Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1524

NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL BHOPAL (CENTRAL ZONE BENCH)
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEO KUMAR SINGH, J, HON'BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, ACJ
DHEERAJ TIWARI – Appellant
Versus
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT, FOREST AND CLIMATE CHANGE – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.42/2025(CZ) | I.A. No.56/2025 | I.A. No.81/2025 | I.A. No.92/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Prakash Upadhyay, Sr. Adv., Mr. Harpreet Singh Gupta, Adv., Ms. Nancy Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Srajan Jain, Adv., Mr. Yusuf Khan, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Adv., Ms. Parul Khurana, Adv., Ms. Kirti Vyas, Adv., Mr. Om Shankar Shrivastava, Adv., Mr. Aadil Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Shariq Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Kartikey Bhatia, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Malik, Adv., Mr. Tariq Siddqui, Adv., Mr. Fahad Qureshi, Adv.

The NGT emphasized that locus standi in environmental matters should be interpreted liberally, allowing wider access for citizens to seek judicial remedies while cautioning against the abuse of the tribunal's process.

Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Section 25/26, National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Challenge to Consent to Operate dated 23 August 2024 issued by Chhattisgarh Environmental Conservation Board to Respondent No. 6 for operating a Coal Tar Distillation Unit without a valid Environmental Clearance - Issues of locus standi and maintainability raised, with Respondent arguing Applicant is not aggrieved due to residing outside the area - Tribunal finds Applicant has locus standi, emphasizing need for liberal interpretation in environmental cases according to the 186th Law Commission Report. Issues identified included the maintainability of the application, limitation concerns, and multiple causes of action. Findings indicated that the application was to be dismissed due to abuse of process and being time-barred, underscoring that the NGT's jurisdiction is not to entertain appeals disguised as original applications. (Paras 1-74)

(B) Locus Standi - The Court emphasizes broad interpretation to recognize any citizen's right to approach the Tribunal in environmental matters despite limitations of being a 'person aggrieved'. (Paras 8, 9, 18)

(C) Limitation - The Tribunal cannot condone delays beyond statutory limits set by NGT Act, emphasizing timely appeals are critical for maintaining judicial efficacy. (Paras 25, 41)

(D) Abuse of Process - Found that the Applicant's motives were questionable, indicating a potential masquerade as a public interest litigant for ulterior competitive advantage. (Paras 52-54)

Table of Content
1. application filed against consent to operate. (Para 1)
2. arguments about maintainability and locus standi. (Para 2 , 5 , 27)
3. court's duty to maintain environmental governance. (Para 3 , 22)
4. challenge against environmental law violations. (Para 4 , 26)
5. conclusion on compliance with regulatory approvals. (Para 28 , 74)
6. discussion on limitations and jurisdiction issues. (Para 31 , 32)
7. allegations of abuse of court process. (Para 52 , 56)
8. application dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 73)

JUDGMENT

1. This Application has been filed by the Applicant with the following prayers:-

“(a) Quash and set aside the Consent to Operate dated 23 August 2024 and/or any other consent to operate being issued to Respondent No. 6 during the pendency of the instant application;

(b) Directions be passed for the immediate closure of the Respondent No. 6’s Unit at Plot No. 17/N, Heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh;

(c) Directions be passed for the stay of the operation of the Respondent No. 6’s Unit at Plot No. 17/N, Heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh till disposal of this application;

(d) Directions be passed upon the Respondent No. 3 not to issue any consent to operate to the Respondent No. 6 till the pendency of this application;

(e) Direct the Respondent No. 5 and 7 to stay the grant of Environmental Clearance to the Respondent No. 6 till the disposal of this application;

(f) Injunction restraining the operation of the Unit of the Respondent No. 6 at Plot No. 17/N, Heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh, till the Respondent No. 6 is granted the Environment Clearance as per the EIA 2006 dated 14th September 2006 as amended by the notification dated 25th June 2014;

(g) Order be passed staying the operation of the Consent to Operate dated 23 August 2024 and/or any further Consent to Operate of the said unit pending hearing and final disposal of the present application;

(h) Order an independent enquiry and investigation into the affairs of the said Unit of the Respondent No. 6 located at Plot No. 17/N, Heavy Industrial Area, Hathkhoj, Bhilai, District – Durg, Chhattisgarh by appropriate investigating agencies;

(i) Direct the Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and 7 to 8 to take immediate action against the Respondent No. 6;

(j) Exemplary penalty to be imposed on the Respondent No. 6 for deliberately suppressing material facts and for operating a unit without a valid Environmental Clearance;

(k) Order an inquiry into the operation of the consortium of companies associated to Respondent No. 6 for further investigation;

(l) Formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for the purchase of Coal Tar by Coal Tar Processing Units in a manner that Coal Tar cannot be purchased by Units not having Environmental Clearance;

(m) Formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for the purchase of Coal Tar Pitch in a manner that Coal Tar Pitch cannot be purchased from Units not having Environmental Clearance;

(n) Formulate a Standard Operating Procedure for the sale of Coal Tar and its derivatives by coal tar manufacturing units in a manner that Coal Tar and its derivatives cannot be sold to Units not having Environmental Clearance;

(o) Ad-interim orders in light of the prayers above;”

2. At the time of admission, a question was raised by the Tribunal with regard to the maintainability of the application and the learned counsel for the Applicant sought a short time to file the law points and on the next date the learned counsel for the Respondent/Project Proponent put in appearance and challenged maintainability of the application.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

4. By means of filing this application, the Applicant has challenged the Consent to Operate (CTO) dated 23.08.2024 issued by Chhattisgarh Environmental Conservation Board to the Respondent No.6 despite a default in obtaining any Environmental Clearance as mandated by the amendment

Click Here to Read the rest of this document