Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 1557
..................................... B. Amit Sthalekar, JM ….......................................... Dr. Arun Kumar Verma, EM August 04, 2025, Original Application No.204/2024/EZ (I.A. No.70/2025/EZ)
(Earlier O.A. No.954/2024/PB)
SKB [Corrected on 04.08.2025]
Item No.2 Court No. 2 BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONE BENCH, KOLKATA (Through Physical Hearing with Hybrid Option)
Original Application No. 204/2024/EZ (Earlier O.A. No.954/2024/PB)
Binu Kumar Mehto Applicant(s)
Versus State of Jharkhand Respondent(s)
Date of hearing: 23.05.2025 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE DR. ARUN KUMAR VERMA, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant(s): None for the Applicant Respondent(s): Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Advocate for R-1 and 2 (in Virtual Mode)
Mr. Surendra Kumar, Advocate for R-3 (in Virtual Mode) Mr. Sachin Nangir, Advocate a/w Mr. Deepak Mahajan, Advocate and Mr. Saumya Kapoor, Advocate for R-4 (in Virtual Mode)
Mr. Arun, Adv. a/w Ms. Amrita Vijai, Advocate for R-5 (in Virtual Mode)
Mr. Ankit Kumar, Director for R-8 (in Virtual Mode)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, Adv. for R-1&2, Mr. Surendra Kumar, Adv. for R-3, Mr. Sachin Jangir, Adv. for R-4, Mr. Arun, Adv. a/w Ms. Amrita Vijai, Adv. for R-5, Mr. Sibojyoti Chakrabarti, Adv. a/w Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh, Adv. for R-8
The tribunal upheld the imposition of costs for non-compliance and emphasized the necessity for timely responses in proceedings.
Headnote:This judgment addresses the lack of representation for the applicant while assessing the interlocutory application by the 8th respondent regarding cost waiver. The tribunal emphasizes the applicant's failure to present defenses over an extended period, leading to cost imposition. Consequently, the tribunal found no valid reasons to waive the imposed costs and ordered the inclusion of a new respondent based on updated service information. The final decision denied the waiver request and reiterated the obligation of the 8th respondent to comply with the costs.
Result: 'The Interlocutory Application No.70/2025/EZ is rejected.'
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lack of representation by the applicant leads to tribunal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. cost imposed for failure to comply with procedural requirements. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. examination of updated service notifications and respondent adjustments. (Para 6 , 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. affirmation and scheduling for continued tribunal review. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
ORDER
1. Case called out. No one is present on behalf of the Applicant.
2. Affidavit dated 01.08.2025 has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.8, Kameshwar Alloys & Steels Private Limited ; the same is taken on record.
I.A. No.70/2025/EZ
3. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the Respondent No.8 with two prayers viz :
i) That in the previous order of the Tribunal dated 23.05.2025 the name of Mr. Ankit Kumar has been mentioned as Advocate for the Respondent No.8 whereas he is the Director and he was present (in Virtual Mode) on that date. There was no summoning order of Mr. Ankit Kumar, the Respondent No.8 by this Tribunal therefore, whether he appears in Virtual Mode or does not appear in Virtual Mode is neither here nor there.
ii) The second issue is that the cost of Rs.5000/- imposed by the Tribunal for non filing of counter affidavit by the Respondent No.8, may be waived.
4. The cost has been imposed upon the Respondent No.8 for not filing counter affidavit for eleven months since notices in this case were issued on 12.09.2024. It is admitted in Para 3 of the I.A that the applicant of the I.A. had entered appearance on 07.02.2025. We fail to understand what prevented the Applicant from filing his counter affidavit on 07.02.2025.
5. Thereafter, the case was listed on 03.04.2025 and 23.05.2025 and on both dates counter affidavit was not filed by the Respondent No.8 and therefore, on 23.05.2025 this Tribunal imposed cost of Rs.5,000/-.
6. Therefore, we find no good ground for waiving the cost imposed against the Respondent No.8.
7. We reject the counter affidavit which has been filed by the Respondent No.8 as of today without payment of cost. So far as the prayer to waive the cost of Rs.5000/- in I.A. No.70/2025/EZ is concerned, in the Interlocutory Application No.70/2025/EZ is concerned, we reject the same.
8. So far as the presence of Mr. Ankit Kumar as shown in the order of 23.05.2025 as Advocate is concerned, necessary correction may be made in the order.
9. The affidavit of service filed by Ms. Aishwarya Rajyashree, learned Counsel appearing (in Virtual Mode) on behalf of the State Respondents mentions that the Maa Ambe Alloys Plant Kusumdih, the Respondent No.9 has been purchased by one Yash Alloys Private Limited Kusumdih and therefore, notice could not be served upon Maa Ambe Alloys Plant Kusumdih.
10. We therefore direct that Yash Alloys Private Limited Kusumdih be impleaded in the array of Respondents as the Respondent No.10.
11. Let fresh notice be issued to the newly added Respondent No.10, returnable within four weeks. The State Respondents shall file affidavit of service by the next date of listing.
12. Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.3, Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board states that the Respondent No.8, Private Respondent has filed certain responses before the Pollution Control Board. He prays for and is granted four weeks time for filing fresh affidavit showing what action has been taken.
13. Mr. Dipanjan Ghosh and Mr. Sibojyoti Chakbarti, learned Counsel file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Respondent No.8 ; the same is taken on record. When the case is next listed, their name shall be printed in the cause list as the Counsel for the Respondent No.8.
14. No one is present on behalf of the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 though the Respondent No.6 has filed Written Statement by post which is on record.
15. The affidavit of service filed by the District Magistrate, Ramgarh, Jharkhand shows service upon the Respondent No.6 and 7. Therefore service upon the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 shall be deemed to be sufficient.
16
