution. At one time, the lake water was potable, but now it is unfit even for basic use. The article also criticizes the under-maintained sewage treatment plants (STPs), noting that 70% of Srinagar's sewage flows into the lake. Furthermore, the surge in tourism and the Smart City project launched in 2019 have exacerbated the pollution. The situation has adversely affected the livelihood of the Hanji people, particularly those dependent on fishing.

Both matters are listed for further consideration on 25th March 2025.

4 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has expressed severe displeasure over the continued non-compliance with its orders regarding the restoration of a water body in Silokhra village, Sector 41, Gurugram, Haryana. The Tribunal, in its hearing on 2nd December 2024, termed the conduct of Haryana authorities, including Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and Gurugram Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA), as a blatant defiance of its directives, warning of stringent action under the NGT Act, 2010.

Background and Orders

The case pertains to Original Application No. 391/2022, where Brigadier Paramjit Singh and others sought the restoration of a water body designated as a pond. In its judgment dated 17th March 2023, the NGT directed the authorities to restore the pond within a year. The project was to include pathways, indigenous tree plantations, solar-powered devices, and other ecological enhancements to make the water body operational. HSVP was tasked with reporting compliance in October 2023 and April 2024, failing which the responsible officers were mandated to appear before the Tribunal.

Despite repeated warnings, reports filed revealed persistent delays. Even after extending the deadline to 2nd November 2024, the work remains incomplete.

Defiance of Tribunal’s Directives

The GMDA admitted to making unauthorized changes to the restoration plan. It cited "technical requirements" and environmental considerations, such as preserving 15 existing trees, as reasons for altering the design. The GMDA opted to create two smaller ponds totaling 6,783 sq. meters, exceeding the original pond area of 6,130 sq. meters, without seeking the Tribunal’s approval.

NGT had previously reprimanded the authorities on 3rd May 2024 for deviating from the approved designs without permission. The Tribunal warned that such unauthorized alterations rendered the compliance incomplete and liable for legal consequences under Sections 25 and 26 of the NGT Act, including arrest and detention of violators.

Current Status

In its latest report, GMDA stated that while excavation of two ponds and plantation work were completed, installations such as solar lights, fencing, and benches were still pending and would require another three months. The Tribunal dismissed the repeated delays and requests for retrospective approval of design changes, emphasizing that adherence to its original directions was mandatory.

Implications and Next Steps

The NGT has reserved its right to initiate prosecution for non-compliance, ordering responsible officers, including the Chief Administrator of HSVP and CEO of GMDA, to execute the project per the original approved plan. The Tribunal has granted no further extensions and insisted that no deviation from the mandated blueprint will be tolerated.

4 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

An interesting case has been brought before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member, and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member. Neighboring industries have accused each other of causing environmental harm and are seeking justice through the Tribunal.

The Bench conducted a hearing on Original Application No. 1336/2024, filed by Taj Forging Pvt. Ltd., a forging and machining unit operating in IMT Faridabad, against the Haryana State Pollution Control Board (HSPCB) and others. The application sought to quash a second show-cause notice issued by HSPCB on 5th November 2024.

Taj Forging Pvt. Ltd. filed the application under Sections 14 and 15 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. The application alleged that the HSPCB's notice was arbitrary, illegal, and issued under political pressure. It also requested an interim stay on the notice and the maintenance of the status quo.

The dispute originated from a complaint filed on 16th October 2023 by Poly Medicure Ltd., a neighboring unit engaged in manufacturing medical devices. Poly Medicure alleged that Taj Forging was causing noise pollution, structural vibrations, and damages, including cracks and seepage, to its building. This issue was initially raised in Original Application No. 221/2024, where the NGT directed the HSPCB to investigate and submit an action-taken report by 5th March 2024.

Following inspections conducted on 30th April 2024, the HSPCB issued its first show-cause notice on 16th May 2024. Taj Forging responded on 29th May 2024; however, without addressing the reply, the HSPCB conducted another inspection on 5th September 2024. This inspection led to the issuance of a second show-cause notice on 5th November 2024, threatening closure orders.

Taj Forging contended that:

1. The allegations of noise pollution and rule violations under the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 were baseless.

2. The second notice was issued maliciously under political influence, intending to destabilize their operations and facilitate the acquisition of their premises for expansion purposes.

3. The company never breached the permissible noise levels as stipulated by Rule 7 of the Noise Pollution Rules.

The applicant's counsel emphasized procedural lapses by HSPCB, including the failure to consider the reply to the first notice and the issuance of the second notice without adhering to proper legal procedures.

The Tribunal noted that the case raised significant environmental questions concerning compliance with the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981, the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, and the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. Poly Medicure Ltd. was listed as Respondent No. 3 in the case.

Pending further deliberations, the Tribunal directed that no coercive action be taken against Taj Forging based on the 5th November 2024 notice. However, the company was instructed to ensure compliance with environmental norms and noise control regulations.

The case has been scheduled for further consideration on 6th February 2025, giving the respondents time to file their replies.

4 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, in a recent hearing held on 3rd December 2024, reviewed a series of original applications and interim applications related to the disposal and management of fly ash. The cases involve the Amaravati Fly Ash Bricks Manufacturers Association, the Tamil Nadu Fly Ash Bricks and Blocks Manufacturers Association, and the Union of India. These applications seek to address the adverse environmental impact caused by improper handling and disposal of fly ash, a byproduct of thermal power plants.

The following cases were presented during the hearing:

• Original Application No. 327/2022 (Amaravati Fly Ash Bricks Manufacturers Association v. Union of India)

• Original Application No. 878/2022 (Tamil Nadu Fly Ash Bricks and Blocks Manufacturers Association v. Union of India)

• Original Application No. 661/2024 (Tamil Nadu Fly Ash Bricks and Blocks Manufacturers Association v. Union of India)

Key Issues Raised:

1. Amaravati Fly Ash Bricks Manufacturers Association (O.A No. 327/2022): The association has filed a petition seeking various reliefs against the practices of thermal power plants concerning fly ash management. The applicant has requested the cancellation of certain office orders from the Ministry of Power (dated 22nd February 2022 and 16th March 2022) which they claim exacerbate the issue of fly ash disposal. Specifically, the association is asking the Tribunal to direct the government to prohibit the dumping of fly ash into pond ash, arguing that it leads to soil contamination and significant environmental pollution, including groundwater and air contamination.

2. Fly Ash Utilization and Transparency: The applicant has also sought directions for the establishment of fly ash depots at Urban Growth Centers. This would ensure that fly ash is readily available for use by the brick manufacturing industry, thereby promoting the 100% utilization of fly ash and contributing to cost savings for thermal power plants. The association claims that the Ministry of Power’s advisory order, which mandates the use of a transparent bidding process for the sale of fly ash, is counterproductive to achieving this goal.

3. Environmental Violations and Misreporting: The Amaravati association alleges that thermal power plants are falsely reporting 100% utilization of fly ash. They argue that power plants are including fly ash used for non-commercial purposes, such as bund formation, in their reported statistics. Furthermore, the association claims that power plants convert surplus fly ash into slurry, which incurs high operational costs related to pumping, water usage, and maintenance of ash ponds.

Tribunal’s Orders:

• Submission of Further Details: The Union of India, represented by Solicitor General K.M. Natraj, informed the Tribunal of subsequent developments in the case. The Tribunal has granted the Union ten additional days to submit an affidavit detailing subsequent notifications and facts pertaining to the case.

• Next Hearing Date: The case is scheduled for a follow-up hearing on 16th December 2024.

• Notice to Respondents: The Tribunal issued notices to the respondents in Original Application No. 327/2022 and Interim Application No. 110/2022, directing them to file responses to all material points raised in the application within two months. The applicants have also been directed to submit their affidavit regarding the service of notices to the respondents.

• Environmental Impact Considerations: The Tribunal observed that the issues raised in the application involve substantial environmental concerns related to the handling and disposal of fly ash. These concerns include the potential violation of environmental norms, notifications, and statutory regulations.

Previous Hearings:

Earlier hearings have focused on similar issues, including a previous case on 10th May 2022, when the NGT heard a petition from the Tamil Nadu Fly Ash Bricks and Blocks Manufacturers Association, which raised concerns regarding the inefficiencies in fly ash distribution and its environmental impact.

3 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken the bull by the horns, addressing pressing concerns over unauthorized industrial effluent discharge in Haryana's Rewari District. According to a recent submission before the NGT, the Public Health Engineering Department (PHED), Rewari, submitted its affidavit and compliance report regarding Original Application No. 627 of 2022 and I.A. No. 858/2023. This was in response to findings from the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) dated 18th October 2024.

Operational Challenges at STPs:

PHED highlighted both the hurdles, and the strides made to ensure compliance across its five sewage treatment plants (STPs):

1. Operational Status: All five STPs, located in Rewari, Bawal, and Dharuhera towns, are functional. The Kaluwas STP in Rewari is undergoing a significant upgrade, transitioning from a 6.5 MLD plant using Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) technology to a 10 MLD plant employing the more efficient Sequencing Batch Reactor (SBR) technology.

2. Effluent Disposal: Treated effluent from four STPs is discharged into the Massani Barrage, while the 3 MLD STP at Bawal diverts its effluent to Gram Panchayat land in Pawti village, steering clear of the barrage.

3. Enhanced Chlorination Measures: PHED has gone the extra mile by installing additional chlorination units at all STPs to ensure harmful bacteria are eradicated before final effluent discharge.

4. Compliance Check: Independent analysis by Jamia Millia Islamia University, New Delhi, revealed that four out of five STPs comply with the Haryana State Pollution Control Board's (HSPCB) standards. The Kaluwas STP, built under earlier design standards, also meets the older applicable benchmarks.

Industrial Effluents Throw a Wrench in STP Operations:

The CPCB report painted a grim picture of untreated industrial effluent entering domestic sewage systems. PHED underscored this challenge, revealing dangerously high levels of chemical oxygen demand (COD) and biological oxygen demand (BOD) in the raw sewage entering STPs.

• Startling Findings: On 10th September 2024, CPCB samples reported COD levels nine times and BOD levels eight times above the standard limits. Composite samples collected by Jamia Millia Islamia University in late October corroborated these alarming figures, showing industrial effluents as the culprit.

• Operational Impact: The blending of untreated industrial waste with domestic sewage undermines the sustainability and efficiency of STPs, making it nearly impossible for them to meet prescribed standards.

Industrial Violations Uncovered:

The PHED identified 169 industrial units near domestic sewage networks in Rewari, Bawal, and Dharuhera as the primary offenders. These units are alleged to release untreated effluents, often during early morning or late-night hours, conveniently evading regulatory monitoring.

PHED's Plea to the NGT:

In its affidavit, the PHED urged the tribunal to take decisive action, calling for:

• Notices to Violators: HSPCB should issue notices to the 169 erring industrial units for unauthorized effluent discharge.

• Enhanced Oversight: Mandating stricter monitoring and enforcement by HSPCB to prevent industrial waste from entering domestic sewerage networks.

• Legal Recourse: Strong legal action against habitual offenders to set a precedent for compliance.

This case has also shed light on long-standing differences between the PHED and HSPCB. While activists and concerned individuals have often raised the alarm over industrial pollution in the Dharuhera and Rewari regions, the HSPCB has frequently turned a blind eye, drawing criticism for its laxity.

This saga is a wake-up call for regulators to get their act together. The NGT's intervention may finally force HSPCB to stop paying lip service and take its responsibilities seriously. If the tribunal plays its cards right, it could herald a new chapter of accountability and environmental governance in Rewari. 

3 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) began public hearings on 2nd December 2024, focusing on the legal responsibilities of states in addressing climate change. These proceedings are expected to set a record for oral statements and are part of a process leading to the court’s advisory opinion. This opinion will clarify states’ obligations under international law to protect the environment and outline the consequences for failing to meet these responsibilities. The hearings will continue until 13th December 2024 in The Hague, Netherlands.

These proceedings aim to provide clarity on the legal framework surrounding climate change. Specifically, the ICJ has been asked to address two key questions:

1. What are the legal duties of states under international law to mitigate climate change and safeguard the environment for current and future generations?

2. What legal consequences arise for states that, through action or inaction, have caused substantial harm to the environment, especially in relation to vulnerable groups like small island developing states and future generations?

The case originated from the Pacific Island nation of Vanuatu, which, in September 2021, sought the ICJ's opinion to address the vulnerabilities of small island states to climate change. The initiative, driven by the youth-led Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, gained traction globally. After extensive lobbying, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/77/276 on 29th March 2023, supported by 132 countries. The resolution cited foundational legal instruments, including the UN Charter, Paris Agreement, and various international conventions, emphasizing the duty to prevent significant harm to the environment.

Advisory opinions can only be requested by specific UN organs and agencies. The General Assembly transmitted this request to the ICJ in April 2023. Advisory opinions are non-binding but hold significant moral and legal authority, influencing national and international law. After written statements and comments from participating states and organizations, the ICJ decided to hold oral hearings, allowing parties to elaborate on their submissions.

This case is unprecedented in scope, with 91 written statements and 62 additional comments submitted by the extended deadline of 15th August 2024. Ninety-seven states and eleven international organizations are participating in oral proceedings. The hearings are particularly significant for small island developing states, which are among the most vulnerable to climate change.

The hearings come amid criticism of the recent COP29 agreement to provide $300 billion annually in climate finance by 2035, which developing nations deemed insufficient. Representatives from vulnerable states have highlighted their urgent need for stronger international support.

While the ICJ's advisory opinions do not impose binding obligations, they carry substantial influence. They may shape international climate policy, inform domestic and international litigation, and bolster accountability for climate action. UN Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized that the ICJ’s opinion could guide states toward decisive climate action, serving as a critical step in addressing the global climate crisis.

3 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant decision, the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Principal Bench, has imposed a compensation of ₹20 lakh on the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) for its failure to address the environmental hazards posed by an overflowing garbage receptacle near the Akhil Bhartiya Netrahin Sangh School in Raghubir Nagar, West Delhi. The order was passed following a suo motu action based on a news article in the Millennium Post dated 30th April 2024, which highlighted the deplorable living conditions faced by the visually impaired students due to the proximity of the garbage dump and open sewage holes.

The bench, comprising Justice Prakash Shrivastava (Chairperson), Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, and Dr. Afroz Ahmad (Expert Member), concluded that the MCD's negligence had caused serious environmental damage and health risks to the students. The school, operational since 1971, has been offering free education and accommodation to visually impaired children. However, for decades, it has faced the severe challenge of managing the repercussions of the adjacent garbage receptacle.

The tribunal observed that the overflowing garbage, combined with open sewage holes, had rendered the area surrounding the school unhygienic and hazardous. The issue gained attention after the Millennium Post article detailed the plight of the students. The report revealed that the garbage overflow had reached the school's dining hall, where students shared meals, posing a direct health threat. It also noted that the dump had attracted stray animals such as dogs and cows, further compounding the unsanitary conditions.

Parents voiced grave concerns about the safety and well-being of the students, citing instances where children fell into open sewage drains, leading to severe injuries. The visually impaired students, who already face significant challenges, expressed feelings of suffocation and entrapment due to the environmental hazards. The article quoted a student saying, "The sewage overflow and the garbage dump has trapped us inside, suffocating us. Just because we are visually impaired, don’t we deserve the chance to experience the world beyond these walls?"

In its initial order dated 31st May 2024, the NGT had taken cognizance of the matter and issued notices to the respondents. Reports subsequently submitted by the Delhi Pollution Control Committee (DPCC) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) corroborated the allegations made in the news article. An inspection conducted by DPCC officials on 12th September 2024 revealed that the garbage receptacle, known as dhalao D-5, had been operational for over three decades and was in a deplorable state. The reports described garbage spilling onto the roads, pooling of water near the school’s gates, and foul odors emanating from the area. Flies and other insects infested the vicinity, creating an uninhabitable environment for the students.

The tribunal also noted that the dhalao violated the Solid Waste Management (SWM) Rules, 2016. It highlighted the lack of proper waste collection and processing, particularly from nearby butcher shops and meat markets, which further aggravated the situation. The tribunal expressed its dismay at the MCD’s inaction despite previous directions in similar cases, such as the Neel Mani vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (2023) and Anubhav vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (2021), which had called for the closure of such garbage receptacles in residential areas.

During the proceedings, the MCD filed a report on 19th September 2024, stating that steps were being taken to close the dhalao and that a Fixed Compactor Transfer Station (FCTS) was under construction approximately 200 meters away. However, the tribunal found this response inadequate, noting that no timeline had been provided for the closure of the existing dhalao, nor had any immediate measures been taken to alleviate the current situation.

The bench emphasized that the visually impaired students also have fundamental rights to live in pollution free atmosphere. Taking advantage of their disability, no authority is entitled to infringe that right and dump the garbage near their educational institution.  It condemned the MCD for violating this right through years of negligence and inaction. Citing the “Polluter Pays” principle, the tribunal referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India (1996), which upheld the accountability of polluters in environmental matters.

In light of the findings, the tribunal imposed a compensation of ₹20 lakh on the MCD. It directed that the amount be paid to the Akhil Bhartiya Netrahin Sangh School within one month. The tribunal stipulated that the funds be utilized to improve the school’s environmental conditions and provide necessary health and other facilities for the students affected by the pollution.

Additionally, the NGT ordered the immediate closure of dhalao D-5 and directed the MCD to secure all open sewage holes and potholes in the vicinity of the school. The DPCC was instructed to monitor compliance and take stringent action against any further violations, including imposing environmental compensation if necessary.

The tribunal expressed grave concern over the decades-long environmental harm suffered by the students, emphasizing that such negligence undermines the fundamental principles of environmental justice. It further directed the MCD and DPCC to submit a compliance report within three months, warning of additional penalties in case of continued non-compliance. Order

3 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, in Original Application No. 225/2024/EZ, has issued notices to the State of Odisha and other respondents, including private entity Rajbir Construction Pvt. Ltd., Jharkhand, for alleged encroachment of the Luna Riverbed in Odisha's Kendrapada District. The case was brought forth by the applicant, Alaya Samantaray, represented by acclaimed Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, alleging severe environmental violations and unauthorized constructions impacting the riverine ecosystem.

Allegations of Encroachment and Environmental Violations:

The applicant accused Rajbir Construction Pvt. Ltd., the contractor for a 21-km stretch of National Highway 53 (formerly NH 5A), of illegally:

• Constructing site camps, batching plants, concrete structures, and asbestos roof. 

• Extracting and dumping minor minerals, such as sand and stone aggregates, from the Luna Riverbed.

• Storing construction materials on Plot No. 705/861 of Khata No. 330 (18.74 acres) and Plot No. 333 of Khata No. 333 (21.6 acres), designated as floodplain and public property.

Lack of Approvals: The applicant presented evidence from the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB) as the respondent had neither obtained a Consent to Establish (CTE) nor a Consent to Operate (CTO) for the site. Furthermore, there was no record of permissions granted by the Tahasildar, Marshaghai, or the Water Resources Department for the encroachment.

Legal References: The applicant cited several legal precedents and constitutional provisions to support their case:

1. Association for Environment Protection v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2013): The Supreme Court of India directed the demolition of a structure raised by reclaiming the river for establishing a restaurant as part of the renovation and beautification of Manalpuram Park in Aluva.

2. OA No. 22 of 2020 in NGT Eastern Zone Bench: In its order dated 15th December 2020, the NGT directed the removal of the Panchmukhi Hanuman Temple constructed illegally on the embankment of the Mahanadi River. The order was upheld by the Supreme Court of India.

3. Article 48A of the Constitution of India: Imposes an obligation on the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife.

4. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath (1997): Affirming that water flow cannot be obstructed for commercial construction, with the State acting as a trustee of the environment.

5. Vellore Citizens Forum (1996): Emphasizing sustainable development as a part of Indian common law.

6. Mantri Techzone Pvt. Ltd. v. Forward Foundation (2019): Highlighting restrictions on constructions in buffer zones to protect the environment.

7. Article 51A(g): Enumerates the fundamental duty of citizens to protect the natural environment, including rivers, forests, and wildlife, reflecting the ethos of sustainable development.

Tribunal’s Observations: Acknowledging the gravity of the allegations, the Tribunal Bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, noted:

1. The potential ecological damage to the Luna River and surrounding areas.

2. The urgent need to ensure the river’s free flow and the removal of unauthorized structures.

The Tribunal issued notices to all respondents, including State Respondents, Odisha State Pollution Control Board, State Environment Impact Assessment Authority, Rajbir Construction Pvt. Ltd. Notice returnable within four weeks.

The Tribunal directed all respondents to file counter-affidavits within four weeks and scheduled the next hearing for 27th January 2025. 

2 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued an order for a thorough investigation into alleged environmental violations in the East Kolkata Wetland Conservation area, specifically in Nazirabad village, South 24 Parganas, West Bengal. The case, filed as Original Application No.221/2024/EZ, was heard today by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member.

The application was initiated by Captain Partho Bhowmik, a resident, through a letter petition dated September 1, 2024. The applicant has requested urgent intervention to save Nazirabad village, which lies within the East Kolkata Wetland Conservation area. The petition claims that unauthorized construction activities pose significant threats to the wetlands.

Bhowmik’s complaint focuses on several developments in the area, including the construction of concrete and metal hangers, private telephone towers, and cold storage facilities. These activities are reportedly taking place in the ecologically sensitive Karimpur Mouja (Sonarpur Block), an area known for its fishery lands. Bhowmik alleges that the land has been altered from fisheries to agricultural land (Shali land) by dumping debris, which is causing irreversible damage to the wetland ecosystem.

The allegations highlight a series of destructive activities near Nazirabad village, particularly around Kheyadha-2 Gram Panchayat (GP), Sonarpur Block, and surrounding areas such as Karimpur Mouja, JL-2, and RS Dag numbers. These activities include the ongoing construction of metal hangers, installation of private telephone towers, the development of cold storage facilities on land once used for fisheries, and the illegal dumping of old building debris, which has led to land reclamation and the transformation of water bodies into solid land.

The applicant raised concerns that these actions are violating the ecological integrity of the East Kolkata Wetlands, which are vital for environmental conservation, biodiversity, and local livelihoods.

In response to the petition, the NGT issued several key directions aimed at addressing the allegations and ensuring immediate action:

• Notice to Respondents: The Tribunal directed notices to various authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB), Department of Environment and Forest, Government of West Bengal, and the East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority. Other respondents include the Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality and the District Magistrate of South 24 Parganas.

• Constitution of a Fact-Finding Committee: The Tribunal has formed a Fact-Finding Committee to investigate the allegations and submit a detailed report. The committee will consist of representatives from the WBPCB, East Kolkata Wetlands Management Authority, Rajpur-Sonarpur Municipality, and the District Magistrate’s office. The committee is tasked with visiting the site, assessing the environmental violations, and evaluating the impact on the wetlands.

• Timeline for Action: The committee is required to submit its report within four weeks, with the District Magistrate appointed as the nodal authority for logistics and the submission of the report. If violations are confirmed, the NGT has directed that action be taken against the violators according to environmental laws. Additionally, all respondents must file counter-affidavits within four weeks in response to the allegations.

The NGT has scheduled the next hearing for January 27, 2025, to review the progress of the investigation and take further necessary actions.

This case is significant as it highlights ongoing threats to one of Kolkata’s most important ecological assets – the East Kolkata Wetlands. Recognized as a Ramsar Site, these wetlands are crucial for water purification, biodiversity, and flood control. They also support local communities by providing fishery resources and play a key role in the city’s ecosystem services.

1 December 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

This is not about pushpa the rise, iqoo 13, kash patel or any term trending now.  As many Indian cities and their residents live in communities often managed by Residents' Welfare Associations, this news report holds significant relevance for many.  

The Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Kolkata, presided over by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, held a hearing on 26th November 2024 in the case Z1 Residents' Welfare Association vs. Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board & Anr. The appeal was filed against an order issued by the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), which imposed environmental compensation of ₹2.23 crore on the Z1 Residents' Welfare Association (Z1RWA) for alleged violations of sewage treatment plant (STP) norms and Consent to Operate (CTO) conditions.

Background of the Case: Z1RWA, an association representing 444 flat owners, argued that the OSPCB’s order, dated 4th July 2024, was unjust and flawed. The compensation was levied on the grounds of environmental damage caused by the improper functioning of the housing society’s STP. The association contended that such penalties are typically levied against project proponents or developers holding environmental clearances and CTOs, not against residents' associations that inherited the facilities "as-is."

The appeal raised several critical objections:

Misattribution of Responsibility: Z1RWA argued that the liability for any STP malfunction lies with the project developer who originally obtained environmental clearances and CTOs. The association assumed control of the STP’s maintenance under an “as-is-where-is” basis, inheriting all faults and deficiencies.

No Environmental Damage: The association maintained that the treated water from the STP is exclusively used for gardening within the society premises and is not discharged into public sewers, drains, or water bodies. It asserted that no harm to the environment had occurred, negating the criteria for environmental compensation as per CPCB’s 2019 guidelines.

Flawed Application of Guidelines: The association claimed the OSPCB failed to assess whether CPCB’s guidelines were applicable in this case. The computation of environmental compensation was described as mechanical, lacking independent analysis or evidence of environmental damage.

Improper Notice and Denial of Fair Hearing: Z1RWA alleged that the OSPCB’s notice lacked clarity on how the association caused environmental harm. Additionally, objections raised by the association and requests for further information were ignored, depriving them of a fair opportunity to defend their case.

Developer’s Accountability: The association emphasized that ongoing maintenance of the STP is still managed by an agency contracted by the project developer, and liabilities related to deficiencies in waste management and STP efficiency remain with the developer.

Acknowledging the concerns raised, the Tribunal deemed the matter to require consideration. Notices were issued to the respondents, including the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, directing them to submit their counter affidavits within four weeks. The tribunal set the next hearing date for 24th January 2025.

The Tribunal’s order underlines its focus on balancing environmental accountability with procedural fairness, ensuring that penalties are levied on appropriate parties based on clear evidence of violations.

This case highlights ongoing challenges in defining environmental accountability when control of infrastructure like STPs transitions from developers to resident associations, especially in urban housing projects. The outcome could set a precedent for similar disputes across the country.

29 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Eastern Zone Bench of the Apex Green Court of India deliberated on Original Application No. 100/2024/EZ, filed by Sanjib Dhal and others against the State of Odisha and associated parties, during a scheduled hearing on 28th November 2024. Presiding over the session were Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member.

This critical case focuses on serious environmental violations in Odisha, particularly lapses in compliance by regulatory authorities.

Tribunal Slams SEIAA, Odisha for Non-Compliance

During the hearing, the Tribunal reviewed an affidavit submitted by the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha, dated 27th November 2024. The Tribunal expressed grave dissatisfaction with SEIAA's failure to address violations detailed in the Tribunal's order dated 27th September 2024.

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) noted that, despite clear directives to take action on breaches linked to Respondent No. 13, SEIAA's affidavit was notably silent on compliance measures. The Tribunal's concern was compounded by the apparent lack of accountability and transparency on the part of SEIAA, a body tasked with ensuring adherence to environmental laws.

Notably, SEIAA, in its affidavit dated 24th September 2024, admitted to issuing Environmental Clearance (EC) to Ajit Sahu, the lessee and successful bidder, for stone extraction at Tolarpasi Road Metal Quarry. The clearance covered an area of 12.25 acres (4.957 hectares) in Village Tolarpasi, Gondia Tahasil, Dhenkanal District, permitting annual extraction of up to 20,034 cubic meters of stone material, with a total of 100,166 cubic meters over the five-year lease period. However, the same affidavit also revealed that the project proponent/lessee had not submitted any six-monthly or half-yearly compliance reports on post-environmental monitoring, as required under the stipulated terms and conditions of the Environmental Clearance. This glaring omission constitutes a breach of environmental regulations, raising serious concerns over post-clearance environmental monitoring.

The Tribunal has made it abundantly clear that non-compliance with environmental laws and orders will not be tolerated. It directed SEIAA to ensure proper accountability and transparency moving forward. The Tribunal has now granted SEIAA an additional four weeks to submit a comprehensive counter-affidavit. However, it issued a stern warning: failure to comply with this directive will result in a penalty of ₹2,500 imposed on the Member Secretary of SEIAA, Odisha.

The next hearing is scheduled for 31st January 2025, with all parties expected to have filed their submissions by then.

The Applicant's Counsel and eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani has said that the Tribunal’s firm stance underscores the pressing need for stricter enforcement of environmental laws and the prioritization of accountability to safeguard ecological interests.

25 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

Hearing on the Interlocutory Applications in Original Application No. 17/2022 (IA No. 489/2024, IA No. 260/2024) in the matter of Dr. D.S. Katara & Anr. Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi was held on 22.11.2024. The Coram of Justice Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, and Dr. Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member, in the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, noted that A.D.N. Rao, Senior Advocate appearing for DJB, stated that he intends to shift excess sewage to the under-utilized STP E-1, for which land should be allocated by DDA. However, DDA has not done so. He further stated that the source of pollution is mainly due to inaction on the part of DDA, and therefore, DDA must coordinate for the proper functioning of the system and the prevention of pollution in this matter.

Counsel appearing for DDA, however, stated that the development of the unauthorized colony is not on DDA land, but there is no record to support this claim. The NGT found that it is also unclear why, despite the amount of ₹21,90,99,342/- having been deposited by DJB to DDA, the land has not been transferred to DJB for taking necessary steps to prevent pollution. The Tribunal further questioned why people should suffer due to the fact that DJB has not paid the outstanding amount.

The NGT observed that both authorities seem to be more focused on their financial matters rather than on protecting the environment, leaving the public to endure the ongoing water pollution. The Tribunal ordered that an affidavit detailing the steps taken by DDA for pollution prevention, as well as clarifying the source of pollution, be filed within a week. The matter is scheduled to be heard again on 09.12.2024.

When people are busy searching robin minz, tim david, faf du plessis ipl 2025, it is important to note that the grievance originated from an application by Dr. D.S. Katara, the President of the Resident Welfare Association, Sector E-2, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi. Dr. Katara raised voice regarding health hazards caused by a stagnant open drain on the northern side of the DDA Legal Housing Complex Society wall in Sector E-2, Vasant Kunj. It was submitted that the stinking drain water and sewage have been seeping through the boundary wall into the society, originating from a drain running between the unauthorized colony of Mahipalpur and the northern boundary of the society. The dwellers of the unauthorized colony have erected walls, constructed multi-storied houses, and obstructed the drain by dumping all kinds of garbage. Additionally, some factories operating near the boundary wall have been discharging effluents into this drain.

25 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

Today, chess, world chess championship 2024, gukesh vs ding, world chess championship has been trending, drawing significant attention. Interestingly, though not currently trending, the game for environmental justice holds equal importance.The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Western Zone Bench has disposed of Appeal No. 163 of 2024 (WZ) in the matter of Mahuva Bandhara Khetivadi Paryavaran Bachav Samiti & Ors. Versus Nirma Cement Ltd. & Ors. During the hearing on 19.11.2024, the NGT Bench, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member, and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member, found that the appellants had challenged the three Environmental Clearances (ECs) granted to Nirma Cement Ltd. by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) on 16.09.2024. The appellants argued that the approval process was inappropriate and impermissible.

The NGT's order states that, after considering the defects raised by the Registry, the appellants’ counsel expressed a willingness to correct the issues and separate the three ECs into individual appeals. However, the Tribunal found no possibility for amendment and granted the appellants permission to withdraw the current appeal, with the liberty to file three separate appeals instead.

Additionally, the appellants’ counsel requested that the three separate appeals, to be filed within the prescribed time limits, be considered timely, even if the filing period exceeds 30 days, as the current appeal was filed within 30 days from the issuance of the ECs. This request was granted by the Tribunal.

The appeal is therefore disposed of as withdrawn, with the liberty to file separate appeals as outlined.

Though, the NGT Order does not specify the details of EC except the date, it is noteworthy that in the 32nd meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) of MoEF&CC, held on 12th and 13th August 2024 under the Chairmanship of Dr. Dinesh Misra, IFS (Retd.), the proposals by Nirma Ltd. for mining limestone in Bhavnagar District, Gujarat, were approved. The approved projects include:

• The Padhiarka and Doliya Limestone Mine, located in Villages Padhiarka and Doliya, with a production capacity of 1.5 MTPA over a mine lease area of 332.24 hectares.

• The Dudher and Dudhala Limestone Mine, located in Villages Gujarda, Dudheri, and Dudhala, with a production capacity of 2.7 MTPA over a mine lease area of 681.62 hectares.

• The Vangar and Madhiya Limestone Mine, located in Villages Vangar and Madhiya, with a production capacity of 1.6 MTPA over a mine lease area of 612.1336 hectares.

All of these mines are situated in Tehsil Mahuva, Bhavnagar District, Gujarat.

The EAC also noted that Nirma Ltd. had obtained vetting from the Salim Ali Centre for Ornithology and Natural History (SACON), Coimbatore, for its report on the "Study of Probable Impact of Mining on Migratory Bird Species and Their Flyway Passage (Central Asian Flyway)." The EAC recommended that Nirma Ltd. implement site-specific mitigation measures under SACON's supervision to minimize the effects of mining on migratory species and submit an annual action report to the Ministry.

Enviro Annotations covered this development in its 4th September 2024 issue under the title "Nirma Limited Gets EAC Nod for 3 Limestone Mines; Proposals of OMC, SAIL, Hansdeep Industries, Morayoor Granites Deferred."

25 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, led by Justice Sudhir Agarwal and Expert Member Dr. Afroz Ahmad, has issued a significant order in the matter of MA No. 100/2023 in Original Application No. 364/2022 between Ram Kailash Singh and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The issue concerns the unlawful dumping of fly ash into a mine void near Bara, Prayagraj, and subsequent environmental damage.

The case arose from a letter petition received on 29th March 2022, where Ram Kailash Singh alleged that contractors working for the Prayagraj Power Generation Company Limited (PPGCL) were dumping fly ash into a water-filled mine void, causing environmental harm and violating the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The NGT, exercising suo-motu jurisdiction, directed the formation of a joint committee to investigate the matter, which included representatives from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), and the District Magistrate of Prayagraj.

The Joint Committee’s report revealed that the National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) was not involved, as initially alleged. Instead, PPGCL, which operates a 3x660 MW coal-fired thermal power plant in Bara, had outsourced the disposal of fly ash to contractors including Ram Raj Singh. The contractors were authorized by the UPPCB and granted Consent to Operate (CTO) for the project. The report also showed that the environmental clearance (EC) was initially granted for mining operations at the site but not for fly ash disposal.

Further investigation found that the mining lease for the extraction of stone (gitti/boulder) expired in 2019, and although the mine infrastructure should have been removed, it was not. In the absence of proper mine closure activities, the contractors began using the mine void for fly ash disposal, leading to concerns about pollution. The respondents involved in the mine reclamation efforts claimed compliance with MoEF&CC guidelines, asserting that the filling of the mine with fly ash was a recognized method for pollution control and mine reclamation.

Despite some interruptions due to water filling in the mine void and stoppages by PPGCL officers, the contractors reported that dewatering and backfilling activities resumed after necessary permissions were obtained. They also completed the task of tree plantation, planting 2,359 trees as part of the reclamation process.

The Tribunal directed that PPGCL, being the primary source of fly ash generation, bear responsibility for maintaining the health of the planted trees for the next five years. This includes ensuring the survival of the species planted, such as Banyan, Neem, and Mahogany. The Tribunal mandated that PPGCL use its CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) funds, if necessary, to support the maintenance of these trees.

The UPPCB and the Divisional Forest Officer in Prayagraj were tasked with monitoring the survival of the plants and ensuring compliance with the Tribunal’s directives. Respondent 6 and 7, who were responsible for the mine reclamation, were instructed to continue their efforts under the supervision of PPGCL.

With the completion of the fly ash disposal and mine reclamation works, including plantation, the NGT has disposed of the application, directing the concerned parties to uphold their obligations for environmental protection and sustainable reclamation. The Tribunal emphasized that PPGCL must ensure that the planted trees survive and flourish, with rigorous monitoring over the next five years.

21 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is actively addressing the critical issue of soil dumping that threatens the Umiam River. This issue came to prominence following a news report titled “Soil dumping: Umiam river cries for help” published in The Shillong Times on 26th May 2024. Concerns over the degradation of water quality and disruption of the river's natural flow have brought the region's environmental management practices under sharp scrutiny.

The case, initially filed as O.A. No. 731/2024/PB and later renumbered as O.A. No. 158/2024/EZ, has witnessed significant legal developments. The Tribunal has noted the news report’s observations on the unregulated dumping of soil into the Umiam River near the Umiam Bridge in Shillong, Meghalaya. The dumping, attributed to extensive earthwork for a hotel construction project, has severely polluted the river, turning its once-crystal-clear waters a concerning orange hue. The pollution has affected the river stretch downstream from Umiam to Dwar Ksuid, disrupting the lives of local villagers who traditionally relied on the river for irrigation, washing, and other daily needs. The sudden change in the river’s color and its mud-laden state has caused outrage among the local community. The report identifies unregulated soil dumping along the riverbanks as the primary cause of this environmental degradation.

Both the Meghalaya State Pollution Control Board (MSPCB) and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have submitted affidavits detailing their measures to mitigate environmental damage in the affected region.

The MSPCB reported that an inspection on 27th May 2024 revealed significant environmental degradation due to rampant soil dumping along the Umiam River. In response, the MSPCB issued a prohibitory order on 28th May 2024 to prevent further harm. Despite this, continued violations led to the issuance of a show cause notice on 24th June 2024, followed by an operational closure directive on 12th September 2024. A follow-up inspection on 3rd October 2024 assessed compliance with these directives.

The CPCB noted that, under the National Water Monitoring Programme (NWMP), four upstream monitoring locations have been established near Umiam Lake. However, no downstream locations exist to evaluate the direct impact of soil dumping in the area of concern. Water quality data from 2023 revealed that none of the monitored locations met the Primary Water Quality Criteria for Outdoor Bathing, underscoring the deteriorating state of the lake. The CPCB affidavit also raised concerns over uncontrolled soil dumping at a construction site near Umiam Bridge, which is disrupting the river's natural flow and exacerbating environmental degradation.

The matter is being heard today by a Bench comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member.

Interesting Facts and FAQs About Umiam Lake

What does "Umiam" mean?
In the local language, "Umiam" translates to "cry," symbolizing its deep cultural and emotional significance for the region.

Why is Umiam Lake famous?
Umiam Lake, also called Bara Pani, is a picturesque reservoir situated 15 km north of Shillong in Meghalaya, India. It is renowned for its water sports and boating activities, including paddle boating, water scooters, and speed boating. The serene woods surrounding the lake house several resorts, offering visitors a tranquil retreat amidst natural beauty.

How deep is Umiam Lake?
According to a 2012 report, Umiam Lake spans over 100 square miles and was designed with a lifespan of 100 years, meaning it will likely be unsuitable for power generation after 2065. The lake’s maximum depth is approximately 200 feet, matching the height of the dam.

Is Umiam Lake artificial?

Yes, Umiam Lake is an artificial reservoir created after the construction of the Umiam Dam for the Umiam-Umtru Hydroelectric Power Project in the early 1960s. Over time, it has developed a man-made ecosystem that supports diverse wildlife in and around the lake. 

20 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Eastern Zone Bench, Kolkata, convened to address issues in Original Application No. 183/2024/EZ concerning environmental matters brought by Haripriya Patel against the State of Odisha. The bench, comprising Justice B. Amit Sthalekar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma (Expert Member), noted significant procedural lapses and non-compliance by the parties involved during the proceedings. 

Key Developments:

1. The applicant, Haripriya Patel, failed to appear for the hearing.

2. Odisha State Pollution Control Board’s Request
   Advocate Dipanjan Ghosh, representing the Odisha State Pollution Control Board (Respondent No.5), requested four weeks to file a counter affidavit, which was granted.

3. Non-Compliance by State Respondents
   The Government of Odisha failed to file the inspection report on affidavit, as mandated for the District Magistrate, Nayagarh. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Law Secretary of Odisha to explain the absence of state counsel at the next hearing on 3rd January 2025. Notice has been issued, requiring a response within four weeks.

4. Internet Issues Impact SEIAA Submission
   Counsel for the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA), Odisha, cited internet glitches as the reason for failing to upload the required affidavit. The Tribunal granted one week for submission.

5. Private Respondent Seeks Case Documents
   Respondent No.7 informed the Tribunal that the original case application had not been served. The Tribunal instructed the respondent’s counsel to procure necessary documents from its portal or office and allowed four weeks for filing a counter affidavit.

Tribunal’s Orders:

• Law Secretary of Odisha to attend the next virtual hearing to clarify lapses in representation.

• Affidavits from SEIAA and other respondents to be filed within specified deadlines.

• The interim application (I.A. No. 91/2024/EZ) addressing document accessibility was disposed of.

Next Hearing Scheduled:

The matter will be reviewed on 3rd January 2025.

The proceedings underscore recurring administrative and technical setbacks, hindering progress in environmental justice. The Tribunal emphasized adherence to timelines and accountability among stakeholders.

13 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Kolkata has dismissed Original Application No. 171/2024/EZ, filed by the Midnapore Cultural and Welfare Association against the West Bengal Mineral Development and Trading Corporation Ltd. (WBMDTCL) and others. The matter, heard on 11th November 2024 by Judicial Member Justice B. Amit Sthalekar and Expert Member Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, was initiated by the applicant association, which alleged continued illegal sand mining activities along the Subarnarekha River in Sankrail, Jhargram District, under the guise of dredging operations.

The applicant association claimed that despite previous directives issued by the NGT in an order dated 4th September 2023, under Original Application No. 99/2022/EZ filed by Dipak Mahapatra, there has been non-compliance. The alleged violator, Reach Dredging Limited, was accused of carrying out unauthorized sand mining under the pretext of dredging. This ongoing activity, the association contended, has been causing severe environmental harm to the river ecosystem and the surrounding area.

During the hearing, counsel for the applicant maintained that since the current applicant was not involved in the previous application filed by Mahapatra, this new application was justified and maintainable. However, upon reviewing the matter, the NGT noted that no evidence had been provided to substantiate claims of non-compliance with the directives in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the 2023 order. Those specific directives were previously established to regulate and monitor mining activities in the region, with particular emphasis on environmental safeguards.

The Tribunal concluded that the second application seeking similar reliefs was not maintainable, emphasizing that the directions in the 2023 order already covered the necessary regulatory measures, making the new application redundant. Furthermore, the NGT asserted that the identity of the applicant, whether it is the same as in the first case or not, is irrelevant in cases where similar directives have already been issued.

In view of these findings, the Tribunal dismissed the current application as "not maintainable," underscoring that once comprehensive directions have been issued on a matter, repeated applications on identical issues will not be entertained. This decision reflects the NGT's stance on preventing judicial redundancy and ensuring that environmental orders are effectively enforced without unnecessary duplicative litigation.

13 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The Eastern Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in Kolkata has taken cognizance of a serious environmental grievance filed by applicant Nandini Chakravarty regarding industrial pollution in the Purbannapara area of Makardah Mouza, Domjur Block, in Howrah district, West Bengal. The case, listed as Original Application No. 210/2024/EZ, was heard on 12th November 2024 by Judicial Member Justice B. Amit Sthalekar and Expert Member Dr. Arun Kumar Verma.

The application, originally submitted via email on 18th July 2024, alleges that industrial units and workshops near the applicant’s village have been discharging noxious gases, severely impacting the health and environment of the local community. The application further claims that the Saraswati Canal, an essential waterway for the area, has become obstructed due to the unauthorized disposal of industrial wastewater and solid waste, leading to significant environmental degradation in the region.

In light of these allegations, the NGT directed the addition of several parties to the list of respondents, including the District Magistrate of Howrah, the West Bengal Pollution Control Board (WBPCB) through its Member Secretary, the Additional Chief Secretary of the West Bengal Department of Environment, and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). 

Given the seriousness of the pollution allegations, the NGT has ordered the formation of a fact-finding committee to investigate the claims. The committee will comprise the District Magistrate of Howrah or a representative of at least Additional District Magistrate rank, a Senior Scientist from the WBPCB, and a Senior Scientist from the CPCB. The panel has been tasked with conducting a thorough site inspection and preparing an affidavit-based report within four weeks, detailing the findings and identifying any parties responsible for violations. Should environmental violations be confirmed, the committee is expected to name the violators for inclusion in the current case, allowing them an opportunity to present their defense.

The District Magistrate of Howrah has been designated as the nodal officer for coordinating logistical arrangements and managing the submission of the committee’s findings. Furthermore, the applicant has been directed to submit electronic copies of the case documents and annexures to the counsels for the respondents within 48 hours to expedite the process.

The NGT has scheduled the next hearing for 3rd January 2025, by which time the committee’s report will provide a basis for determining any further action or remedial measures necessary to address the environmental concerns raised by the applicant.

7 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a significant development regarding the ongoing legal proceedings concerning Cage Aquaculture activity, the Western Zone Bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has directed multiple agencies to clarify key issues surrounding the categorization and environmental impact assessments of the activity. The Bench, comprising Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, Judicial Member and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni, Expert Member, heard the Miscellaneous Application (M.A.) No. 05 of 2024, in the execution of Original Application No. 80 of 2020, involving Vanashakti & Others against the State of Maharashtra and other respondents.

The case pertains to the categorization of cage aquaculture under the environmental framework and its inclusion in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) regime.

Key Issues Raised by MPCB and CPCB:

The MPCB, in its reply affidavit dated July 24, 2024, informed the tribunal that during a meeting on September 21, 2023, the board proposed to categorize Cage Aquaculture activities under the “Green” category, pending further study by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research - Central Inland Fisheries Research Institute (ICAR-CIFRI). The study, which is expected to cost ₹46.35 lakh, will assess the environmental impact of the activity and is anticipated to take 12 months to complete. The board also assured the tribunal that a work order for the study had been issued, and the process of categorizing the activity would proceed after the study is completed.

Meanwhile, the CPCB’s affidavit, filed on July 23, 2024, pointed out that the MPCB had communicated the decision to classify Cage Aquaculture as a "Green" category activity. However, MPCB contradicted this, asserting that the categorization of this activity falls under the CPCB’s jurisdiction.

Court Orders Clarifications:

The Tribunal has now directed both the MPCB and the CPCB to clarify who holds responsibility for categorizing Cage Aquaculture activities and whether such activities should fall under the EIA regime, which would bring them under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC). The MoEF&CC has yet to submit a reply in the matter.

Next Steps and Final Hearing Date:

The court has directed Secretary of MoEF&CC to designate a counsel and submit a response. The applicant’s counsel has requested that the matter be listed for final hearing rather than waiting another 12 months for the completion of the study.

The Tribunal has fixed the next date for consideration on February 19, 2025. The case will continue to explore the regulatory framework around Cage Aquaculture and its environmental implications.

5 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata, led by Justice B. Amit Sthalekar (Judicial Member) and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma (Expert Member), held hearings on three cases involving serious environmental concerns, two of which are related to Odisha.

Alleged Illegal Stone Quarrying in Dankari Hill, Jajpur District

In OA No. 147/2024/EZ, filed by Youth United for Sustainable Environment Trust, the applicant raised allegations of rampant and unscientific stone quarrying in Dankari Hill and other areas within Jajpur District, Odisha. The petition argues that these quarrying activities violate environmental compliance and pose severe risks to local ecosystems. Following submissions, the Tribunal granted additional time for key respondents, including the Directorate General of Mine Safety and the State of Odisha, to prepare detailed affidavits and rejoinders. The matter has been adjourned until 10th January 2025, with directives for parties to complete required submissions.

Petition to Regulate Firecracker Usage in Religious Rituals in Odisha

In a separate matter, OA No. 218/2024/EZ, the Tribunal reviewed a plea from Sanjay Kumar Nayak, represented by eminent Advocate Sankar Prasad Pani, seeking restrictions on firecracker usage during religious rituals in Odisha, particularly those honoring Lord Jagannath. The application calls for prohibitive measures due to the severe health, safety, and environmental hazards posed by fireworks.

Key Points of Contention:

1. Health and Environmental Impact: The applicant highlights that firecrackers emit pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitric oxide, and toxic barium salts, which degrade air quality and pose lasting health risks.

2. Accidents and Elevated Pollution: The petition refers to a tragic incident on 29th May 2024 during Puri’s Chandan Yatra festival, where an illegal firecracker explosion led to 15 deaths and 22 injuries. Past pollution metrics, like Diwali 2013 when Bhubaneswar's air quality reached a hazardous 900 PPM, are also highlighted to illustrate the potential for harm.

3. Noise and Air Quality Concerns in Non-Attainment Cities: The petition underscores that firecracker-induced noise pollution exacerbates conditions in Odisha's seven CPCB-identified non-attainment cities—Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Angul, Talcher, Balasore, Kalinganagar, and Rourkela—which already fail to meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).

The Tribunal issued notices to several respondents, including the Odisha State Pollution Control Board, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), and the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives, mandating all respondents to file their counter affidavits within six weeks. The next hearing for this case is scheduled for 9th January 2025.

Significance and Implications

These cases highlight the NGT’s active engagement with pressing environmental and public health issues, reflecting a rising awareness of the environmental impacts tied to industrial and cultural activities. Legal scrutiny over activities such as quarrying and firecracker usage during religious events emphasizes the balance needed between cultural practices and sustainable environmental governance in India.

5 November 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a recent hearing before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Principal Bench, the Ishhita Foundation sought the withdrawal of its Original Application No. 1252/2024 against the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF&CC) and others. The case addressed the unscientific disposal of biomedical waste and highlighted potential gaps in the existing regulatory framework.

The hearing was presided over by a bench consisting of Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson; Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member; and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member. 

During the proceedings, counsel for the Ishhita Foundation requested permission to withdraw the case, citing the need to present a more comprehensive factual background. This would include specific details of the affected areas and the individuals impacted by unscientific biomedical waste disposal, as well as an in-depth examination of the gaps in current guidelines and legal provisions.

The NGT allowed the prayer, permitting the applicant to file a new application with the necessary detailed particulars. Consequently, the application was dismissed as withdrawn, with the liberty granted for resubmission.

19 October 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

In the case Deepika Khari vs. State of Uttarakhand & Others, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) is investigating forest fire incidents, particularly the burning of leaves in the Badkot Forest Range along the Rishikesh-Dehradun road. During an inspection led by Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal (Amicus Curiae) on 18th April 2024, no active fire was found, but past incidents were confirmed. The forest department conducted a controlled burn on 11th March 2023 under verbal instructions from the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Dehradun, but failed to report the incident in the Forest Fire Report Management System (FFRMS) or the Forest Survey of India (FSI) alert system.

Uttarakhand's vast forests (71% of its area) are highly susceptible to fires, especially during the fire season (February–June), posing significant risks to ecological balance and water security as major rivers like the Ganga and Yamuna originate here. Despite satellite monitoring by the FSI, no alerts were issued for the March 2023 fire, exposing flaws in the alert system.

Key challenges include inadequate firefighting infrastructure, overburdened personnel responsible for vast forest areas, and the lack of insurance or compensation for forest workers risking their lives. The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audit highlighted poor feedback on FSI alerts and discrepancies in reporting controlled burns. Recommendations for improvement include enhanced infrastructure, support for personnel, insurance coverage, and better integration of technology such as drones for real-time monitoring. This case underscores the need for stronger oversight and proactive governance in forest fire management.

16 October 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

Ranjan Gogoi - Member of Rajya Sabha was trending. According to The Supreme Court today rejected the advocate's petition and directed the removal of the former Chief Justice's name from the case before the matter could be heard. Among related queries Supreme Court Ranjan Gogoi, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, Jammu and Kashmir High Court, High Court Jammu and JK High Court recruitment 2024 were on top searches. However, Enviro Annotations brings you news reports on environment court orders and judgments.

The Pune Bench of National Green Tribunal (NGT) on 16th October 2024 disposed of two cases. 

Gujarat Mining Case: In a case filed by Akash Vyas (Original Application No. 48/2023(WZ)), the NGT heard allegations of environmental violations related to mining activities in Gujarat. The Bench presided over by Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh (Judicial Member) and Dr. Vijay Kulkarni (Expert Member) found that the Gujarat Pollution Control Board (GPCB) had already ordered the closure of the mining units in question due to non-compliance with environmental regulations.

Given the prior closure directive, the NGT deemed it unnecessary to issue further directions. The tribunal clarified that if the mining units were to resume operations, they would need to obtain requisite permissions from the GPCB.

Goa Coastal Zone Violations: In another case, Kuldeep Rana vs. State of Goa & Ors. (Original Application No. 51 of 2023), the NGT heard allegations of violations of coastal zone regulations in Goa. The Goa Coastal Zone Management Authority (GCZMA) had submitted a compliance affidavit detailing the actions taken to address the violations. The GCZMA informed the tribunal that it had successfully demolished structures that were found to be in violation of coastal zone regulations. The applicant, Kuldeep Rana, failed to submit a rejoinder to the GCZMA's affidavit, leading the NGT to conclude that the actions taken by the GCZMA were appropriate.

Both cases were dismissed by the NGT, as the necessary measures to address the environmental violations had already been implemented by the relevant authorities. 

15 October 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has dismissed a plea filed by Viyana Berwal in a case concerning the ritualistic slaughter of animals. The application, registered as Original Application No. 746/2024, sought stricter enforcement of animal cruelty laws, particularly focusing on the stunning of animals before slaughter.

The hearing, coonducted on 4th October 2024, presided over by a bench consisting of Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson; Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi, Judicial Member; and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member, concluded that the application lacked crucial factual details necessary for the tribunal's intervention.

Key Points from the Tribunal's Ruling:

1. Lack of Factual Background: The tribunal noted that the application cited various legal provisions, including the Constitution of India, the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and the Veterinary Council of India Code of Ethics, 1992, but did not provide specific instances of violations of these laws. No names, areas, or detailed facts regarding the alleged breaches were presented, leaving the application "bereft of material factual particulars."

2. Unconnected Prayers: The application included multiple requests that were not directly related to one another, which, as per the NGT (Practices and Procedure) Rules, 2011, is not permissible. This procedural flaw contributed to the dismissal.

3. Misinterpretation of Rules: The applicant argued for making stunning of animals mandatory before slaughter, citing the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Slaughter House) Rules, 2001. However, the tribunal pointed out that the relevant rule—Rule 6(4)—does not mandate stunning, thereby weakening the basis of the plea.

In its order, uploaded on 15th October 2024, the NGT dismissed the plea but granted liberty to the applicant to file a fresh petition if they can present proper facts and adhere to the procedural rules, including clear evidence of environmental norm violations.

In another matter given hearing on 4th October 2024, the same NGT Bench headed by Justice Prakash Shrivastava, Chairperson, has directed the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB) to investigate allegations against FH Medical College & Hospital, Agra, for operating without mandatory Environmental Clearance (EC). In the matter, Abhinay Kumar Rai, the applicant, claimed the 650-bed hospital, established in 2014, lacks EC under the EIA Notification, 2006, and is operating without Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO). Despite a legal notice sent to authorities in June 2024, no action was taken. 

The Tribunal noted, however, that the applicant had failed to provide detailed information, including the constructed area of the college and hospital, which is crucial for assessing the applicability of the EIA Notification. As a result, the NGT ruled that the UPPCB should be the first authority to examine the matter. The NGT instructed the UPPCB to address the issue within three months and dismissed all pending applications.

The cases underline the importance of precise factual submissions and adherence to tribunal rules in matters related to environmental and animal welfare litigation.

1 October 2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The accidental death of three sleeping after finishing shift killed in blaze at Narela factory and 6 injured, as reported in The Times of India dated 09/07/2024 was taken up by the National Green Tribunal as Original Application No. 772/2024.

The article states that initial probe revealed that raw green gram (moong dal) was being roasted on burners and a gas leak caused the fire, which led to a blast in a compressor. Those who died and injured were workers sleeping after completing the day shift. The news item alleges that the mishap happened due to irregular servicing of the machines. It also states that the factory had no fire NOC and has been operational since 2010. Furthermore it is alleged that the impact of the blast was such that part of the roof and balcony blew up, flinging a labourer 20 metres away. One of the firefighters alleged that the major problem was the single escape route, which was filled with goods and proved to be a major hindrance. 

In the matter, the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change has submitted a report to the Tribunal. The report details various legal provisions laid by the Government of India. It has outlined that the Ministry vide S.O. 966 (E) dated 27/11/ 1989 had notified the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 [MSIHC Rules, 1989]. These rules have been notified to put in place a regulatory mechanism aimed at putting in place an operational safety framework in industries dealing with hazardous chemicals thereby avoiding chemical accidents. Thereafter, the Ministry vide G.S.R. 347 (E) dated 01/08/1996 notified the Chemical Accidents (Emergency Planning, Preparedness and Response) Rules, 1996[CAEPPR Rules, 1996] to supplement the MSIHC Rules, 1996. 

The Ministry has established a four-level Crisis Management System to handle chemical accidents, which includes Central, State, District, and Local levels. A Central Crisis Group, led by the Secretary (EF&CC), has been set up to oversee these efforts.

In response to the National Green Tribunal's (NGT) directives regarding the chemical accident at UPL Limited in Gujarat in February 2021, the Ministry and the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) have created guidelines for safety audits of chemical industries. These guidelines, called the "Integrated Guidance Framework for Chemicals Safety," have been shared with all States and Union Territories for implementation.

Currently, the Public Liability Insurance Act only applies to 179 hazardous chemicals that are flammable. Owners of these chemicals must pay a premium for insurance and contribute the same amount to the Environment Relief Fund (ERF), which is managed by the Central Government. This fund is designed to cover any claims that exceed the insurance amount. If claims go beyond the combined total of insurance and ERF, the owner must cover the shortfall. There is no cap on how much can be claimed through the ERF, but government entities are exempt from this requirement.

Additionally, any owner dealing with hazardous substances before the Jan Vishwas Act must obtain an insurance policy within one year of the Act's start date.

The Ministry also highlighted specific sections (5, 6, and 7(1)) of the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991, detailing how claims for relief can be made through the local Collector.  

27/09/2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

The National Green Tribunal's Eastern Zone Bench in Kolkata heard the case of Nanda Jhodia & Anr. vs. Utkal Alumina International Ltd & Ors. on 24th September 2024. The bench comprised Justice B. Amit Sthalekar, Judicial Member, and Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, Expert Member. During the hearing, an additional affidavit dated 21st September 2024, submitted by the Member Secretary, Odisha State Pollution Control Board (OSPCB), was officially recorded.

The affidavit highlighted those essential heavy metals, including copper (Cu), cadmium (Cd), zinc (Zn), nickel (Ni), and lead (Pb), have not yet been analyzed. This delay was attributed to the malfunctioning of the Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometer (AAS), the primary equipment used for testing these metals. The OSPCB acknowledged the issue and informed the Tribunal that rectification steps are underway. The instruments necessary for testing heavy metals have been ordered and are expected to be available by 9th October 2024. Further, the mercury concentration reported to be 0.0006 ppm by the OSPCB in groundwater sample seems to be impractical and erroneous.

Representing the OSPCB, Counsel Papiya Banerjee Bihani requested that the matter be listed after 9th October 2024, assuring the Tribunal that a complete affidavit with the necessary test results would be presented. The Tribunal accepted the request and scheduled the next hearing for 16th December 2024.

This case holds significant importance, as it involves the environmental impact and compliance with pollution control norms by Utkal Alumina International Ltd., a major industrial player in Odisha’s alumina sector. The delay in analyzing key heavy metals raises concerns about the OSPCB’s ability to maintain its infrastructure, which is critical for ensuring environmental compliance. Odisha, a state rich in mineral resources, faces scrutiny over its capacity to effectively regulate pollution and protect local communities from the potential harms posed by industrial operations.

It is germane to mention that the test reports submitted by the OSPCB in an affidavit dated 30th April 2024 show several discrepancies, including the reporting of a boiler emissions and noise monitoring document dated 31st March 2023.

Before we end, Harry Potter actress maggie smith/ dame maggie smith dies. Our sincere condolences.

26/09/2024 YouTube X LinkedIn

In a landmark decision highlighting the crucial role of media in environmental protection, the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has taken significant action against illegal encroachment on the Utangan River in Agra. The case originated from a news article titled "यूपी उटंगन नदी पर हो गया क जा, सोतेरहेअफसर; तीन साल सेबन रहा है रसॉट," published in Amar Ujala on 2nd May 2024, which reported on the unlawful construction of a resort and a permanent bridge obstructing the river.

The original application, registered suo moto under Original Application No. 654/2024, was heard on 18th September 2024, presided over by Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Dr. A. Senthil Vel, Expert Member. The report highlighted serious environmental concerns, including the illegal encroachment on the river's banks and the obstruction of natural water flow caused by construction activities that had been ongoing for three years.

The NGT noted that the construction of a resort and the accompanying permanent bridge not only violated environmental norms but also jeopardized the ecological balance of the Bah Tehsil area, which is prone to flooding. Additionally, the development of a road encroaching on the river’s land further exacerbated the situation.

In response to the escalating concerns, the District Magistrate of Agra informed the Tribunal that the administration had taken decisive action by demolishing the illegal bridge and removing the obstructive gates. Photographic evidence of the removal was presented to the Tribunal, demonstrating the prompt response from local authorities.

The NGT, acknowledging the actions taken by the Agra administration and the Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board (UPPCB), has now disposed of the matter. The Tribunal has directed the concerned authorities to ensure compliance with all relevant environmental regulations, particularly the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the impact that responsible media reporting can have on environmental governance. By bringing critical issues to light, the press not only informs the public but also galvanizes governmental action against violations that threaten ecological integrity. The National Green Tribunal's swift response underscores the importance of collaborative efforts between media, governmental bodies, and the community in safeguarding natural resources for future generations.