Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(NGT) 5589
NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
Sudhir Agarwal, Judicial Member, Afroz Ahmad, Expert Member
Vikrant Tongad – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.363/2022 (I.A. No.555/2024)
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Akash Vashishtha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gi. Gi. C. George, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Mr. Pinaki Misra, Mr. Nishikant Singh, Mr. Swatej Jetta, Mr. Lokesh M, Mr. Ravindra Gupta, Mr. S. P. Singh, Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Mr. Shivam Saksena, Mr. Pradeep Misra, Mr. Daleep Dhyani, Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Mr. Shlok Chandra, Mr. Sankalp Sharma
Excessive roadsides concretization violates environmental guidelines by blocking groundwater recharge; limit to permeable materials, protect trees with 1m space, maintain green berms for sustainability; substantial compliance required balancing urban needs.
Headnote:(A) Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - Sections 3 and 5 - National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 - Section 20 - Guidelines for rainwater harvesting, urban greening, and flood prevention - Excessive concretization of roadsides and roadberms - Prevents groundwater recharge by up to 90%, causes urban flooding, eliminates biodiversity, creates heat islands, and increases atmospheric carbon - Authorities must limit concretization to permeable/perforated blocks or fly ash bricks up to specified widths (0.50m on road sides, 1.50m max for footpaths), leave 1m unconcretized around trees, prioritize stabilized soil/granular sub-base, and maintain green roadberms with grass/shrubs for sustainable development and precautionary principle. Substantial compliance suffices considering urban exigencies like traffic and dust control; deviations remediable on specific complaints. (Paras 67-72, 85-87)
(B) Urban Development Guidelines - Parks and open spaces - Permanent construction limited to 5% of park area; natural water bodies protected with earthen embankments and permeable materials only; roadsides landscaped to facilitate recharge, avoid impervious surfaces beyond limits. (Paras 4, 9-10)
Facts of the case:
Residents alleged reckless concretization of roadsides/roadberms by development authorities in specified sectors, violating government orders, tribunal judgments, and urban development guidelines, leading to environmental harm including reduced groundwater recharge, flooding, and pollution. Authorities denied violations, claiming use of interlocking tiles on granular sub-base for dust control and pedestrian safety, with remediation where pointed out.
Findings of Court:
Concretization increases impervious surfaces, blocking recharge and causing ecological damage; guidelines mandating permeable materials and green infrastructure must be followed; substantial compliance by authorities noted, with liberty for further remediation on complaints.
Issues: Whether excessive concretization violates environmental guidelines; scope of permissible paving on roadsides/footpaths; balance between recharge, dust control, and urban needs.
Ratio Decidendi: Indiscriminate concretization contravenes sustainable development; authorities must adhere to limits on impervious surfaces, ensure tree protection and green cover; PAN India directions to local bodies for compliance, prioritizing groundwater recharge and biodiversity over unchecked paving.
Result: OA disposed with directions for guideline compliance; no further orders needed due to substantial compliance; liberty to complain for specific violations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. excessive concretization violates groundwater recharge guidelines. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 2. flood-proofing requires permeable surfaces for stormwater management. (Para 4 , 5 , 68) |
| 3. up g.o. 23.03.2018 limits roadside concretization to permeable materials. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 70) |
| 4. air pollution control mandates dust suppression via permeable paving. (Para 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 27 , 28 , 45 , 46) |
| 5. parties dispute compliance; authorities claim permeable tiles used. (Para 25 , 26 , 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 6. ngt precedents prohibit tree concretization and mandate green belts. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 69 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85) |
| 7. pan-india compliance with anti-concretization guidelines required. (Para 86) |
| 8. oa disposed with liberty for future remediation complaints. (Para 87 , 88 , 89) |
JUDGMENT
BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR AGARWAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. This Original Application (hereinafter referred to as ‘OA’) has been preferred by Vikrant Tongad and Dr. Supriya Mahajan. Both are residents of District Gautam Budh Nagar, State of Uttar Pradesh. It is alleged that there is huge damage to environment due to reckless, excessive and indiscriminate concretisation of road sides and roadberms, carried out by New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘NOIDA’) in Sectors 28, 37, 47, 50, 55 and 62 and by Greater Noida Authority (hereinafter referred to as ‘G NOIDA’) in Sectors Omega 1, Alpha and P3. The said authorities are also violating orders of Tribunal passed in OA 165/2013, Ashish Vashishtha vs. Union of India & Ors. and also, Government Order dated 23.03.2018 issued by State of UP and concurred by Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (hereinafter referred to as ‘MoEF&CC’) in Execution Application No. 34/2017 in OA 165/2013, Akash Vashishtha vs. Union of India & Ors. Act of these authorities is also in gross violation of judgment dated 10.11.2016 passed in OA 21/2014, Vardhaman Kaushik vs. Union of India & Ors. and dated 03.12.2020 passed in OA 283/2020, R. S. Virk vs. Central Pollution Control Board. The activities are also in complete transgression of Guidelines dated 21.07.2000, 03.09.2013 and 23.09.2013 of Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, besides, in contravention of Government Order dated April 2001 issued by State of UP.
2. Applicants have impleaded, besides State of UP; District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and two authorities i.e., NOIDA and G NOIDA, also MoEF&CC, District Ground Water Management Council, Gautam Budh Nagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘DGWMC GB Nagar’) and certain Residents Welfare Associations namely, Arun Vihar Residents Welfare Association; Residents Welfare Association, Sector-50, Noida; Residents Welfare Association, Sector-47, Noida; Residents Welfare Association, Sector-55, Noida; and, Residents Welfare Association, Sector-62, Noida.
3. The facts stated in OA, in brief, are that applicant-1 is a resident of G NOIDA and a water and environmental conservationist, engaged in the work of environmental protection for last several years. He was also honoured by various authorities for his work on environmental protection. Applicant-2 is senior Consultant Dermatologist, practicing in National Capital Region (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCR’) for the last 20 years, and has written several articles on preservation of environment and ecology and co-founded a community citizens initiative called “Sustainable Alternatives and Awareness against Plastic and Household Waste (SAAPH)”.
4. Applicants have stated that for conservation of ground water recharge, State Government of UP earlier took a conscious decision while issuing Government Order dated April 2001 (annexure A-7 at page 121) and communicated the following decisi
