Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2024) 04 NGT CK 0039

Bittu vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 25 April 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prakash Shrivastava, CP · Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 724 Of 2023 (I.A. No.191 Of 2024)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 314 words
1.

In this original application, grievance of the applicant is that respondent no.8 is engaged in illegal river bed sand mining near village Panchayara, Tehsil Loni, District Ghaziabad in violation of the environmental clearance conditions by using heavy machinery and obstructing the flow of river by deposition of mined material in between the natural flow of Yamuna river resulting in the creating an artificial channel towards the lands of the applicant and other villagers, by causing the erosion of the river bank, loss to the reverine bio-diversity as well as farm land of applicant.

2.

Tribunal  by  order  dated  11.12.2023  had constituted  a  joint committee which has submitted the report on 12.02.2024.

3.

Applicant has filed IA No.191/2024 which is an application for bringing the additional documents on record.

4.

Learned Counsel for respondent no.8 has submitted that some of the documents are incorrect which he will be disputing them by filing the response but he has not opposed the prayer for bringing the documents on record. Hence, prayer made in the IA for bringing the documents enclosed with IA No.191/2024 i.e. annexure nos. 1 to 6 is allowed and documents are brought on record.

5.

Applicant has also filed objection to the report of the joint committee.

6.

It will be open to all the other respondents including respondent no. 8 and UPPCB to file objection to the report/response to the document/objection filed by the applicant. Let the same be filed within four weeks

7.

Counsel for the parties are directed to be ready for the arguments on the next date of hearing.

8.

Contention of the Counsel  for the applicant is that respondent no.8 does not have Consent To Establish (CTE) and Consent To Operate (CTO).

9.

Counsel for UPPCB is directed to file response within four weeks disclosing the position of CTE/CTO of respondent no.8, if any.

10.

List on 02.08.2024.