Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 12 NGT CK 0023

Jagatmitra Foundation vs State of Punjab & Ors

National Green Tribunal · Decided on 19 December 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhir Agarwal, JM · Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 733 Of 2023 (I.A. No. 859 Of 2023)

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

6 paragraphs · 302 words
1.

Heard Applicant in person.

2.

This original application has been filed alleging that Respondent 6 i.e. M/s. Innovative Housing and Infrastructure Private Limited, SCO 198, Opposite Sports Stadium, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh – 160007 is executing a project in utter violations of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 by not obtaining requisite permissions/conditions and also converting green belt for commercial activities. It is stated that Respondent 6 was permitted to execute project in 101 acres of land but it has gone to raise constructions and allotment of land through third parties covering in an area of more than 200 acres in violation of all rules and regulations.

3.

It is not in dispute that consent to establish has been issued by Punjab Pollution Control Board in 2018 to Respondent 6. Copy of said consent to establish has been filed at page 11 of the application but we find that document is illegible being a faint photocopy. In fact, all the documents appended to original application are not readable.

4.

We made specific query to Applicant as to what statutory provisions are being violated by Respondent 6 but he could not give specific facts in this regard and said that forest clearance has not been obtained though construction is being raised near Sukhna lake, but when we asked about distance, he said it is about 7.8 kms and 2.5 kms from wildlife sanctuary. Despite repeated query, he did not show any provision wherein at such a distance if construction is being raised, any permission is required under any law.

5.

In these circumstances, we do not find that on vague and unsubstantiated averments any interference is called for.

6.

The application is accordingly rejected.