Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 819
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CJ, MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J, DR. AFROZ AHMAD, ACJ
Nitin Dhiman – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab & Ors. – Respondent
Original Application No. 225/2022 | Original Application No. 546/2024 | Appeal No. 40/2024 | Appeal No. 41/2024 | Appeal No. 48/2024 | Appeal No. 51/2024 | Original Application No. 1325/2024 | Original Application No. 1326/2024 | Original Application No. 1327/2024 | Appeal No. 18/2025 | Appeal No. 20/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Nitin Dhiman, Sanjay Upadhyay, Chiranshu Rattan, Mansi Bachani, Shubham Upadhyay, Anukriti Bajpai, Mohit Thakur, Gaurav Agarwal, A.R. Takkar, Shriya Takkar, Manan Takkar, Aastha Tyagi, Prince Sharma, I.K. Kapila, Zain Haider, Manik Gupta
For the Respondents: Vivek Jain, Savi Nagpal, Rahul Mehra, Richa Kapoor, Chaitanya Gosain, Atika Singh, Asheesh Jain, Shahrukh Ejaz, Devika Samant, Suhasini Sen, Masooma Rizvi, Ankit Siwach, Raj Kumar, Mohit Singhal, Abhishek, Prannv Dhawan
The Tribunal emphasized that interventions must relate directly to the main application, and unrelated issues should be pursued through separate remedies.
Headnote:(A) Environmental Protection Act, 1986 - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Various applications for intervention and permission to place additional documents in ongoing matters concerning pollution control and restoration efforts in the Buddha Nala catchment area - The Tribunal allowed several applications to intervene and place documents while dismissing others for lack of justification or as not pressed. (Paras 1-23)
(B) Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - The Tribunal clarified that interveners can support or oppose the main application but cannot introduce separate causes of action unrelated to the case at hand. (Paras 5, 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
Multiple original applications and appeals were filed concerning pollution from dyeing units in the Buddha Nullah area, with various stakeholders seeking intervention and relief from pollution control authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal allowed interventions and additional document submissions while ensuring that unrelated issues were not introduced into the ongoing cases.
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of interventions and the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction in allowing additional causes of action.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal held that intervention must relate directly to the main application, and separate grievances should be pursued through appropriate channels.
Result: Several applications were allowed, while others were dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. permission granted for intervention and document submission. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. various ias disposed of based on their merit. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. interventions and document submissions addressed. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 4. final hearing scheduled after pleadings. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
ORDER
OA No. 225/2022:( Item no.5)
1. IA No. 379/2025 has been filed in OA No. 225/2022 seeking permission to intervene in the OA. IA is not opposed by Counsel for the applicant. Hence, allowed.
2. IA No. 380/2025 has been filed by the applicant in IA No. 379/2025 seeking a direction to concerned authorities to take immediate and effective steps to clean, restore and rejuvenate the Buddha Nala. Similar is the prayer made in the OA and now OA is at the final hearing stage, therefore, no order in this IA is required to be passed and IA 380/2025 is accordingly disposed of.
3. IA Nos. 268/2025 & 269/2025 are listed today whereas said IAs have already been allowed by order dated 09.04.2025. IA Nos. 20/2023 & 21/2023 are also listed today whereas said IAs have already been allowed by order dated 24.01.2023. Hence, Registry is directed not to list the IAs which are already allowed or disposed of.
4. IA No. 273/2025 has been filed by the original applicant seeking permission to place on record additional documents. On due consideration IA is allowed.
5. IA 270/2025:-has been filed by Industrial Area-A Dyers Association seeking a direction to the authorities to collect fresh samples of the effluents from ETPs of the Associate Units to test the same for compliance with the prescribed pollution norms and till such time test results in terms of the prayer are received, permit the Associate Unit to operate. A perusal of the IA reveals that applicant is mainly aggrieved with the insistence of the PPCB on the deployment of ZLD system. Plea of the Counsel for the applicant is that it is not viable and feasible to deploy the ZLD system. For such an issue, the applicant has a separate cause of action. Applicant being an intervener in this case can either support the case of the applicant or oppose it but he cannot be permitted to bringing an issue which is based upon an separate cause of action for which the applicant has a separate remedy. Permitting such an issue to be raised in this matter will unnecessarily complicate and will alter its scope. Thus, we do not find any ground to issue any direction in this IA. Hence, IA No. 270/2025 is disposed of, permitting the applicant to take such other remedies as available in law to raise the grievance indicated in this IA.
6. IA 596/2023:-has been filed by the original applicant seeking permission to place on record additional facts and documents. IA is not opposed by any of the parties. Hence, allowed.
7. IA 815/2023:- has been filed by the applicant – M/s. Dhawan Processors and M/s. Raghav Industries seeking intervention in OA No. 225/2022. No one is present to press this IA. Hence, IA is dismissed as not pressed.
8. IA No. 668/2023:- has been filed by the original applicant seeking permission to place on record additional facts and documents. IA is not opposed by any of the parties. Hence, allowed.
9. IA 271/2025:- this is an application for exemption from filing the certified and legible copies of the annexures. IA is allowed subject to the condition that appellant will place on record certified and legible copies of the documents on which he wants to rely upon during the arguments.
Appeal No. 40/2024: (Item no.7)
10. I.A. No. 544/2024:- has been filed by one Nitin Dhiman seeking intervention in this appeal. The said applicant has already filed a separate connected OA, therefore, we do not find any justification to permit him to intervene in the appeal. IA 544/2024 is accordingly dismissed.
11. I.A. No. 536/2024:-has been filed by one Public Action Committee seeking impleadment in this appeal. Learned Counsel for the applicant in this IA submits that he is n
